The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to somewhere. The article is a short stub that reads in full: "The Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is a term used by the present Government of the Czech Republic to refer to the military presence and force-backed political intervention of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia following the invasion of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic by Warsaw Pact forces in 1968 to suppress a period of political liberalization known as the Prague Spring. The Czech government claims that the occupation regime lasted from the suppression of the Prague Spring until the Velvet Revolution in 1989, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union." – Consensus is that this term, at least with this sparse content, should not be the subject of a separate article, but that the term should be covered (if at all) in one of the appropriate historical articles. I think Prague spring will do, but editors' consensus may change that target. If we have sufficient historiographical content specifically about the term "Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia" (as opposed to historical content about that period of time), the article may be spun off again under WP:SS. Sandstein 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a POV-fork of Prague Spring and History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), created by a user with the long history of disruption User:Digwuren (see blocklog: [1]), who also created (and attempted to re-create) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation and Estophobia. This ill-sourced article intended only to represent one side's point of view as the only correct. Note that the topic is havily occupied by a number of related accounts from Estonia (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX).--Dojarca 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) the article is unusable at the present state and the topic is a WP:POVFORK anyway Alex Bakharev 06:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If turned into redirect, the previous content should be deleted--Dojarca 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If you are proposing a redirect, Normalization (Czechoslovakia) would be a more suitable article. Martintg 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and blast this "content" as a clear POV fork. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1110 hits for "soviet occupation"+czechoslovakia in google scholar [2] and 699 hits in google books [3]. Also acknowledged officially by the Czech Republic [4] Martintg 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the obvious POV-fork and redirect somewhere, preferrably Prague Spring (those are the events I would expect to see under the search term, rather than the post-invasion period of "Normalization"). Digwuren is not banned yet? Duja► 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The post-invasion period? So Czechoslovakia was invaded but not occupied? That must be a first in military history. Martintg 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My admittedly less-than-perfect sense of English says that "occupation" means both the act of occupation (i.e. invasion) and the period where the occupying forces control the territory. Your insinuations that I deny that Czechoslovakia was occupied from 1968 onwards are not welcome. As far as I can see, the matter is covered well in History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), Prague Spring and Normalization (Czechoslovakia). If an author has a problem with title, tone or focus of a certain article, the correct course of action, in my opinion, is not to create a separate article that would emphasize one side of the medal. I don't have a problem with word "occupation" in the title whatsoever. OTOH, I do have a problem with WP:POINT and disruption. The article is apparently created to support the "series" presented in Template:Soviet occupation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and a similar recent attempt with "Allegations of apartheid" did not work out well.Duja► 12:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia from the end of the Second World War to the Velvet Revolution, it's hardly adequate to suggest a redirect to the Soviet invasion of 1968. I don't see what it's a POV fork of, who actually doesn't consider the Soviet occupation to be exactly that? It's not disruption for editors to write new articles, whether they survive the cut or not. There's scope to write an article, focusing on the occupation, which is compatable with the article on the historical period for the country but which gives extra information. The article as it exists now is obviously at an embryonic stage, but so are many others. Nick mallory 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete current article history and create new redirect to Prague Spring#Occupation. If the creator of this article had acted in good faith, he would have started by proposing that the section Occupation be split off from the article Prague Spring. He could even have been bold and done the split himself. It is most likely however that he would have been reverted. For some reason the editors of Prague Spring have decided to keep the article together. This article is thus a classic POV-fork. It also tries to push the unacceptable POV the Czechoslovakia, a sovereign member state of the United Nations was occupied territory from 1969 to 1989. -- Petri Krohn 12:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the the occupation came after the Prague Spring, how is it a POV fork? Makes as much sense as saying September is a POV fork of August Martintg 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your are asking a question you should have asked at Talk:Prague Spring: Why not split the article? Having read the section Occupation and the new information that has only come to light in the 1990s, it is easy for me to see why the editors of that article have decided not to split it. -- Petri Krohn 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there was never any discussion to split the article on the talk page, this is only speculation on your part. But you raise a good point, Prague Spring artcle is more about the subsequent occupation rather than the Prague Spring itself, so this article needs more material on the reforms, and the material on the occupation should moved to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia article. Later on Normalization (Czechoslovakia) should be merged into Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia , since both are referenced in equal magnitude in the literature. BTW, the term "Normalization" is acknowledged as Soviet POV and is generally referred to in quotes in the literature. Martintg 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prague spring. I think that most people expect that the liberalization of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet invasion, and the Soviet occupation and aftermath belong together. Mandsford 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is covered in the article Prague Spring. JdeJ 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect and warn the nominator with a block for recurring personal attacks and bogus claims in AfD nominations (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 4#Template:Soviet occupation). The personality of Digwuren is irrelevant here. At some point Dojarca has to learn this. Colchicum 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Once Encarta has an article Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia [5] what's wrong with having one on WP? Arguments like WP:POVFORK, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) are not valid simply because there was much more to the history during the period than just Soviet occupation. Prague Spring is a chapter in this story, not vice versa like suggested by some.--Termer 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article says nothing, only defines the period after 1968 as an occupation. Perhaps for a few weeks one could make that case, but once a new government was installed, even an undemocratic puppet government, it is no longer an occupation. Would the author call the entire period from 1946 to the present the "US occupation of Italy"? We invaded them, and have had a military presence there ever since. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats an interesting opinion. In case we'd follow that logic, Germany during the WWII after installing the puppet government in Norway for example did no longer occupy the country.--Termer 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This period of Czechoslovakia history (between Prague Spring and Velvet revolution) is covered already in History_of_Czechoslovakia#Aftermath. I suggest to create a separate article about this period under a more neutral title. One could also create articles describing Operation PROGRESS in Czechoslovakia by the KGB, or other specific aspects of Communist Czechoslovakia. As it is, the article is too POVish and provides little encyclopedic content. However this is a reason for improvement, not for deletion.Biophys 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is widely used.--Molobo 02:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nick.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. The subject is inevitably politicized, and there will be debates over how to frame this period of history, including the appropriate name. But the period from Prague Spring to Velvet Revolution is certainly a distinct and notable phase of Czech history, which (under Wikipedia norms) should be covered both in a general survey and in its own article. Llajwa 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete - the Soviet invasion to Czechoslovakia is commonly referred to as "occupation"; probably redirect to Prague Spring as duplicate. (The correct handling of these events of Czechoslovak history should probably be sorted out at the appropriate talk page.) - Mike Rosoft 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prague Spring per Jdej and others. POV forks are forbidden for a good reason. We just can't have exceptions now and then to suit someone's political agenda. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prague Spring#Occupation. It is unnecessary, and unwise, to have two articles covering an identical topic, especially when one of those articles is a stub. DrKiernan 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable topic, widely used term. Also advice nominator to stop nominating everything for deletions and makingin personal attacks together with them. Suva Чего? 05:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve per Nick mallory and Molobo. Per Suva, warn nominator against personally motivated nominations in the future. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 10:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prague Spring. Borism 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fork with opinionated title. If anything, the event is properly called "intervention". `'Míkka 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge. Yes, "Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia" was used in the West from 1968 to 1989, which explains the google count, but "Soviet" in the title for everybody also referred to the other members of the Warsaw pact. Particularly, the fact that "German troops have entered Czechoslovakia for the second time in 50 years" was felt to be rather disturbing in the West (particularly in the German federal republic, of course). Provided that the view that only the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia is clearly attributed to whoever says so (because it basically is not true), I have no problem with a merge. And per DrKiernan, no need to keep this thing alive on its own - take it to the heart and lung machine, nurse.--Pan Gerwazy 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Provided that the view that only the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia is clearly attributed to whoever says so (because it basically is not true"True Soviet Union also used puppet forces it controlled but likewise we talk about Nazi Germany invasion of Poland not German-Slovak invasion of Poland even though Germany used forces of Slovakia-even when of course Slovaks position was more independent then that of Communist Germany or Communist Poland.--Molobo 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Well, if you like Google searches, let's look e.g. at some (79) results for "British occupation of India" at Google Scholar (but the article for this is named British rule in India) and for some (467) results on "French occupation of Algeria" at Google Books (the article is French rule in Algeria). I could find more results especially for French colonies in Africa but I think one get's the point. Note, that there were military administrations that ruled in both countries in above two cases, not just military presence. In contrast Czechoslovakia had its own national government. There was the Soviet military presence, but should I name countries e.g. with American military bases now, that exist despite frequent protests in some of those countries? So, if one wants to specifically describe the Soviet military presence - military units, their location etc. then let's create something like "Soviet military presence in Czechoslovakia", but if we want to name this "occupation" and extend the term ("force-backed political intervention", "occupation regime lasted until 1989" and alike) then let's apply the same criteria for numerous other cases with Cold War counterparts of the Soviet Union. Cmapm 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.