Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Concerning Wikipedia's Article Josip Broz Tito

Note: Can the editors of Wikipedia please not delete or archive my statements on the talk page, as it was done in the past. Please be polite and assume good faith and no personal attacks.

Wikipedia states all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. The above-mentioned article is not. Important factual information is missing, thus making it biased and lacking in objectivity. This then results in an overall in-balance.

Josip Broz was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader [1] and was the main decision maker in military and political matters. He was President for Life of Yugoslavia and played crucial if not the main role in historical events of that country. He was considered to be by many, one of the prominent Eastern European Balkan Dictators of the Cold War Era. Here are six examples of 20th century European Balkan history that are missing (all of this can be referenced):

1. Josip Broz Tito’s failure in adressing ethnic tensions of the former Yugoslavia;

2. Failure in the economic management of the former of Yugoslavia [2];

3. Cult of Personality [3] [4] (He is mentioned in Wikipedia's Cult of Personality article)

4.Bleiburg massacre [5] [6] & Foibe massacres [7].

5. A more detailed account of UDBA’s & OZNA [8] Yugoslavia's notorious police KGB style organizations, which he helped establish; and

6. His immensely luxurious life style as a dictator [9].

Actually the article is very similar to a Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s. Ironically the article on Tito does not even mention the fact that he was a Dictator. Most of Josip Broz’s images, monuments, town names and street names are now being removed. This started after the fall of the Berlin Wall and after the break up of Yugoslavia.

Summary

The Josip Broz Tito article represents old views from the cold war era and by default Wikipedia is pushing a political agenda. This information is now part of the Josip Broz Tito article, thus making the article biased and lacking a NPOV. As mention above, there are parts of history from that era and region that are missing. Administrators should give attention to these issues? Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Your silly attempts at hiding your political agenda by throwing that term back at me are not working. I don't have to say much. Your absurd "list" says it all:
  1. You will not add text "blaming" this person for events that took place years after his death. The same events he obviously worked all his life to prevent.
  2. You will not add text listing the negative periods of Yugoslav economy and blaming them squarely on this person, while ignoring economic booms and development.
  3. Wikipedia is not a source. The man was widely regarded as a WWII hero and liberator. You will not transform a politician's popularity into a "cult of personality".
  4. You can simply forget about your foibe right now. No evidence suggests any personal culpability of this person.
  5. He did not control the secret police personally, Aleksandar Ranković did. Ranković even kept Tito's residence bugged. Tito was often in conflict with him and eventually forced Ranković into retirement and stripped his secret police of its powers. Nice try.
  6. Terms like "dictator" are not allowed on Wikipedia. You know this, get over it. All property was owned by the state as part of the Yugoslav president's alotted rights. We should also begin writing about the "immensely luxurious lifestyle" of every US president - those guys live in a palaces and estates, they get summer homes, they have huge jets and helicopters, they hunt, they play golf... those bastards! :P
Now kindly stop cluttering this talkpage with silly quotes and annoying people with your views. This person is not Stalin. Any POV pushing in the article along these lines without ROCK-hard sources will be immediately reverted. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
LoL... you're not going to do this again. Your cherry-picked links do not have any relevance to this matter, again. They do not show Tito is culpable for the foibe, and they do not show that he somehow personally owned all that property your article describes. You know this. Don't let me spoil your fun, but your post will be removed per WP:NOTFORUM ("The Truth will be censored" :). Find some other place to vent your frustration, clutter some forum with your silly POV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. its "Concerning Wikipedia's Josip Broz Tito article", not "Concerning Wikipedia's article Josip Broz Tito" but nice try again. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Director it's a talk page for heaven sake, not the main article. Why are you getting so upset, it's history, nobody is going to get hurt? You see it's all connected, Tito was the leader & leaders have to be accountable, that's the way it's done properly . Are you going to police the talk page now? Sir Floyd (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not upset, why would you think that? Please keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous. Yes I'm sure "its all connected", keep your esuli conspiracy theories to yourself.
To answer your question: yes, I am going to "police" the talkpage. It obviously needs "policing" against being turned into your playground. Your massive irrelevant posts only deal with you defaming a historical figure you personally dislike because of your political position. Wikipedia is not a forum. I suggest you go back to itWiki. Your sentence structure betrays you, and you're certainly not a native English speaker. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to log out now but what 's with the insult "clutter some (other) forum with your silly POV " Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are POV-pushing, and have been doing so for weeks now. And yes, it is silly, and yes, it is cluttering the page with piles of useless text - I had to be archive the page because of you. If you think that's an "insult" make sure you report me (again). Cheerio --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
That is funny, because those are my exact thoughts about you. Defaming an historical figure, please, he is a politician. Where I come from politicians are constantly scrutinised. Tito was a leader & leaders have to be accountable. When an Encyclopedic article is written from a NPOV, there must be a balanced point of view and that article is not balanced. Sorry, but to me it's just old Communist rhetoric. Maybe coming from a different cultural background is causing the friction. You see from were I'm standing, you are POV-pushing on a far great scale. That part about the comment "native English speaker" who cares, I don't. Maybe Wikipedia is just not set up for these type of intercultural interactions. Silly POV, cluttering the page with piles of useless text, more insults Mr Director? I take your point of view, less clutter. Sure that's fine with me. Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. My point is not that you're cluttering the page, my point is that your stuff is clutter, i.e. that all you gave are pieces of text extracted from various places solely because they have something negative to say about this person. Give me one single university publication stating plain and simple that Tito was responsible for the foibe or Bleiburg and I'll concede that point. One. You don't need "character witnesses" you need - one source.
Please note "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." [10] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to answer Floyd's concerns seriously:

  1. is a non-starter. Ethnic cohesion and disputes are complex things. They are not something that can be fixed by one person. In fact, there was no warfare between Yugoslav peoples while Tito was in power, so if anything, we can talk about his success, not failure to fix ethnic issues.
  2. Again, economic management is a complex thing, depending on many factors. Tito wasn't directly running the economy, nor did he decide economic policy on his own. The correct article for those issues is Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  3. There was certainly a dose of a cult of personality established around Tito, especially in his older years and after his death. It suited various Yugoslav politicians as a PR cover for their sordid deals and failures. After Tito's death, it became a criminal offence to slander Tito's "person and work". This should probably get a section of its own, but it needs to be presented neutrally and factually (as does everything else).
  4. Post-war summary executions were perpetrated by forces under Tito's command. It's therefore appropriate to mention them in this article. However, in absence of any sources about Tito's personal involvement, this should be (and already is) discussed in other appropriate articles.
  5. A more detailed account of UDBA & OZNA should obviously be in those articles. Yugoslavia had intelligence and security services, as did and still do other countries. E.g. the Harry S. Truman simply mentions that CIA was created under Truman, but doesn't discuss it at all. Another problem is that EVERYTHING in the Socialist Yugoslavia was created while Tito was in power. The article obviously can't mention each state service and agency that was established under Tito.
  6. His lifestyle was no more luxurious than that of other heads of state. All the residences and gardens and furniture were state property, as evidenced by the fact that none of them were inherited by his family when he died.

Zocky | picture popups 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As I tried to explain to the man on his talkpage [11], the only point that perhaps has some merit is the one about the cult of personality (though I by no means see it filling a full section). In response, he accused me of "offending him" by writing "communist propaganda" on his talkpage, and asked me never to address him there [12] (yes, in response to this post :P). It would appear we're not dealing with a neutral person. His main ambition on this talkpage seems to be the inclusion of accusatory text that would depict Josip Broz Tito as responsible for the foibe killings. I consider it absolutely inappropriate to mention the events in this particular article without a proper source - he was the commander-in-chief, ffs, everything was under his command. Its like blaming Roosevelt for the US massacres of SS soldiers.
Floyd's bias is most evident in his attempts to actually accuse this person of responsibility for the Yugoslav wars. I can't imagine anything more contrived. I suppose if Yugoslavia had not been formed at all there wouldn't be any Yugoslav wars - the founders of Yugoslavia are therefore responsible for the Srebrenica massacres, right? LoLz... If I recall, anti-war protesters in 1992 Sarajevo carried his pictures... before they started getting shot at. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well what can I say, you guys just spin it so well? Wikipedia’s editors and admin seem to be happy with you guys pushing political agendas. With this being the case, their is not much that can be done. Zocky, thanks for your response, it was well mannered & you made some interesting points their.

  • Sir Floyd is taking a wikibreak. (His professional work & real life have to take priority) . Sir Floyd (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever Floyd... I'm sorry Zocky and myself do not meet your high standards for Wikipedia users. You take your Wikibreak and we'll try to stop being communists, ok? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Only successful Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony?

Beware of sockpuppets! :)
IP 151.21... is an IP sockpuppet of User:Luigi 28.

"Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he was also the first (and the only successful) Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony."

What about Romania under Ceasescu? Josh (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceauşescu's "break" with the Soviets is... debatable. He was independent, but the country remained firmly in the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact. Moscow never seriously opposed him, and he never broke with it completely. Yugoslavia was inches from full-scale war with the Eastern Bloc and was openly hostile to the Soviet Union for much of its history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What about Albania under Enver Hoxha? Sir Floyd (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(What's with the wikilinks?) Enver Hoxha was cut off from the Eastern Bloc and opted for a pro-Chinese stance as a consequence of not having a border with the Soviets (which was due to Yugoslavia's neutrality).
(Of course, we are talking about the later period when Albania broke with the Soviets and aligned with China, not the period up to the mid-1950s when it was a Soviet ally, or the 1945-1948 when PR Albania was a de facto Yugoslav satellite. Just making it clear, since some have displayed an inability to keep up with the "complexities" of this discussion. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Josip Broz Tito

In light of recent events in Slovenia (& Croatia) I feel certain Wiki-Articles have to be re-evaluated, this being one of them.The Government of the Republic of Slovenia created "Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia" in 2005. Early this October they issued their report to the Government of Slovenia. Significant factual statements have come to light, concerning the Yugoslav Partisan, Communist Repression and Atrocities in former Yugoslavia and their Commander Josip Broz Tito. The period in question is post WW2, 1945-46. Note:' In Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal he stated that Tito asked the "Croatian Home Guard" to surrender or face the consequences of not surrendering. After the war ended POWs who did not surrender were slaughter on mass, estimates are about 100 000 victims in total.

Recent Events Reported In the Media:

  • Croatia's-Javno: [15] Mass Grave Massacre Ordered By Josip Broz Tito
  • Slovenian Press Agency: [16] Columnist Says Silence on Post-War Killings Needs to End
  • Slovenia Times [17] Post-war Killings Enter the Bloody History
  • Croatia's-Moje Vjest:[18] On the Island Daksa Exhumed 48 Victims of Communism

World Media:

  • New York Times [19] Evolution in Europe-Piles of Bones in Yugoslavia Point to Partisan

Massacres.

  • BBC News [20] Italy-Croatia WWII Massacre Spat
  • Mail Online-Word News:[21] Gassed to Death: 300 victims of Yugoslavia's Communist Regime Found in Mass Grave

The article needs to have NPOV tag on. These issues deserve some feedback, preferably from someone who is impartial and educated in these matters. Would fellow Editors please look into this as we are dealing here very sensitive issues. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Croatian Government:[22] Deputy PM and with Representatives of the Croatian society of Political Prisoners-Victims of Communism
  • Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia
  • Mitja Ribicic - [23] Internal Security of Former Yugoslavia: BBC 4
  • Janez Stanovnik - [24] Slovenia Politician & Economist/Former Yugoslav Partizan Commander

Are these sources clear engough to show the Stalinist nature of Tito's regime (whilst the Wiki-article is a dated cold war propaganda piece). The Editors of the article in question have refused in the past to make any concession to give the article a more contemporary view (references were provided):

A media report on Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia work: Croatian Newspaper Jutarnji writes on the 01/10/2009 "100,000 Victims in 581 Mass Graves" Newspaper Jutarnji

"In Slovenia three basic books came out needed for the study of communist crimes in the immediate post-war period. It specifies graves where liquidation and execution of prisoners of war were carried out in its territory.

"In this collection, in Slovenia, there were discovered and detected 581 mass graves in which, the author estimates about 100 000 victims in total. According to the research of Slovenian and Croatian historians, Partisans in Slovenia liquidated most of the Ustasa and home guard units. The Croats accounted for between 50 to 80 thousands casualties."

Involved are:

Sir Floyd (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Again with all this. These transparent attempts at using the horror of these massacres to garner support are frankly low and unbecoming of any Wikipedian. The main question here is, with all this information on the Bleiburg massacre, why is all this not at the Bleiburg massacre article talkpage?? What does all this have to do with Josip Broz Tito? All you have above is some Googled article title that states "Mass Grave Massacre Ordered By Josip Broz Tito". The problem is, when you actually read the article, all that the (rather sensationalist) title is based on is the fact that Josip Broz Tito was the commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav armed forces at the time, a fact that is very well known. I can't believe this is happening again.
Every time some column is published here you are with twenty links to the same thing. To surmise, the Yugoslav Partisans belonging to ethnic Slovene units were accused of killing the people found in some mass grave. A Slovene WWII veteran states that it wasn't the Slovenes' fault since the commander-in-chief of all Yugoslav forces was Josip Broz Tito in Belgrade. Oh yes, proof positive, the prime minister ordered the killings...
All that you have here is a couple of articles that say "Josip Broz Tito was the commander of all Yugoslav military forces", we know all this. What you'd like is that the article should now include a section stating "Tito ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of people". Command responsibility does not extend to persons unaware of the criminal events taking place. This is just another in a loong line of attempts by this account to push his nationalist POV. He is on a sustained political agenda to effectively ruin the hard-established neutrality of this article (which brought it its first GA nomination). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Director, 100 000 POWs were slaughtered, are you aware of enormity of this and what was needed to execute these operations (& we are not even mentioning the morality of it all)? In Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal it is stated that Tito ask the "Croatian Home Guard" to surrender or face the consequences of not surrendering. After the war ended POWs who did not surrender were slaughtered on mass. This was reported in a Scientific Journal.

The POWs bodies have been counted (it took them 4 years to do it) on the request of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and it was done by professionals, so its factual and scientific. The Bleiburg massacre is only part of the story. We are talking about an overall elimination of of large number of POWs in the former Yugoslavia.

This is not sensationalising, they just happen to be the facts. I need to use them to state the basic truth (believe me there other facts that are a lot worse) The idea that Tito was not involved in all this is simplistic. The size of the operations were huge, no army would ever execute these operations without the orders from it's commander (according to Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal he did issue the orders). Your arguments lack resolution. Further more what nationalist POV am I pushing here? Maybe the POV of the POWs of the "Croatian Home Guard". There is lot of buck passing here on your behalf. These are major historical events in which he participated. Sir Floyd (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel sick to my stomach. It is unbelievable that you would try to use these misleading figures to garner support for your nationalist agenda. The Bleiburg massacre victim count is notoriously very hard to establish, and it is almost impossible to determine who actually killed the victims from the graves (the Nazis or the Allies). "100,000" is the absolute highest estimate of all, with various historians listing very different numbers (as can be seen on the Bleiburg massacre article). According to most mainstream authors, such as demographer Vladimir Žerjavić, the total number of people in the retreating columns was "no greater than 50,000, and far fewer than that number were captured or killed". This is a quick explanation so that people aren't suckered in by your nonsense. However, I will not debate the victim count with you, as it is absolutely irrelevant to this article - as is plainly obvious to anyone. If it was 200 and there was a source linking Tito to it, I'd agree with you.
As for your "argument", I can only repeat that you still do not have a single source of any kind that states anything like "Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito ordered these killings", let alone a published professional source to that effect (despite what I imagine was a very thorough search on your part). The text from your link, in spite of its undeniably sensationalist title, merely confirms and states what I kept telling you: the person was indeed the commander-in-chief of all Yugoslav military forces - but that by no means makes him responsible for events he had no way of knowing about (unless he actually ordered them, for which you will need a rock-solid source).
This silly nonsense dispute always amounts to the same thing:
1) You keep talking about the massacres
2) I keep telling you that describing the massacres for everyone here is completely irrelevant to this article and this person
When you've got a source confirming that this person was either a) aware of the events, or b) that he ordered them, then we can talk about inserting the information in the article. Until then, this can be viewed as nothing other than an attempt at defamation and nationalist POV-pushing - for which you've become famous, I might add. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Firstly this is not silly and you are inventing scapegoat theories. where is your source for the "the Nazis or the Allies" participating in this? I shall go to the Allies war archives to research this if need be. You have to take a more mature approach to this and deal with the truth and not avoid facts. Lets stay focused here. 100 000 bodies have been counted-fact. (October 2009 A media report on Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia work: Croatian Newspaper Jutarnji reports on the 01/10/2009 "100,000 Victims in 581 Mass Graves") I shall send an email to the commission myself and ask them to forward to me the report. This all means it was a very large military operation. The Bleiburg massacre was part of the overall operations (please stay focused here). Have you done any military study or been in the military (I have)? He did issue the orders, I shall restate, it is in Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal. Tito came good with his statement, he delivered what he promised. It is not absolutely irrelevant that under his command 100 000 POWs, where slaughtered (these are facts, sorry if you think that it's otherwise).
I ask you what exact POV am I pushing here-human rights? I think you are the POV pusher here. POV of the old Communist propaganda of the now defunct Communist Party of the former Yugoslavia. Its all mixed up with hero worship. None of this is allowed at Wikipedia. Having said that, its fine to have your opinion however that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Sir Floyd (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Pls enter your information in the Bleiburg massacre article and stop bugging people and claiming "censorship" when your wacky conspiracy theories are not included. I'm getting tired of repeating the same things over and over again. And no, you've still not provided a single source claiming Josip Broz Tito ordered the Bleiburg massacre. Even if Dizdar did claim such a thing, which mind you he does not, he's still 1) a local Croatian source, and 2) lacking any verifiable primary source (WP:V). Btw, that whole text you've managed to dig-up after all these months is not only useless here, it is also rife with unprofessional wording and pro-Croatian bias - it can be shown in five minutes that this "anniversary paper" is a completely unreliable source (even if it could be used here, which it cannot).
One more thing, I will no longer respond to this irrational POV-pushing. My attempts at reason have been ignored one too many times. I will address only the presentation of a published source that is in accordance with Wiki policy (in that it provides actual verifiable primary sources). And only if this source actually has anything at all to do with Josip Broz Tito. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is going now were. You not addressing the above stated facts properly so the debate can not continue in a proper fashion. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not addressing the "facts"? Fine here's an excerpt from your source:

Josip Broz Tito, vrhovni zapovjednik NOV i PO Jugoslavije i predsjednik Nacionalnog komiteta oslobođenja Jugoslavije, uputio je 30. VIII. 1944. "Posljednji poziv" svim "zavedenim slugama okupatora", i to "svim hrvatskim domobranima, slovenskim domobrancima i zavedenim četnicima, da napuste okupatora i pređu na stanu Narodno-oslobodilačke vojske" do 15. rujna 1944, uz prijetnju da svi oni koji to ne učine "bit će izvedeni pred ratni sud, suđeni kao izdajnici naroda i kažnjeni najstrožom kaznom" te naglašavanje da o tom pitanju "Saveznici ne će da se miješaju u naša unutrašnja pitanja" te da ih nitko "ne će spriječiti da kaznimo izdajnike naroda i slugu okupatora". (Vidi: N. BARIĆ, 2003, 496. / faksimil letka/). No, pozivi su se ponavljali još u nekoliko navrata. Tako je već 15. IX. 1944. Tito u svezi s istekom roka iz navedenog poziva izdao zapovijed postrojbama NOV i POJ da sve one koji se nisu uspjeli dobrovoljno predati, to ipak učine, prihvate i one koji dobrovoljno ostaju u partizanima uvrste u svoje redove, s tim da svi podoficiri i oficiri zadržavaju svoje činove, a oni koji to ne žele "staviti u zarobljeničke logore", dok za sve one koji se uhvate na neprijateljskoj strani s oružjem u ruci "staviti pred vojni sud i po hitnom postupku suditi i najstrožije kazniti".

translated:

Josip Broz Tito, supreme commander of the NOV and PO of Yugoslavia [the Partisans, the Yugoslav army] and President of the National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia [i.e. NKOJ, the Yugoslav wartime coalition government] issued on 30 August 1944 the "final appeal" to all "deluded servants of the occupation", i.e. "all Croatian Domobrani, Slovene Domobranci, and deluded Chetniks, to abandon the occupation forces and cross over to the side of the People's Liberation Army" [the appeal would last] up to 15 September 1944, with the warning that those who do not do so "will be brought before a wartime tribunal, tried as traitors of the people, and punished with the utmost severity" while emphasizing that "our Allies will not interfere in our internal affairs", and that "noone will prevent us from punishing the traitors of the people and the servants of the occupation". However, these appeals [by Tito] were repeated on several occasions. Thus already on 15 September 1944 as the deadline for the appeal arrived, Tito issued an order to all units of the NOV i POJ that all those who did not manage to cross over willingly, be still allowed to do so, and that all those who willingly choose to stay with the Partisans be integrated into the formations, adding that all NCOs and officers be allowed to keep their ranks, and that those who still refuse be "placed in prisoner camps", while all those caught on the enemy's side with weapons "be placed before a military tribunal, tried, and punished with the utmost severity".

Are you even aware that every single one of those men in those collaborationist formations should have been tried and executed for treason? By standing Yugoslav law (both of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and DF Yugoslavia) all men and women guilty of high treason during wartime can only be pusihed with execution. This is the law, I emphasize again, so not to bring these people before a court and (if found guilty) executing them would be against the law - completely illegal. Their summary executions that took place were not legal either, yes, and they were a tragedy, but the point is that Tito did not sanction any kind of summary killing. Certainly not from all the silly links you've showed us.
The author continues to state

On the basis of this order began the founding of the prisoner of war camps and the placement of prisoners in them. After these appeals came the general amnesties of the Presidency of the AVNOJ (from 21 September 1944) and Tito's warnings.

From WHAT is anyone here supposed to surmise that Tito ordered the killing of collaborationist troops at Bleiburg?? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have read (the above), but this is not about the "Bleiburg massacre". This is on a much larger scale. I've stated this many times. I have the same Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal (Is this the same source?) I shall give it a good read, study & comparison. It is also in Croatian & my Croatian is rusty at best. I recommend that we take time out. I'm running on Aussie time and have to log off really soon because I have lots to do tommorrow, work wise. Direktor, I'm not a bad person and I would rather debate sources than whats going on at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Sir Floyd (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
So suddenly its "not about Bleiburg"?? All I can read up there is you talking about the mass graves in Slovenia. I don't know what kind of person you are, and simply saying you're "not bad" does not mean much. The point, and the reason I'm getting frustrated with you here is that you keep ignoring the fact that this is the Josip Broz Tito article, and that you need to connect these atrocities with him somehow. The problem is, since professional historians did not come up with anything, I doubt you are about to. If he did "order their killing" it would be a complete change in his policy. His activities concerning collaborationist military prisoners were nothing but appeals, prisoner camps, trials, and general amnesties of treason charges. While you're reading the Dizdar paper, keep in mind what I've told you about the hard-line faction led by Aleksanadr Ranković and his complete control over the OZNA. You can forget right here and now about pinning whatever the secret service does to "Tito's crimes".
The one and only problem here is the following: I keep asking you for a source, because frankly I know full well there isn't one. You keep getting frustrated that there isn't one and listing dozens of links to stuff that's unrelated to the issue. I then get frustrated in turn that I have to write up answers to that nonsense and point out for the millionth time that this is about Tito, not Bleiburg. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Director, I'm not adding any more to this talkpage for now. It's best that we take time out. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He never made a mistake? There is nothing to criticize?

I'm sorry, but this article reads like a propaganda piece not like an article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.136.173 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Foibe

Beware of sockpuppets! :)
IP 151.21... is an IP sockpuppet of User:Luigi 28.

I added a link to the Foibe killings article, as the facts stated in that article happened under Tito's governament. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a statement giving as a reason "And I have removed it" may be considered a vandalism. Tito was indeed a dictator, as during his governament there was only one party allowed (the communist one), he seized power throw a coup d'etat after WW II thanks to the help from sovietic russia (you have to consider that the legitimate governament was the one of the kingdom of Yugoslavia), he held power by controlling the army and he was the president of Yugoslavia without regoular elections for 35 years. And i don't understand the reasons why you deleted the link to the "Foibe massacres". --AndreaFox (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 has reverted you because such POV labels are not allowed on enWikipedia. Even Stalin is not called a "dictator". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

However, in the Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini it is clearly stated many times that their form of governament was a "dictatorship" and they are called "authoritarian leader". If "autoritharian leader" is en.wiki's NPOV choice for "dictator", then I'll go with it. But it must be specified that Tito was an "authoritarian leader", like it has been done with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and many others. You spoke about not allowing POV labels on en.wiki, then why have you silently deleted the link to the "Foibe massacres", which happened during titoist Yugoslavia? --AndreaFox (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AndreaFox, you are here not to advance the encyclopedia, but merely to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for your own peculiar POV. You will notice that we have rather higher standards than that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To be blunt, User:AndreaFox, you've so far clearly demonstrated you are here to push some kind of POV with biased wording. The article will not use the term "dictator", nor will you manage to insert the term with some silly word games. What you think of this person is irrelevant. He was the president and executed the powers of his office. He was elected completely in accordance with Yugoslav law. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't insult me. We can try to resolve the question by speaking. You don't have to insult me saying things like "you are here not to advance the encyclopedia, but merely to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for your own peculiar POV", "you've so far clearly demonstrated you are here to push some kind of POV with biased wording" or "your silly word games" (are you saying that i am stupid by using the world "silly"?). Your statements about me not only are irrilevant (as wikipedia is about articles not about the demonization of our interlocutors) but are untrue as it's more than two years i'm writing on this encyclopedia and that's the first time i write on this article. However I may suspect (if that's not the cae, i apologise to you) that you don't accept a neutral term like "authoritarian leader" (used on other articles) and that you are deleting the link to "Foibe killings" (constantly ignoring my invitation to confront on the matter, which can be considered a vandalism) because of your personal view on the characters, as i can see from the page above (i see that a lot of users tried to change the page in the way i do, but you stopped them accusing them of not better specified POVs, ignoring the sources they provided), from your personal pages (where you clearly supposrt titoist yugoslavia) and from the fact that Dikerktor says "he was the president and executed the powers of his office. He was elected completely in accordance with Yugoslav law" (Mussolini was appointed chief of governament in a legal way too. Hitler was elected completely in accordance with German law. Maybe they are not authoritarian leaders?). I will insert sources (even if i considered them unuseful, as my additions to the text are actually very limited and universally accepted outside ex-yugoslavia), hoping you will not delete them. --AndreaFox (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The foibe will not be mentioned in this article, as there is absolutely no evidence proving they were planned at all, let alone planned by the Yugoslav Prime Minister. (This si where your POV is most obvious.)
2) The term "dictator" will not be included in the article, as that is unencyclopedic, POV wording. Your word games are not going to somehow "fool" everyone into saying "hey 'dictator' isn't allowed, maybe 'dictator-ship' is?". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have not read what i have written to write such things. I never wrote the foibe were planned by tito, i simply put a link to the "foibe massacres" as they happened, wheter tito knew they were happening or not, during his time as president of yugoslavia and they deserve therefore to be linked in the article. Say what you want but as a significant part of historians say that they happened because of tito (these historians are indicated in "foibe massacres"), at least we must link the article about the foibe and then the reader could think what he want about them. I didn't write "dictator" or "dictatorship" too, but "authoritarian leader", which is used in other articles. Remember that this article isn't yours: you don't have the right to say what "will not be mentioned". If it is sourced and if it matters about tito, then it deserves to be said. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment: I find nothing wrong with "... governing with dictatorial powers". It's a neutral, factual description of a form of government. DIRECTOR, if you think it's overly judgmental, you'd need to be able to propose an alternative wording that would be capable of conveying the same factual content. Otherwise, your rejection of the word would boil down to making a whole set of factual states of affairs essentially undescribable in Wikipedia. – As for the Foibe killings link, an isolated article link placed outside the text is not useful. I have no opinion on whether or not to mention the event, but it needs to be integrated in text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

New

I have introduced a new section, introducing a lot of sources. As i noticed some users tend to delete sections that can be perceived as critical towards tito - saying that these sections are POV -, then i heavily sourced the new section, recurring manly to books and studies by historians and academics, and i tried as i can to use a neutral language. If you disagree with my addings, then feel free to discuss about it with me here. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your hatemail. You have no concept of what an encyclopedia is. One important word in your ear before you pursue your one-person hate campaign any further: Remember that this is enwiki, where standards are much much higher than on other Wikipedia projects. Elsewhere, due to lack of supervision, you can get away with many things. Unfortunately for you will find this project is a different kettle of fish entirely. My advice: If you have any non-POV edits, then by all means bring them forward, backed by proper non-partisan sources. If not, ie if all you want to do here is to denounce Tito, then enwiki's burly security officers will no doubt show you to the exit fairly promptly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of talking aggressive to me, trying subtly to frighten and bully me, remember wikipedia policies about vandalism: you can't delete a sourced passage, you can't delete sources and you can't delete without discussing first. I'll tell you again: these are vandalic acts. Please, discuss with me, don't limitate your comments to things like "You have no concept of what an encyclopedia is". If you think the passage is an hatemail (nothing falser as I cited books from historians and as i cited their word in order to be the more neutral) then we can discuss how to change the language to make it more neutral, if you think it isn't. But you can't delete the passage. If you keep deleting it and if you keep refusing discussing seriously about it(not limitationg your comments to insults) then it will be me that will be forced to report your and the other user acts on these page. Hope i don't have to. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider apologizing too, because of your remarks about the presumed superiority of en.wiki contributers to any other contributers. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If hate text such as yours has no place in an article, it must be deleted. End of story. What you wrote was put there specifically and solely in an attempt to prejudice the reader against the subject of the article, and that is why I removed it. I have no comments to make to you beyond this. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep refusing confrontation ("I have no comments to make "). And you keep presuming bad faith ("What you wrote was put there specifically and solely in an attempt to prejudice the reader"). And you keep deleting without discussing. Calling "POV" or "hate text" the work of historians and acadhemics don't make their works less recognized or less influential, nor it makes your statements about them being "POV" or "hate text" true. So the only text which is NPOV doesn't come from hystorians or scholars, but from yourself? You keep committing vandalism after vandalism. In order to prevent an edit war, i have been forced to report the situation to two admins in order to have some neutral point of view on it. If you have accepted to discuss the matter, i wouldn't have act so. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Splendid. There is nothing to discuss, as I have already pointed out. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Inserting myself at personal risk: It seems to me that most of AndreaFox's changes are fairly limited in scope and are not sufficiently POV to warrant removal (particularly in violation of WP:3RR. Reading the article, there appears to be little to no mention of any controversy associated with his reign or the fact that he did appear to have the powers of a dictator. Just because someone calls themself a President doesn't mean they can't be a dictator, see WP:DUCK. One of the top hits on Google for this guy is "Josip Broz Tito, Dictator of the Month, April 2006". The article is already swamped with detail far beyond what is warranted (do we really need a full history of the Yugoslavian front in WWII?), while important things (like the controversies AndreaFox added with minimal elaboration) are played down or missing. You aren't maintaining neutral point of view, you're keeping the article as a static, overly rosy positive POV. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for POV check, and noted the conflict of interest issues. When both User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER admit to being personal admirers of the man on their user page and the article takes pains to avoid controversial, sourced subjects (despite being well out of the time when WP:BLP applies), I see COI problems. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Shadow, this is an old, old issue and it has been discussed at great length and the same conclusion was always reached - the article is not POV. Hence the brief responses of the editors involved in this article for a long time. I apologize for the long post, but since you seem interested in this matter I'd like to bring you fully up to speed with its history.
Allow me, therefore, to elaborate further. As is almost exclusively so in Balkans-related issues, the root is a misconception or a biased point of view intrinsic to an ethnic group. In this case it is a certain demographic within Italy, a group of people who believe firmly they were forced to leave their homes because the latter became part of a socialist Yugoslav state (the self-styled "exiles"). The blame for for those events of late WWII they almost exclusively throw on the back of the contemporary Yugoslav Prime Minister, Josip Broz Tito, I.e. "the communist dictator Josip Broz Tito threw us out of our homes" and such. An author close to this demographic has even been published (I emphasize by private publishing houses) with such claims. However, the fact is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that these events were even planned by somone, let alone that they were planned by Josip Broz Tito. Thus, there are no primary sources that validate that POV, hence the conclusion of each installment of this "never-ending story".
And there you have it. Every now and again there appear users that keep bringing this same stuff up. These are either 1) users from the "exiles" demographic or close to them, who push this POV relentlessly and usually get banned in the end, or 2) users from Italy who assume a position that seems half-way between the two opposing views (as they see it). In other words, the latter users honestly think they are being neutral. Unfortunately, the middle-ground in Italy is tilted toward an anti-Yugoslav POV, since the anti-Yugoslav "propaganda" (to put it thus) is heaviest there. Thus it can only be expected that users of these two "kinds" pop-up in this and similar articles from time to time, but the users trying to keep this article's neutrality from being destroyed by Italian conspiracy theories have less and less patience each time.
Another matter is the community of banned Italian users who are constantly active in POV-pushing. (In fact I've just removed yet another nonsense edit by the banned User:PIO/Luigi 28.) This group constantly appear as IPs or sockpuppets, they harass me and other users by WP:OUTING and the like, and yes they recruit other, non-blocked users on itWiki, on their blogs and forums, and they keep "sending" misinformed people with good intentions and bad presuppositions about the "evil communists who praise their dictator on enWiki". Agaian, sorry for the long post. :)
Finally, I'd like to ask what kind of a "conflict of interest" am I supposedly in? Am I being payed by the Yugoslav government? :) That tag is imho completely baseless. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
ShadowRanger, welcome to the Balkans. Here we spend our entire time attempting to hold the line, impose wiki policies, make our articles kind of as good as elsewhere on the project. Yet we are under siege from POV monsters, both registered accounts and IPs, who seek to use wiki to promulgate 'the truth'. And of course, vast numbers of socks, that are all Hydra monsters. As soon as you chop off one head, another one grows. So, if you'd like to join us here, we'd be delighted to welcome you to the party. But hell, I've heard that the Armenian genocide articles are even worse, so you may prefer to hang out there. Your call. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I personally recommend Kosovo as the place to be right now. :) Once again, my post is HUGE, I know, apologies, but I'm still hoping its not WP:TLDR. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I've already involved myself in an intractable dispute in which no party will ever be satisfied (commenting on an incredibly silly debate over the definition of Judaism given in the lede). Clearly I'm masochistic. Next up, intervening in the Israel/Palestine conflict! Okay, maybe not. Even my masochism has limits. That said, while other editors may be taking the Balkan-style warfare to Wikipedia, this article does have problems, and AndreaFox does seem to be making useful changes. She's providing sources, she's fine with moderating her language, so I don't see where the objection comes from. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand a point in the question: you're not the ones who can decide if "there are no primary sources that validate that POV" or not. I cited works and books from academic of the universities of standford and hawaii among others and well known historians. You couldn't have deleted these sources. Instead, you could have insert sources from academics and historians that disagree with the ones i cited. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

LoL, AndreaFox, if there are no primary sources then there are no primary sources. You do not need a degree and doctorate to notice that no primary source validating such statements has been presented. And yes, we are supposed to look for them and we have every right to demand them. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What i meaned is that you can look for them, but you can't pretend to impose your point of view presenting it like it is a wikipedian policy. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito at least five users agreed my sources were NPOV and in accordance with wikipedia policies, because in accordance with wikipedian policies a primary source could be both an academic work and a book from an historian. I'm starting to think that it is unuseful to speak with you, as you don't seem to be able to talk without making sarcastic or aggresive statements against users who disagree with you. I'll wait for the result of the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito: let the community choose what it is in accordance with its policies and what it isn't. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused about DIREKTOR's constant talk about primary sources on this talk page. This is Wikipedia, we mostly do not deal with primary sources, but instead use reliable secondary sources. The edit that AndreaFox2 contributed with is amply sourced with reliable peer-reviewed academic secondary sources. So the text should be reinserted and further deletion of it without any justification (as there has been none so far) should be considered vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Saddhiyama, Wikipedia articles do not condemn, or judge, the subjects. Have a look at the articles on Hitler, or Stalin, or Mussolini. I will continue to delete the text in question. If you really think that is vandalism, then you know the avanues to explore, I suppose, but I feel you will be disappointed. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Then remove the judgment if there is any. Noting that he presided over what appears to be at least a few instances of mass murder is not judgment except insofar as most people disapprove of mass murder.[citation needed] (yes, that tag is a joke) If the edits call him evil, then no, no reliable source can confirm that (it's an epistemological and religious question) and it should be removed immediately. But facts are facts, and mass murder is a big fact that should be given a level of attention proportionate to that. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. There may be objections to how AndreaFox2 has worded the section (and the proper way would then be to state these objections here working together with the editor in establishing consensus for a better solution), but the events themselves have more than enough notability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem, the International Court of Wikipedia (Panel of Judges: American Teenagers) can declare one of the 20th century's 50 most prominent figures a mass murderer. You twats know fuck all about anything. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The events are notable indeed, just not for this article. To make a comparison, it would be like introducing text on the Franklin D. Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower articles about how American soldiers killed SS POWs during WWII. It is extreme POV to validate wild accusations of personal responsibility by a biased source.
As for my insistence on primary sources, I believe I am fully supported by policy in demanding verifiable sources be presented for such frankly outrageous claims, and I fully intend to continue insisting on them. It may not mean anything in an of itself, but this person is a Legion of Honour recipient, a Knight of the Bath personally knighted by Elisabeth II, a World War II hero, not only in his own country but recognized internationally as well, and here you would have a him proclaimed a mass murderer guilty of genocide without primary sources? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It is all very impressive, but getting all these awards does not mean that one should overlook what is clearly deemed notable by most scholars dealing with Tito. And I would urge you to read up on Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I see you've inspected all the works dealing with this person? Impressive in its own right. Be that as it may, could you explain what are we supposed to conclude from the fact that some of the authors mention these events in a detailed study of this person's life? I did not say that mentioning this anywhere is POV, I said mentioning this in an encyclopedia with strict standards of neutrality and encyclopedic wording is most certainly POV. Udue weight beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only for the purpose of promoting a conspiracy theory to boot. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are talking about this new paragraph, right? It strikes me as giving too much weight to negative judgements, and too much weight to opinions of individual authors, to go in the lead alone. Critical evaluations of Tito's role must of course have a place in the article, but a full paragraph like this in the lead destroys the balance. However, a statement mentioning the authoritarian and single-party nature of his government seems legitimate for the lead, in my personal view. It could easily be integrated with the previous paragraph, which describes his founding role for the Second Yugoslavia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. As I tried to say earlier I am not perfectly happy with the new section either, so changes to the wording and the placement of it in the article should be discussed. My main objection was that it was repeatedly deleted without discussion and for no legitimate reason, when it clearly contains verifiable facts by reliable sources. To mention the negative sides of Tito's reign alongside the positive ones are certainly not undue weight, as long as those requirements are met.--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I also agree it should not be in the lead. Maybe it could be put in a section called “Legacy” or something and then it can be discussed how writers and academics view his rule. However I think noting that it was a single party state and he was an authoritarian leader are acceptable for the lead. - dwc lr (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears that a consensus is building and that the paragraphs complete removal is completely unjustified. This is a very encouraging development. - dwc lr (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello dwc, can't say I'm surprised to see you. I have noticed you are developing quite an interest in Yugoslav history by WP:STALKING me (or "checking my personality", as you put it [25]). I won't put up with such deliberate "retaliatory" strategies.
I'm frightfully busy at present, FPaS' proposal has merit, and I'll be back with my take as soon as I can (tomorrow at the latest). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I discovered this interesting (but far too common it appears) situation at WP:ANI. I like to help out where I can, as you know I’m a stickler for NPOV. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
While a devotion to neutrality is something we apparently have in common, I'm also a "stickler" for harassment. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you read your own link, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles…. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases." If DWC LR is following your edits for the purposes of checking on WP:ANI and looking for repeated, related violations of Wikipedia policy related to it (as opposed to calling you names and making comments unrelated to your editing work as it relates to the guidelines), it's not harassment in the guidelines sense. I check people's edit histories all the time looking for the same sorts of problems. Though I usually post my comments on problems across multiple pages to the users talk page just to centralize the concerns, that's personal style and a distaste for tracking dozens of articles. It's not inappropriate, it's being a good editor. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
In accordance with the proposals made till now by all the users (except DIREKTOR, but in my opinion he is simply avoiding collaboration one more time) I propose to reinsert the following "Tito established an authoritarian [4] [5] [6] and single-party [7] [8] [9] regime, which is considered nowadays controversial because of its repressive nature [10]" in the lead and to insert a new section in the article (we could call it "Legacy" like it was proposed) inserting the following "Among others authors and scholars [11] [12], Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, accuses Tito of being responsible of “massive democide” [13] [14] of more than 500000 people [15] [16] , “mainly “collaborators”, "anti-communists”, rival guerrillas, Ustashi and critics” [17] and “after the war” of “even more people, now also including the rich, landlords, bourgeoisie, clerics, and in the later 1940s, even pro-Soviet communists” [18]. Rudolph Joseph Rummel considers him responsible [19]for an Ethnic cleansing process against “Italian POWs and civilians” [20], “Moslems and Albanians” and against Germans, arguing he tried “to expel all ethnic Germans in the country” along with ethnic Italians [21]. He considers him responsible of the “Bleiburg and related massacres” [22] [23] and he writes that “forced labor and imprisonment for opponents or undesirables was a characteristic of the Tito regime” [24] too. Some authors and scholars consider Tito responsible for the Foibe killings [25] [26] [27] too.". What do you think? Do you agree? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the nature of the regime should be discussed in the lead as is the case from articles such as the Iberian dictators General Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar for example. The whole paragraph is currently in the article under the heading “Criticism”. - dwc lr (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed only now :). I agree with you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. I reverted the vandalism by Alasdair, who is now blocked for his disruptive behaviour, but I agree with all those who say that it does not belong in the lead in full length. Like FPaS and dwc have both pointed out, a sentence about the nature of Tito's dictatorial regime (yes DIREKTOR, a one-party state without elections is a dictatorship) should probably go into the lead.Jeppiz (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
At least as important as including this information is trimming the rest of the article. I'm all for context, but that's what wikilinks are for, not multiple paragraphs of exposition. As is, *any* information unique to Tito (positive or negative) is getting swamped by information on the politics of Yugoslavia, the events of various wars, etc. It's a major weight problem. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Perhaps the entire section should be renamed to "Rudolph Joseph Rummel's criticism of Tito" ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several other opinions there as well. As I said, though, it could be rewritten and the same goes for the whole article. Regardless of feelings for or against Tito, and I don't have either, I notice that the language is pretty bad throughout the article and that it is written more like an essay than like an article in an encyclopedia.Jeppiz (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
90% of section is based on citing a single source (Rummel), which makes it heavy POV. this was pure vandalism on ShadowRangerRIT's part. He also reinserted some random papers from the Internet that were obviously cherry-picked to support a particular wording in the section, and that hardly qualify as reliable source by the WP's policy, as well as one which I removed because it doesn't support at all Tito's personal involvement in Foibe massacres, as it is cited against (it merely states "Tito's partisans"). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, 90% of this article reads like Tito's fan page so I don't think the major POV problem here is the one critical paragraph. I do agree that several of the Rummel sources could be removed and that more sources could be added. How would you want to expand the criticism sections and which sources do you propose?Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please try and distinguish disagreement from vandalism. Also, please say which sources are objectionable; if I check them out and agree I'll gladly remove them, but adding the section tag makes the diff unreadable (I can't easily figure out what was changed). Also, I would like to keep the spacing and punctuation fixes, so I'd prefer to remove the objectionable material again manually without damaging the other edits. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I should note that the section tag is completely unjustifiable and just makes the whole edit checking harder. One source means one reference for the section, not that the author of the section decided to mention only one prominent academic. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A heads up on your edits. The first two are clearly justifiable (though I can't help but wonder if the erols reference was itself borrowing from possibly better source material). The third is one of those icky sources that are academic, but not peer-reviewed. I'm fine with deleting it, but understand that you are creating a precedent for this article; a high bar for sources will mean the whole article will likely need to be trimmed since much of it is unsourced or poorly sourced (not a bad thing in my opinion; the historical sidenotes are already out of hand). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is {{one source}} being removed? Can we agree that 90% of section is based on 1 source? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking sources now. Will report back in a second. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't I who removed it, but I count several sources, none of which makes up even close to 90% of the paragraph. More than half of the paragraph is based on a single source, and I would agree that that is too much and that other sources need to be added and that a substantial amount of the many Rummel sources could be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Having pruned down the references (the original submitter apparently being unaware of named references and thereby polluting the ref section with duplicates), I will acknowledge that a few more independent references would be good; the most cited ref, and one other less cited one, are Rummel specific. But the books cited appear unrelated, and this doesn't qualify for one source unless it can be demonstrated that they are all parroting Rummel. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
And hey, seconds after I wrote this, DWC comes in with a few additional independent references. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is still 90% in content based on direct citations from Rummel which is why {{one source}} must stay. Other sources are pretty much irrelevant and seem to be added for trivial statements (the fact SFRJ had one-party regime - it's a common fact that doesn't need to be cited at all). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the tag, although you put yourself in less credible situation by repeating "90%", "90%", "90%" all the time. I guess that what you're trying to say it that much of it is based on one source. 90% actually means 90%, and that is not the case here. Having said that, you're right in calling for more sources and I too think that the tag should stay untill more sources are added. I have a harder time understanding why you deleted the wikilink to Rummel, please use edit summaries to explain your edits, thanksJeppiz (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It is already wikilinked in the sentence before, can't you see. Fully linking the tripartite name twice looked quite strange. No it's 90%, it's 80%...what difference does it mean, last night when I first added it it was the only relevant source (and the rest of the sources are for irrelevant introductory factoids that hardly deserve to be cited at all, thus merely faking the impression of "multiple sources" when there is in fact only 1 source for all the relevant material). That section should focus exclusively on the issue of Tito's personal involvement in the disputed events (Foibe, Bleiburg etc.), whose role tends to be overstated by various historians in the service of nationalist ideologies (because Tito as a person was the embodiment of multiethnic Yugoslavia, and by attacking him they're both attacking the attached institution and depriving the events of context - it was common folk without orders that committed the atrocities, not soldiers in the service of regime). Yeah, partisans out of revenge shot dead couple of thousands psychotic Nazi-collaborators who put millions to death in concentration camps few years before the liberation - but is that Tito's personal order/fault/responsibility? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Following up on DWC's suggestions about the lead, I had a look at the pages of the dictators of Spain Francisco Franco and Portugal António de Oliveira Salazar and I agree that a similar lead could be used here. Based on how those articles are written, I would propose the following paragraph to start the lead Josip Broz Tito (Cyrillic script: Јосип Броз Тито, (7 or 25 May 1892 – 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav resistance leader, and dictator of Yugoslavia from 1945 to his death in 1980. He was Secretary-General (later President) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav resistance movement, the Yugoslav Partisans (1941–45).[3] After the war, he was the Prime Minister (1945–63) and later President (1953–80) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and led an authoritarian communist government. That is just a suggestion, very closely modelled on the Salazar article, but I invite comments on it.Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion that inserts POV wording. There is no way the label of "dictator" will be pushed in here. Furthermore, while FPaS' proposal deal with teh authors claiming "authoritarian rule", the insertion of the foibe accusations in this article is without a shadow of a doubt extreme POV, undue weight. A claim of responsibility is a completely unverifiable claim that has absolutely NO basis in reality or any concrete evidence. Guesswork at best, political propaganda at worst. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikipedia frowns on the usage of dictator in article content. That's why it was excluded from the Augusto Pinochet article (for example). GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, a person who rules a one-party state without free elections is often called a dictator. Do you object to the label for Franco and Salazar as well, or do you find any reason why we should treat Tito differently? As for your assertion that "no way the label of 'dictator' will be pushed in here", I'd like to remind you that you don't WP:OWN this article. It is precisely that behaviour of yours, and the discussion about it at WP:ANI that has brought most of us here. However, if there is a Wikipedia policy against it, that's another case. In that case, the word should be removed from several articles of current and former dictators described as dictators.Jeppiz (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
At the very least the nature of the government "authoritarian communist" should be included. - dwc lr (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe, the Adolf Hitler article uses a descriptive 'authoritarian leader'. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I believe then that authoritarian is the descriptor used for dictators here. Franco’s says he “established a right-wing authoritarian regime”, Salazars “founded and led the Estado Novo ("New State"), the authoritarian, right-wing government” though both of them are also called “dictators” outright however. - dwc lr (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


(I will not be responding to User:DWC LR's malicious stalking here. His involvement is simply a strategy to have his way elsewhere.)
@GoodDay. Feel free to represent the specific sources that hold that point of view, the lead, however, should remain devoid of any such labels (per FPaS's proposal). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It was during the dispute at Augusto Pinochet, that I discovered using dictator was considered non-NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • “Could Tito, an authoritarian leader” - Group psychotherapy and political reality: a two-way mirror‎ - Page 193
  • ”The second Yugoslavia was characterized by its authoritarian leader, Josip Broz Tito” - Bosnia-Herzegovina: the end of a legacy‎ - Page 36
  • ”An authoritarian leader, Tito, dispensed enormous power” - Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law – page 17. No objections to this being included I hope then. - dwc lr (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well sourced and definitely belong in the lead, as it is in the case of other authoritarian rules. Several users have argued for why it should be in the lead, it's sources, and no argument has been made against including it in the lead except DIREKTOR's WP:IDONTLIKEIT above.Jeppiz (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and I’m not sure what DIREKTOR is talking about when he says it shouldn’t be in the lead per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise proposal. FaPS said the paragraph now in the “Criticism” section should not go in the lead. But he also said, “However, a statement mentioning the authoritarian and single-party nature of his government seems legitimate for the lead, in my personal view.” - dwc lr (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The current lead of this article is the product of a previous user consensus and is based on the lead used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Now of course, it seems new experts on encyclopedic wording were brought in. Delightful. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with using authoritarian leader as a descriptive in the lead. However, Tito's office was 'President of Yugoslavia' (even though he wasn't elected to it). GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent vandalism POV-pushing by DIREKTOR

It comes as no surprise as DIREKTOR is repeating Alasdair's vandalism rather extreme POV-pushing by removing both the criticism sections and the POV tag. The section is extensively sourced and no plausible reason was give for removing it or removing the POV tag. This constant vandalism edit-warring and POV-pushing by Alasdair and DIREKTOR is becoming a real nuissance.Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point about the POV problems (for one, saying that calling someone a dictator isn't worthy of an encyclopedia is troubling; if historians and other sources call him a dictator, then say that such people have labeled him a dictator). But you're woefully incorrect with these vandalism charges. I've seen both yourself and AndreaFox2 calling these edits vandalism and you need to stop. Our vandalism policy tries to make a clear distinction between what is and isn't vandalism. Any edit made in good faith, whether it be POV, or removes sourced information, or is made without explanation, is not vandalism. Here is a list of examples of what can be seen as vandalism. Nothing that DIREKTOR or Alasdair have done matches any examples, or even comes close. Here is a list of examples of possibly problematic edits that are not vandalism, which may be closer to what has been done in this article, but again it is not vandalism. Incorrectly accusing another editor of being a vandal will only hurt your position in a dispute, and is considered uncivil at the very least. -- Atama頭 22:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Alasdair has engaged in vandalism, the edit he was blocked for was clearly vandalism (though there are more specific terms for it too). DIREKTOR's behavior is mostly related to WP:WAR and WP:OWN, which I agree isn't vandalism. Of course, he has a tendency to label edits he disagrees with as vandalism too. Something about the Balkans brings this out in people… —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Atama, I think you make a very fair point and I was mistaken in saying vandalism. DIREKTOR is certainly being disruptive, POV-pushing, edit warring and trying to WP:OWN the article, but he and Alasdair, from what I've seen of them, probably see themselves as staunch defenders of the WP:TRUTH. As such, his intention is not to vandalise and I have struck it out in my post.Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You correctly states that "Any edit made in good faith" couldn't be consider vandalism, however DIREKTOR clearly demonstrates that he presumed other users'bad faith and he makes me (and others) think that he is deleting well-sourced sections only because he wants to impose his personal interpretation of Tito. This is called vandalism. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pruned "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" section

Per my previous comments on excessive amounts of detail unrelated to Tito, I've taken a first stab at trimming this section to just those elements that can be argued to relate directly to Tito. Given there is a main article link, I think the parts I trimmed aren't justifiable. If I accidentally impaired readability (a back reference no longer has anything to refer to) please fix up, but try and avoid readding the whole history of the civil war and Nazi resistance in Yugoslavia. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I consider this just a first step. I'd welcome any help in pruning the other sections in the same manner, so this article is about him, not the entire history of Yugoslavia, 1930-1980. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This is now officially getting out of hand. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you even read what I deleted? Please tell me how the excessive detail on the war itself is relevant to an article on Tito. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore the changes immediately, but I'd like input from others. Does anyone (aside from DIREKTOR) honestly believe that an article on Tito is improved by paragraphs of information where Tito's name is never even mentioned, just describing the war itself? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s just best to stick to information relevant to the man himself (as this is just his biography after all). There is a link to the main article if people want to read more about that particular theatre of war generally. Are things like “The terms of the armistice were extremely severe” an editors own opinion or has this view been published in a source? - dwc lr (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
So you agree with my edits? I was actually rather conservative; anything that mentioned Tito was kept, even though a lot of it was off on a tangent. If you agree, I'd appreciate you restoring the edits I made; I don't want to do it myself as I'm close to violating the spirit, if not the letter of WP:3RR, and I figure relatively large deletions like that should have support from multiple editors. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have restored it we simply don’t need a complete history of "Yugoslav People's Liberation War". Just Tito’s part in it. - dwc lr (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged involvement in crimes

First of all, "democide" is not a word. [26] It was actually invented by Rummel, and supposedly means "genocide, politicide ('a gradual but systematic attempt to exterminate an independent political entity'), and mass murder". Lets make that clear, for a start, and lets not use fake words in an encyclopedia article.

Secondly, having read the relevant part of Rummel's work, it becomes clear that the author actually did not accuse Josip Broz Tito personally of organizing or ordering these events (indeed that is something even his staunchest political adversaries around here are known to admit). This whole matter is due to the fact that, instead of "Yugoslav government" or "Yugoslav authorities" or simply "Yugoslavia", the author calls the country "Tito's Regime". That's it. All that really means is that Tito was the Yugoslav Prime Minister at the time. This does not constitute an actual accusation of genocide (or "democide") on the part of the author. It in no way implies personal responsibility. The author does not even claim Tito is responsible, and I think it would be a sad day for Wikipedia if somebody managed to twist this so completely.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of our venerable "impartial" mediators, this Wikipedia article has transformed "The communist partisans and successor Tito regime committed massive democide" into "Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, accuses Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”". Unbelievable. Its like reading a tabloid newspaper article.

I'd really, really like to hear how our impartial mediators explain that "Tito Regime" actually means "Prime Minister Tito personally", but that I am far too POV to understand that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, the article on democide seems to indicate that he uses the word to avoid overloading the word genocide with too many meanings. The alternative would be to use genocide, which is a perfectly fine word and would cover the situation accurately. But I'm guessing you'd prefer we avoid describing it as genocide too, right? As for how Tito is responsible, it's an interesting quirk about people who seize absolute power; they get absolute responsibility too (apologies if that came too close to the Spiderman tag line; I swear it was an accident). With no checks on your power, you don't have anyone else to blame. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see Shadow here is the judge and jury. So even if this author did not actually "accuse Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”", you are still going to say that he did because you personally believe that "people who seize absolute power have absolute responsibility" (regardless of whether they were thousands of miles away and had no idea what ragged bands of civilians and soldiery were doing). My mistake then, I forgot Spiderman's Law.
I am going to remove the section until this matter can be thoroughly discussed. This is blatant misrepresentation of sources, and there is no way it is going to fly. I'll repeat: this Wikipedia article has transformed "The communist partisans and successor Tito regime committed massive democide" into "Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, accuses Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”". The author talks about the regime, the state, you talk about the person.
You will not succeed in bullying people into this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As a head of state in an authoritarian regime it is obvious that the responsibility would land on Tito whether he was involved or not, and as such it is perfectly notable and relevant to include this information in this article. Of course the wording should reflect this, and as such should be discussed here, but would you please stop wholesale deletion of this section, otherwise it will be necessary to report you for edit-warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 5 December

2009 (UTC)

You can also put it conversely: The wholesale inclusion of a poorly-referenced section containing disputed statements apparently misrepresenting the only credible source (mentioned in 7 out of 8 lines, writing Tito where it has Tito's regime and partisans, as if Tito personally signed death lists), and added by a person of doubtful motives is what should be discussed first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Saddhiyama: you must stop your distruptive behavior on this article. Please confront with the others, don't try to impose your personal (and till now not-sourced) point of view. I am astonished by the question you arose about the world "democide": it isn't a "fake word", it is a "neologism" which was created many years ago and which is used nowadays (http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&source=hp&q=democide&meta=&aq=f&oq=). And as for the question about Rummel "not accusing Josip Broz Tito personally", you committed vandalism by eliminating every reference to his works in the article, as you clearly admitted that you deleted them "having read part of Rummel's work", not even having read all of his work, in which he clearly accused Tito of "organizing or ordering these events". And it is very untrue that "indeed that is something even his staunchest political adversaries around here are known to admit": you must source this and all of your claims. I'm waiting for the time you will source your claims: while waiting i'll reintroduce the section. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As I clearly explained in my edit summary, the removal of the section was a temporary measure, until the serious issues with it can be resolved. You may feel free to report me for anything you like, but I am no more guilty of violating WP:3RR than the other users involved in the edit-war, and I shall not be singled out as the only person that has edit-warred. I have brought forth serious concerns on the talkpage (which were largely ignored), while our impartial mediators continued to edit-war thus it "will be necessary" for the other side to be blocked as well. I am no newbie, and I do not appreciate these threats and ploys. Vandalism? Don't make me laugh.
RE: "As a head of state in an authoritarian regime it is obvious that the responsibility would land on Tito whether he was involved or not."
Thank you for you personal opinion, but I do not agree that it is "obvious". You have no idea whatsoever as to what these events were that we are talking about here, so I can see how to you it may seem so. If the author did not accuse this person of personal responsibility, but instead talks about the entire regime/state, then it would be a sad day for Wikipedia if someone should succeed in twisting his words and making it seem as though he did. The bottom line is that we are not here to decide on such issues, and that your opinion(s) is irrelevant. I'll say again, using this source in this article and making it out for something it is not is obvious and blatant misrepresentation of sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is irrilevant that you "clearly explained it": you can't assume as "a temporary measure" "the removal of the section", as you and Ivan are the only one questioning the section (and you have been even suspected of being a POV pusher, so you are not the right person to assume a "temporary measure"). You could (and you can) put a POV tag in the section, you can't keep deleting it till the discussion is over. We didn't agree that it is an "obvious misrepresentation of sources" too, but you felt free to act like you wanted, without dicussing the matter. I'm astonished by the question you are pointing out as it is clearly a pov misrepresentation. Do you really think (for instance) that authors writing about nazi Germany should always point out that Hitler was the head of state to make his responsibilities clear?! In http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM: "Tito regime committed massive democide; The Tito regime itself killed in cold blood some 500,000 people; the most consistent figures (near 1,700,000 killed) is in line with an official post-war total of the Tito government; For the period following the legal establishment of the Tito government (lines 57 to 164) there is a large number of democide estimates; Forced labor and imprisonment for opponents or undesirables was a characteristic of the Tito regime; the Tito government tried to expel all ethnic Germans in the country; Italian POWs and civilians were often killed as Tito's forces crossed the border into and occupied part of Italy; Now we can look at those estimates of the total killed by the Tito regime, ...". I think it isn't necessary to point it out more clearly but as you seem to act like you aren't able to understand such statements, i'll explained them more clearly: a Government (or regime) "is a political entity which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations" and an authoritarian government "is characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state and is a political system controlled by nonelected rulers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government). By writing about Tito's government, authors are writing about its members (Tito was a member of its government) and about its leader (Tito).

You can't really sustain your point by referring to an uncommon interpretation of common language: if you want to continue to support the idea you are supporting, you need not to interpretate sources but to cite sources in which Tito is presented as not being responsible of those atrocities and as not being an authoritarian leader.--AndreaFox2 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Janez Stanovnik, who I believe is a former Yugoslav Partisan Commander and former President of Socialist Republic of Slovenia said after the finding of mass grave in Sloveina. "the atrocities were obviously committed within the framework of the so called Army of State Security, which was part of the Yugoslav army and was subordinated to the Supreme Command", (led by Tito)……Asked whether this meant that Tito was responsible for the summary executions, Stanovnik said "there is no army in the world where such mass killing could take place without the knowledge of the supreme leadership"”. - dwc lr (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DWC LR obviously has no concept of what he's talking about. Stanovnik is being accused of presiding over the killings (among others), so he is naturally not very neutral, but is strongly inclined to lie in order to shift the blame off of himself and FR Slovenia in general, preserving the reputation of modern Slovenia as well. In either case his "testimony" bares no legal credence and represents his personal opinion.
Please calm down, User:AndreaFox2.
Can we simply concentrate for a moment on the simple and obvious fact that the author is talking about the "regime", the "government", the "apparatus of state", if you like? I'm not going to try and "interpret" that in any way, it simply says what it says, so we are absolutely not going to pretend here it says something else like: "Tito committed massive democide" or "Tito ordered massive democide", we're going to stick to the facts, I think.
This misunderstanding is caused by the author's unfortunate and unprofessional choice of words. Rummel likes to call the government "Tito Regime", fine, in an encyclopedia that translates to "Yugoslav government" (as you've stated yourself). I will certainly not be fooled into going on a wild goose chase to prove a negative, when the positive is as yet not confirmed. Learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no debate that people were killed by bands of guerillas at the end of WWII (i.e. by the "partisans and successor regime"), there is debate as to whether Tito, who was in the habit of issuing standard orders warning against such behavior, had anything to do with wanton acts of violence. This point is paramount.
I can see that there is still hope that I will be dealt with on WP:AN/I and that no proper response is required until we can be sure it is necessary. Arrogant and malicious. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm calm. The one who seem not to be calm is you when you say "I will certainly not be fooled into going on a wild goose chase to prove a negative, when the positive is as yet not confirmed. Learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is" and "Arrogant and malicious". I have ask you to cite sources in which Tito is presented as not being responsible of those atrocities and as not being an authoritarian leader. Answering "I will certainly not be fooled into going on a wild goose chase to prove a negative" is refusing confrontation one more time. You seem to think this article is some sort of trial (i'm referring to your previous post, where you talk about "legal credence"), which makes me suspect that you haven't understand wikipedia's purpose: we aren't here to judge tito nor we are here to apply rules tipical of a trial to his article. We are here to add informations and to support them with sources of academics and historians. Is Rummel an academic? Yes. Are all the other people cited in the sources historians or academics? Yes. Are the sources verificable? Yes. There are sources that deny these sources? No. So the sources are valuable. So the passage can remain. We can discuss about its wording, but you are not making other proposals than deleting the passage. "we're going to stick to the facts": you are right, but you are not presenting sourced facts, but only your opinion and a peculiar world game about "tito's government" and "tito". Please ask my answer. --AndreaFox (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox, if there was a source that states this person ordered the killings, then I would be naturally obliged to seek out a source that denies that (if I wanted to remove such a statement). On the other hand, if there are no sources stating such a thing, then naturally there is no need for me to disprove it. What you are using here is a classic rhetorical ploy called an argumentum ad ignorantiam, a "logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false". Let me say this again, since no presented sources claim personal responsibility, then there is no need to disprove such a claim.
Stanovnik has a vested interest in riding himself and his associates of any blame. His statement is frankly a very flawed argument for a great many reasons besides. Firstly, he comments on the fact that the killings were likely known to the high command afterward, criticizing their alleged cover-up. He does not imply that the command was aware what was happening at Bleiburg during the chaos that reigned at the time of the killings. A cover-up is indeed something Tito might have been guilty of, but an actual order? This is far from it. Secondly, he does not actually claim knowledge of the high command's involvement, but merely expresses his opinion that they "must've been" involved. Its an opinion.
Is Rummel an academic? Yes, certainly. Are all the other people cited in the sources historians or academics? Yes, I suppose they are. Are the sources verifiable? Yes, they are. Does Rummel accuse Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”? No, he does not. Why does the article say he does? I have no idea. The author merely states that "democide" took place while he was prime minister (during his "regime"). The problem is, we already know killings took place, there's no debate there, but we also know there are no sources claiming Tito ordered them (i.e. that he is "responsible"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Does Rummel accuse Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”? No, he does not. He merely states that "democide" took place while he was prime minister (during his "regime")": why you are the only one not to perceive the non-sense of this adfirmation? Can't you realise that if i say "Hitler's government killed jews" or "Hitles ordered jews to be killed" it's always the same? --AndreaFox (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Presenting a case such as that one for which we know the accusations are factual is hardly a good example for an unknown such as this. Nevertheless, you are right, even in Hitler's case we are obligated to find sources/evidence of personal guilt before writing that the person is personally guilty. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources sources sources

There seems to be general disregard for what sources say here. DIREKTOR and Ivan have made the very relevant point that sources saying "Tito's regime" should not be spun into "Tito himself". The task here is to present sources, not to interpret them. When we have sources saying "Tito's regime", the passage should also say "Tito's regime". Another valid claim is the overrepresentation of Rummel in the criticism section, and this should also be addressed. On the other side of the coin, simply removing all criticism based on the points above is not justified. It would be interesting to know how DIREKTOR and Ivan would want the criticism section to look. In other words, instead of pointing out the errors (which you have done, I largely agree with you), try to also outline how that section should be expanded, what it should focus on and what sources you think it should use.Jeppiz (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The overrepresentation of Rummel is due to the fact that the section has been created only one-two days ago and have been deleted so much times that has been impossible to built it up. I'm sure we can found other sources about the same topics. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The point, User:Jeppiz, is that since Rummel (by your own agreement above) does not criticize "Tito himself" (but the partisan guerrillas and Yugoslav state that succeeded them), there is little place for mentioning such criticism in an article dealing with "Tito himself". Indeed it would be completely biased and "POV" to imply his personal responsibility by listing all "unpleasant" events unassociated to him in any other way other than by the fact that he was in power at the time they took place. Why then should we include this text? Because of "Spiderman's Law" mentioned above?
In addition, I would like to point out, with all due reverence to Rummel, that the term "regime" is highly POV and obviously unfit for an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all agree that Rummel is over-represented and I would suggest giving a day or two to those into it to find more sources. However, the article mentions a lot of positive things that the Partisans did under Tito's lead; let's keep in mind that this was almost certainly the most succesful resistance movement anywhere during WWII. In the same way as Tito himself did not carry out any massacre, Tito himself did not liberate any areas. Forces under his command did all of those things. In my own POV, their combined contribution was a positive one and they were much more admirable than all of their opponents, but they also carried out some less admirable things. We have a choice here, we can decide to focus only on Tito without mentioning what his forces did, but that would create a strange article. More logic is to include what the forces under him did, both the good things (which dominate) and the bad (which are also there). That is what NPOV is about.Jeppiz (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
"Regime" means "government" in italian, but I don't know if in english it has acquired a different meaning. I'm going to introduce new sources now. Feel free to question them here. Jeppiz is right over the discussion about "tito's government" and "tito". --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


RE: "In the same way as Tito himself did not carry out any massacre, Tito himself did not liberate any areas. Forces under his command did all of those things."
Yes, of course, but with one very "noticeable" difference. Partisan forces liberated much of Yugoslavia etc., but they did so under his orders, i.e. that of the Partisan general headquarters. Thus logically this success is (partially) attributed to his military proficiency. On the other hand, the killings were by no means executed under his orders. In fact I'm still waiting for a source that would claim such a thing. This is basic stuff and I think we all know it.
The only logical (and in this case also the only unbiased) criteria for inclusion in the article is "what did this person do, and what did he not do?". What did he do? He ordered the partisan units to fight in such a way as to lead a a successful guerrilla campaign. Ok, lets elaborate on that. Did he order them to kill civilians? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Source

I inserted the following:

A mass grave has been discovered in Barbarin Rov (Barbara`s trench) in Slovenia [1], which “was visited by historians, the police, representatives of the Slovene authorities and the state prosecutor” [2]: it was admitted that the “Slovene partisans were behind all the crimes, headed by the communists” and Tito was openly accused[3]. In Jazovka has been discovered another mass grave of people killed under Tito’s government [4].

How do you feel about it? Do you think it's correct to insert the previous passage? If not, delete it as I'm not sure if it has a place in the article. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found more sources about this section, so its deletion isn't needed anymore. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section gone overboard

It was I who originally created the section, and I still think it belongs here, but not in its current form. For one thing, it's not very easy to read and would urgently need to be divided into paragraphs and preferably have its English checked, because the English in it at the moment is pretty bad. That is a problem, but not the main problem. Yes, the section probably should mention the massacres after WWII, but not be devoted to it. At the moment, that's all the section is about, just one year of the 35 years Tito ruled Yugoslavia. As to compensate for this lack of other criticism, it seems like we are cherry-picking everything we can find about this massacres and adding them. The result is a barely readable paragraph that repeats the same point over and over again. A few sentences about these massacres, well sourced, would suffice. Could those who are more into Yugoslav history than I am now perhaps focus on criticism not related to what happened immediately after the war. I hope that can be done and that the section can be improved. In its curent form, I have to say that I don't think it belongs here, it's simply too badly written, too unstructured and too unencyclopedic. Instead of trying to find even more about the massacres to add, please start thinking about what about it remove (I'm talking 50%-80%) and focus on other aspects instead, thanks.Jeppiz (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* The whole section is nonsense. One completely and obviously misinterpreted paragraph by Rummel opened the flood gates for all manner of political clutter. This is exactly what all the resident editors have been dealing with and exactly what we've been trying to prevent. Half of this mess is politics, the other half are (deliberately?) misinterpreted professional sources dealing with events of Yugoslav history and not Josip Broz Tito personally. Jeppiz, Shadow, the rest of you... you haven't the first clue on Balkans politics... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Here's an example: I see the expulsion of the Volksdeutscher minority is mentioned. Is it mentioned that their expulsion was due to an international agreement for their translocation into Germany? Is it mentioned that of the 300,000 strong Volksdeutscher minority, 100,000 (virtually the entire male population) volunteered into the 7th SS Volunteer Division Prinz Eugen and 22nd SS Volunteer Cavalry Maria Theresia, responsible for the organized slaughter of literally tens of thousands of Yugoslavs [27]? Is it mentioned that the Volksdeutscher minority ruled Vojvodina as the racial overlords of the inferior Slavs? And finally, is it mentioned that the whole lot of them that remained were very likely to be lynched by angry mobs if they stayed? No. Just that they were apparently expelled from Yugoslavia by the evil communist dictator.
Unbelievable POV... *double facepalm* --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I modified the section according to jeppiz's suggestion dividing it into paragraphs and checking its English. I don't agree the section is about "just one year of the 35 years Tito ruled Yugoslavia" as the crimes described are war ones (happened between 1941 and 1945) and post-war ones (happened between 1945 and 1953), but i agree about the "lack of other criticism": if you'll give me/us time i/we'll add informations about the controversial behaviour Tito has after 1953 till his death. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for fifteen separate subsections, paragraphs will surely do.
  • "Allegations of democide", "Foibe killings", & "Mass graves in the ex-Yugoslavia". Call me crazy and biased, but I think its about time someone presented professional, published sources on Tito's personal involvement in the killings. Otherwise it is very hard or impossible to justify their inclusion in the article. Rhetorical acrobatics aside, its time to stop talking about Yugoslav history, and start talking about "Tito himself".
  • "Ethnic cleasing of German minority in ex-Yugoslavia". Forgive my graphic language, but this section numbers among the most slimy pieces of written rubbish I've so far encountered. If this matter is ever to be mentioned in a neutral manner it will require a full disclosure of the reasons as to why the German minority was expelled, neutral wording ("Tito and his gang of evil henchmen"? :), and more neutral sources. Read the above post for some of the details.
One more thing. These are highly complex, controversial issues, and they require a serious approach. I doubt most of the users currently involved in this dispute give a damn to get into this matter seriously. However, if you're serious about fixing this section up, if we establish and hold to a certain set of criteria about professional sources, and if we agree to cut down on the "interpretation". I'll join in and we'll put together a proper, fully sourced section actually dealing with criticism of Josip Broz Tito (as opposed to this rubbish that deals with anything "bad" that happened during the fifty years he led the country through the Cold War). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"Jeppiz, Shadow, the rest of you... you haven't the first clue on Balkans politics..." You're right and I'm not going to argue about that. On the one hand, I do speak Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian well enough to get by, have conversations and to read books in it, I've read several dozens of books dealing explicitly with Balkan histories and I've been giving academic lectures on the topic. On the other hand, I am still an outsider and there are things that we outsiders will never understand about Balkan politics, that is true. We are having almost exactly the same discussion at the talk page of Mohammed, by the way. A few angry Muslims argue that the article about Mohammed should not be written by non-Muslims because we don't understand him. The response given to them, and one that is valid here, is that we need the deep insight of religious Muslims but we also need neutral non-Muslim editors to keep those with insight to insert their own POV, and I'll guess you'll agree that we all have a certain POV about things in which we are deeply interested.Jeppiz (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All right, lets not dally and lets try to make progress. The way I see the section right now, some 70% deals with immediate post-war killings in northwestern Yugoslavia. There are two distinct sets of events there: the Foibe killings and the (larger) Bleiburg massacre. I can see these events described in the section yet I cannot see sources relating to "Tito himself", i.e. accusing him of ordering/planning/being responsible for either of these. I hope that by now we have established that Rummel is not one of such sources. Are there others? Can we have them listed here please, so we may discuss them and write-up a section more closely based on them?
In the meantime I will be reading the sources and evaluating two things: how reliable they are, and how much they relate to Josip Broz Tito. I get the feeling most of this clutter deals merely with the Foibe killings and the Bleiburg massacre, not with Tito's involvement therein.
The other cca. 30% deals with the issue of the Volksdeutsche minority. That will be a challenge to present in a neutral way, but I suggest we handle that afterwards? One step at a time, as it were.
Another matter is the issue of a setting a criteria for reliable sources on such thoroughly controversial events. As User:Jeppiz said, the section has been written by cherry-picking everything negative that could be found and Googled on the internet, indiscriminate of its verifiability and quality. This even includes local Balkans newspaper articles and such.
I recommend, and I seriously hope we can agree on this, that published professional references be our primary source of information for this section, so that we may put together a section that is not riddled with Balkans politics. This of course includes the NY Times, but I move we disregard local newspapers and the like - the media around here aren't exactly known for their professionalism and independence in such matters, heh. BBC's Laura Silber and Allan Little, authors of Death of Yugoslavia, ironically consider that the Croatian independent media that "thrived" during socialist Yugoslavia was destroyed in what was supposed to be democratization, but I digress. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The text between "..." is a citation from a source, it's not my wording. I insert exact citations from the sources in order to be as neutral as possible, citing not my interpretation of the sources but what the sources says themselves. The reason i inserted "Tito and his gang of evil henchmen" (among other citations from sources) is that you keep questioning if sources accused directly Tito or not: the new sources explicitly accuse Tito. "I hope that by now we have established that Rummel is not one of such sources": no one have till now agreed with you on this point. I strongly oppose BBC source to be removed too. If you want to add informations about why Germans were killed, feel free to do so, but remember that saying that the Germans "were all Nazis" is simply unhistorical. And even Nazi POWs couldn't have been killed, as killing POWs is a war crime. --AndreaFox (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned with the nature of your edits. Instead of providing a NPOV account of Tito criticism (and that doesn't mean criticism of Tito worded by yourself, but a NPOV overview of sources that criticize Tito), you rather appear to be focused on cherry-picking few that provide the most defamatory and accusatory tones. Your original paragraph of Tito criticism was ridden with sources that were obviously googled for a particular phrasing (gone now, apparently you haven't even bother to read them, because they didn't even support what they were cited against!), and now you've deliberately inserted Tito where Rummel uses "Tito's regime" everywhere, which makes me wonder: are those Italian references of yours, unreachable for us to verify, really supportive of claims you cite them against? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have my suspicions as well concerning User:AndreaFox2, but its not going to help discussion along if we focus on each-other. It seems however, that whenever this issue emerges I end up repeating one thing over and over again: "lets have the sources, please".
As for Rummel, I think User:AndraFox2 makes an honest mistake there. Politics are to blame, most likely, as this paragraph has been quote-mined and misrepresented by Italian politicians, in an attempt to gain diplomatic leverage. Nothing new in the complex world of Italian (or Croatian) politics, of course. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned with the nature of your request too, Ivan. You say that "are those Italian references of yours, unreachable for us to verify", but have you realised that you deleted the links to the english translations of some of that italian sources? Do you really think citing New York times, slovenian press agency, rummel along with academics and historians is "cherry-picking"? "Tito's regime" equals "Tito along with the other members of his government", as all the other users has stated. No Italian politician has been cited by me in the article. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was waiting for the "interpretations" to resume. AndreaFox, this is highly unproductive. Words games such as these could make any source say whatever you want. Rummel's accusation does not refer to Tito personally, that much is perfectly clear. The rest of your sources are also cherry picked for one quality: they all describe the post-war killings and mention Tito in that context (mostly stating that he was in power at the time). Twisting that into an accusation of personal responsibility is highly biased. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Well you twisted at least 4 of the references you added to the section (3 of which where complete junk), so my concern is pretty valid AndreaFox. The one I removed was badly cited direct b.g.c. link against 2 completely unrelated claims. There is {{citation}} with parameters for pages and direct quotes. This is a rather controversial topic so complete and thorough references must be made.

Sources on Tito ordering the post-war killings

Can we see them listed here, pls? I am curious to see if we will be allowed to see them openly listed here. I'm also a little skeptical, to be honest. To my knowledge not a single professional historian has thus far published a personal accusation of Josip Broz Tito, and claimed that the angry mobs were in some way acting on his orders (i.e. that he was "responsible", as the section states). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Read them in the article. The majority of them are linked there, so they are veryficable on the web. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to prevent us from straying from topic, we're discussing two very different thing. 1. Did Tito order the killings? 2. Was he responsible? Those are two very different questions. The answer may be "yes" to both or "no" to both, but it could also be "no" to the first and "yes" to the second. According to the Geneva convention, you're required to protect the civilian population under your control and failure to do so can be considered a war-crime. I'm not saying that that was the case here, just point out that we should never mix these two up.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All right, I see your point. Let me be clearer then: which historians "accuse Tito of being responsible for the killings"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Historian Tamara Griesser Pecar in an interview ([28]) should be able to see all of it if register for free as I was able to:
  • Who were the executors?
It is impossible to make divisions here between the Communist Party, its secret police OZNA and the partisan army, because the power structures were unified. The branches of government were not separated. This had been the key principle of the revolutionary authorities since 1944. The same people were serving at top posts in various bodies - Tito's government, military, OZNA, and so on. We cannot pretend ignorance. In the case of Tezno, those responsible were the Communist Party, OZNA, KNOJ (the Corps of National Liberation of Yugoslavia) and the III Yugoslav Army. When political commissioner Ivan Macek-Matija visited Tito at Drvar, it was agreed that opponents must be executed and as few trials staged as possible. But the names of those who were to be executed were not discussed in detail then. This was decided in Slovenia and the lists were definitely made by the Slovenian OZNA.
  • So Marshal Tito [long-time ruler of post-WWII Yugoslavia] gave the direct order?
Of course. The killings undoubtedly happened with his approval. It is likely that more detailed plans were made during Tito's visit in [the Croatian capital of] Zagreb and Ljubljana between 10 and 25 May 1945. - dwc lr (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All right. Not much more than a personal opinion, speculation and conspiracy theories ("he was in Zagreb [which was closer to the front] therefore he simply must have ordered the killing of thousands and thousands of his own civilians, for some reason"). This is an interview, not a published work (still less a peer review university publication), we'll make a note of that in the section.
Anyone else? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the best you can get, some obscure interview? Is there any evidence of orders other than personal speculations? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, a very, very weak source. I'd dismiss it myself, but since I stand here accused of bias and subjectivity in my approach...
It would be interesting after all this mess to finally see some references to actual evidence that led the scholar(s) to accuse this person of personal responsibility. If no such reference can be found thus far, I think nobody can remove a sentence to that effect in the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Whenever this matter came up, all I ever kept asking from the opposing side was a serious, published, scholarly work listing some kind of a reference. Just one. Anything. I'm not a historian, I don't know, I could be wrong, maybe this person did order all this - could ya show me the source? Best I got was this sort of rubbish - somebody somewhere once said to somebody that they really really believe Tito "must've" ordered the killing of thousands of people. But no, I'm a dangerous fanatic, a "POV-pusher", never mind me... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"In volume 2 of his biography of Tito, Dedijer reproduces such important documents as Tito's order of 13 May 1945 for the encirclement and annihilation of a force of some 50000 Ustashi and Chetniks attempting to surrender to the British through Dravograd." Mentioned in here [29][30] - dwc lr (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, dwc, that is not an order for the execution of POWs, obviously. Its an order for the encirclement and annihilation of a 50,000-strong Axis military force (refusing to surrender, mind you), such as any commander gives to his military forces. I can see you're trying though. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Regarding primary sources (actual documents and such), and historians listing them in their university publications, I'd like to present here a quote from one such source, just for an example to show what I mean:

  • Sabrina P. Ramet, Davorka Matić; Democratic transition in Croatia: value transformation, education & media; 2007, Texas A&M University Press; p. 274 ISBN 1-58544-587-8 [31]

Regarding accusations leveled at Tito for the execution of the "people's enemies" at the end of World War II (the famous case of Bleiburg), and under his watch, historian Zorica Stipetić notes: "It is certain that Tito has his share of responsibility... but I have to mention that documents involving this were published a number of times (in Ridley's book Prometej Magazine). Tito's telegram from Belgrade to the main headquarters of the Slovenian Partisan Army, dated 14 May 1945, prohibits in the sternest language the execution of prisoners of war and commands the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court."

The author points out that the published documents related to this matter are of little use to any accusations. On the contrary, Tito was in the habit, it seems, of sending express orders "in the sternest language" to his commanders to control their troops and prevent any killing of prisoners, before the killings even took place (this telegram was sent on May 14, the surrender began on May 15). I'd like to point out that this quote is the only reference to evidence regarding Tito's personal involvement in the crimes listed in this article and its talkpage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be also useful to mention this. Prof. Stipetić goes on to state that Tito's efforts "...saved Serbs in Croatia from the liquidation systematically carried out by the Ustaše [Croatian fascists], and also saved Croats from a potentially terrible Serb retaliation after the war." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


"In the habit" from one single instance? Whereas above, a group of 50,000 who, according to the source dwc provides, were attempting to surrender to the British, were "refusing to surrender". In one case, a single instance becomes a habit, and in the latter case, you directly contradict the source because you disagree (without providing an argument or source for why). And you wonder why people are inclined to see a POV problem with your edits. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I brought this source up from a previous discussion, and I recall that the opposing party claimed that that was a standard order Tito sent out to army headquarters before risky situations near the end of the war. I'll look into that. This does not, however, mean anything as far as these events are concerned.
Shadow, I can only conclude that the reason you think I have contradicted myself is because you know next to nothing about Yugoslav history and these specific events in particular. The Yugoslav Axis forces in question were trying to surrender to the British but were repeatedly rejected and directed to surrender to the Yugoslav units, which they once again refused to do. In fact, they refused to surrender to the Yugoslav army on a great many occasions, leading to the volatile situation in the first place. Of course they eventually surrendered to the Yugoslavs (May 15), but the order (May 13) was given under these circumstances. The bottom line is that the force in question was an Axis military force refusing to surrender - a belligerent. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

General note on primary sources

People here seem to be very intent on getting primary sources. A note: Primary sources are less desirable (according to Wikipedia guidelines) than secondary sources. Use of primary sources inevitably leads to original research and/or synthesis, and as such secondary sources are generally preferred. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Again this misunderstanding. I am calling for professional (scholarly), published secondary sources, since so far there are none. That's what the above section is about. I have, however, stated that it would be highly desirable if the secondary source listed a reference to a primary source as a basis for any accusations, simply because none whatsoever have so far been presented. The source in my post above is one such secondary source. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section is fundamentally and appallingly flawed.

The criticism section is fundamentally and appallingly flawed. For example, it starts off by quoting (and uses heavily throughout) the white supremacist Tomislav Sunić, who other people may think of as a reliable source, but I most certainly do not. Here are his thoughts on Jews. [32] I hope you have a stronger stomach for that filth than I do - I stopped reading about halfway down. More about Sunić: "In June 2008, the group hosted Tomislav Sunic, a former Croatian diplomat and the author of the anti-Semitic book Homo Americanus: Child of the Post-Modern Age, which argues that "Americanism," heavily influenced by Judaism, undermines traditional European morality. [33] "On June 24, about 40 people attended a talk by Pacifica Forum speaker Tomislav Sunic, who only three days earlier had addressed the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) at its national "leadership conference" in Sheffield, Ala. Sunic, a writer and white nationalist, had previously spoken to the Washington D.C.-area chapter of the CCC and the Institute for Historical Review (at least twice). He appeared on the "Political Cesspool," a white nationalist radio show, and was interviewed extensively for David Duke's Internet radio program. Sunic and the former Klan boss (whose latest book is entitled Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question) commiserated about Jewish domination, low birth rates among people of European ancestry and discrimination against whites. "Especially in these multiracial cities, like L.A. or Washington D.C., I'm losing my eye contact," Sunic confessed to Duke. "I'm sort of afraid even of raising my head and looking at people right in their eyes because I know they may not be of my species." [34].

The criticism section also relies heavily on Rummel, about whom we should maintain a high degree of scepticism. To quote Tomislav Dulić, "the estimates used by Rummel for Tito’s Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors". [35].

It then goes on to say that "The Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia, an office of the Slovenian Government whose task is to find and document mass grave sites from the Second World War and the period immediately after it, discovered at least 581 mass graves in the Slovenian territories [65] which “are believed to hold up to 100,000 bodies”[66] killed under Tito's government". None of this is true. The CCMGS has compiled a list of 581 sites which it believes worthy of inspection under the terms of its mandate. It has investigated just a few of these, and even where it has started to investigate, progress has been slow to say the least. For example, at Tezno, 1,179 bodies were discovered in 1999 (despite the wild speculation by the likes of Dežman and Ferenc about 15,000 bodies, so eagerly reported in the media), and at Barbara rov 300 bodies. That is not to say how many bodies will eventually be found - nobody knows - but what the article currently says is absolutely untrue.

Finally, it gives mention to Bernard Meares, of whom I have no criticism - I'm sure he's a fine man - but is he the best you can do? He "has lived in Trieste for some years, as a translator of the CERN Institute of Geneva". [36] Wow.

There's not much else in the criticism section. Unless you lot can come up with better than this in terms of sources, then it should be removed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


This, I can only call it a propaganda attack, has been building for months. These sources are each either elaborately "interpreted" with a clear agenda, or are unreliable in and of themselves. They were each carefully chosen for their wording, with the apparent goal of twisting the author's words into an accusation of personal guilt for post-war crimes.
Rummel. Rummel's paragraph which is the basis for much of the section, is completely misrepresented, with Rummel referring to the partisans and the new Yugoslav state (the "Tito regime"), not the person himself. Unbelievably, this Wikipedia article has transformed "The communist partisans and successor Tito regime committed massive democide" into "According to historian Rudolph J. Rummel, Tito was responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 people". Its like reading tabloid newspapers. And to this you still must add the accusations leveled at him by his peers for this "outburst".
Such "interpretations" abound, if an author by any chance chose to refer to the FPR Yugoslavia by using Tito's name in any way, or if he merely makes a reference to him being in power in the country at that time, this is immediately presented as a source on Tito's personal involvement in the killings - all this while we have his order of May 14 with him expressly commanding his officers to restrain their troops in order to prevent killings.
Quoting Stanovnik is another joke, and he simply has to be removed if the section is to have any semblance of seriousness. He is both an unreliable source, and his statement has been misrepresented on so many levels. Firstly 1) the man has a vested interest in riding himself, his associates, and Slovenia in general of any blame. Secondly 2) and most importantly, he comments on the fact that the killings were likely known to the high command afterward, criticizing their alleged subsequent cover-up ("there is no army in the world where such mass killing could take place without the knowledge of the supreme leadership"). He does not imply that the command was aware what was happening at Bleiburg during the chaos that reigned at the time of the killings. A cover-up is indeed something Tito might have been guilty of, but an actual order? This is far from it. Thirdly 3), he does not actually claim knowledge of the high command's involvement, but merely expresses his opinion that they "must've been" involved. Its an opinion.
Other sources are covered by Al here. Gentlemen, the fact remains you've yet to come up with a published source that clearly "accuses Tito of being responsible for the mass killings". The only worthwhile university publication presented actually offers undeniable proof, black-on-white orders to his troops NOT to commit the killings. What's going on here? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I share your concerns, Direktor. Perhaps we should counterbalance the section with some pro-Tito sources, so readers can consult both, compare and contrast the two, and then draw their own conclusion(s). Just my two cents. Josh (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Teach the controversy? :) Yes I like the idea, but that would be "phase two", I think? Firstly we should get rid of these pre-prepared rubbish "sources". Only having weeded out the junk we can we move on to present an unbiased view. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Josh, the whole article is rather pro-Tito, that's why the POV tag was added here. Besides, the solution to biased POV from one side is never to insert more biased POV from the other side. Alasdair's argument about Rummel is not particularly strong. He accuses Rummel of being a bad researcher, but I tend to place more trust in a distinguished professor in history than an anonymous Wikipedia user. Having said that, I have repeatedly asked DIREKTOR, and I now also ask Alasdair, what criticism they would like to focus on.Jeppiz (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The whole article is not "pro-Tito", I'm sure you'll grant that's your own assessment many do not agree with. In all objectivity, he was a pretty amazing guy, from a secret agent through guerrilla commander, (minor) WWII leader all the way to founder of Non-Aligned Movement. He was immensely popular when he died. His life is a success story, simply elaborating on that is "biased" only in uninformed eyes.
Anyway, we are not talking about the whole article but the section. Are you implying that this section should be allowed to be biased in its approach to the serious issues it discusses? The "pro-Tito sources" are sources concerning the alleged crimes, and there is no reason they should be excluded from a section that deals with those same crimes. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's my own assessment, nobody can form anything but their own assessment. And no, there is no objectivity in your saying "he was a pretty amazing guy" and "His life is a success story". That's your own assessment, neither more right nor more wrong than mine.Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was quoting Prof. Pavlowitch (more or less, from memory). :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Alasdair quite rigthly pointed out problems with Sunic. I had a quick look, and the sources were among the worst I've seen in use at Wikipedia. A site such as "Media Lies" is bad enough, but to include material from IHR in an article dealing with WWII is, well, let's just say it's not something we're going to do. There were other, less appaling, sources that did not meet WP:RS under any interpretation. I've removed these sources and the "claims" they made.Jeppiz (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We already agreed Rummel is quite plainly misinterpreted. The Slovene commission pragraph is BS, as Al clearly explains, and Stanovnik is a joke. Are you starting to see why this was always opposed? There seem to be no sources. I am not biased. I've got over 20,000 edits on enWiki and I do give a damn about sources and accuracy. Josip Broz Tito is a symbol for many people, unfortunately, and most of this has its roots in politics. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with you, Direktor. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, DIREKTOR, I meant nothing negative when I spoke about your POV. I believe every person has, and should have, their own POV. At the moment, I can neither agree nor disagree about Stanovnik, but I will look into it. Believe, I am not here for having a criticism section just for the sake of having a criticism section. I have repeatedly asked for critical sources, but I must agree with you that few reliable critical sources have been provided. To avoid new major embarassments along the lines of MediaLies and IHR as sources, could I suggest that we present and discuss sources here first rather than just adding them into the article?Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Its true I'm more involved here than elsewhere, but that just means I'm all the more interested in making sure the article remains unbiased.
I know you disagree, User:AndreaFox2. I'm sorry, but we simply cannot have these "interpretations" of yours. Your sources focus the crimes themselves, and not on Tito's actual involvement. Its just that you seem to have cleverly picked out the sources which talk about the crimes and mention Tito in that context ("Tito's Yugoslavia", "Tito's Regime"). Allowing you to "interpret" that as an accusation of guilt. That only works until someone bothers to check them, however.
What about the Slovene comission? I invite everyone here to respond to Al's post on that particular source. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The wording should probably be changed to reflect how many sites have been registered as opposed to discovered. - dwc lr (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It’s just Stanovnik’s opinion I don't see an issue including it. I think the historian Tamara Griesser Pecar’s view should also be put in along with your source “Tito’s telegram from Belgrade to the main headquarters of the Slovenian Partisan Army, dated 14 May 1945, prohibits in the sternest language the execution of prisoners of war and commands the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court." Everyone cares about sources and accuracy the sources left appear to be compliant with WP:RS. - dwc lr (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Jeppiz, you and I may have got off to a bad start, but I am more than willing to discuss things with you. This is, however, provided that you refrain from comments and snide criticism such as the one above where you say "Alasdair's argument about Rummel is not particularly strong. He accuses Rummel of being a bad researcher, but I tend to place more trust in a distinguished professor in history than an anonymous Wikipedia user". I suggest you strike that, as I nowhere do I accuse Rummel of being a bad researcher. What I did was to quote Tomislav Dulić from the Uppsala Programme for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Uppsala University, who wrote that "the estimates used by Rummel for Tito’s Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors". Please strike your remarks and be more careful in future. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Alasdair, you're quite right. With comments like that I only make myself look ignorant while contributing nothing to the debate. I've struck it out and apologise for a particularly bad wording.Jeppiz (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all Jeppiz ;-) I'm sure we can work together very well in the future. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picked sources

Lets talk about each source one by one. This issue, however, I'd like to bring-up separately: sources that deal only with the killings themselves, and not with Josip Broz Tito, obviously have no place in an article dealing with Josip Broz Tito. Their inclusion here is meant to imply personal guilt, and such POV is plainly unacceptable. These sources have been cleverly chosen for the fact that they mention Tito in the context of these events, so as to justify their inclusion somehow. None of them, however, actually accuse Josip Broz Tito of the killings or even describe his involvement in any way. They were cherry-picked in most cases because the author chose to use Tito's name in referring to the Partisans and/or the new Yugoslav state (variations on "Tito's regime"). In short, they're here because they can be misrepresented. How can this ploy that's plain as day remain in the article?

Most of these sources have been prepared beforehand, apparently, and constitute the majority of the sources in there. They are:

  • 1) Goldhagen ("Josip Tito's communist regime")
  • 2) Rummel ("Tito regime")
  • 3) Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia
    • Now this is obviously here only to make the section sound more gruesome. All other considerations aside, what is this doing in the article in the first place? The Commission does not even mention Tito, let alone accuses him of any responsibility. This is not the article on the Bleiburg massacre.

This brigs us to Stanovnik

  • 4) Stanovnik.
    • An unreliable source. An opinion. Misinterpreted, with Stanovnik referring to the alleged subsequent cover-up. What Stanovnik essentially says is that in his personal opinion, the high-command must've found out about the killings. Not that the high-command ordered them to be carried out (which would be contrary to sources).

I think anyone can see through these four sources. Why are they still in the article on Josip Broz Tito? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Having taken some time to look into this, I must say I concur to a certain degree. We've been here for a week now, and the criticism that exists seems to deal with the Yugoslavian regime, not Tito personally. I think a few of the sources and facts are relevant for the article, but rather than having a "criticism" section, I would advocate putting them into the other material. I'm yet to see any evidence that Tito ordered any massacre, and it would be blatantly wrong to make such an accusation without explicit proof. I do think it's relevant to mention that his troops carried out such massacres, but it should be put into its historical context.Jeppiz (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Jeppiz. Josh (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • “victims of Tito’s mass shootings, forced death marches and concentration camps”; and the figure of "250,000"
    • Ok, lets clarify which source is this from so it can be verified and the source himself mentioned in the article text if it all checks out? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Here's anotehr quote. Historian Zdravko Dizdar, in his paper "An Addition to the Research of the Problem of Bleiburg and the Way of the Cross", states

Josip Broz Tito, vrhovni zapovjednik NOV i PO Jugoslavije i predsjednik Nacionalnog komiteta oslobođenja Jugoslavije, uputio je 30. VIII. 1944. "Posljednji poziv" svim "zavedenim slugama okupatora", i to "svim hrvatskim domobranima, slovenskim domobrancima i zavedenim četnicima, da napuste okupatora i pređu na stanu Narodno-oslobodilačke vojske" do 15. rujna 1944, uz prijetnju da svi oni koji to ne učine "bit će izvedeni pred ratni sud, suđeni kao izdajnici naroda i kažnjeni najstrožom kaznom" te naglašavanje da o tom pitanju "Saveznici ne će da se miješaju u naša unutrašnja pitanja" te da ih nitko "ne će spriječiti da kaznimo izdajnike naroda i slugu okupatora". (Vidi: N. BARIĆ, 2003, 496. / faksimil letka/). No, pozivi su se ponavljali još u nekoliko navrata. Tako je već 15. IX. 1944. Tito u svezi s istekom roka iz navedenog poziva izdao zapovijed postrojbama NOV i POJ da sve one koji se nisu uspjeli dobrovoljno predati, to ipak učine, prihvate i one koji dobrovoljno ostaju u partizanima uvrste u svoje redove, s tim da svi podoficiri i oficiri zadržavaju svoje činove, a oni koji to ne žele "staviti u zarobljeničke logore", dok za sve one koji se uhvate na neprijateljskoj strani s oružjem u ruci "staviti pred vojni sud i po hitnom postupku suditi i najstrožije kazniti".

translated:

Josip Broz Tito, supreme commander of the NOV and PO of Yugoslavia [the Partisans, the Yugoslav army] and President of the National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia [i.e. NKOJ, the Yugoslav wartime coalition government] issued on 30 August 1944 the "final appeal" to all "deluded servants of the occupation", i.e. "all Croatian Domobrani, Slovene Domobranci, and deluded Chetniks, to abandon the occupation forces and cross over to the side of the People's Liberation Army" [the appeal would last] up to 15 September 1944, with the warning that those who do not do so "will be brought before a wartime tribunal, tried as traitors of the people, and punished with the utmost severity" while emphasizing that "our Allies will not interfere in our internal affairs", and that "noone will prevent us from punishing the traitors of the people and the servants of the occupation". However, these appeals [by Tito] were repeated on several occasions. Thus already on 15 September 1944 as the deadline for the appeal arrived, Tito issued an order to all units of the NOV i POJ that all those who did not manage to cross over willingly, be still allowed to do so, and that all those who willingly choose to stay with the Partisans be integrated into the formations, adding that all NCOs and officers be allowed to keep their ranks, and that those who still refuse be "placed in prisoner camps", while all those caught on the enemy's side with weapons "be placed before a military tribunal, tried, and punished with the utmost severity".

The author continues to state

On the basis of this order began the founding of the prisoner of war camps and the placement of prisoners in them. After these appeals came the general amnesties of the Presidency of the AVNOJ (from 21 September 1944) and Tito's warnings.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RM text from Criticism section

I have been bold enough to remove the following text from the Criticism section: "In 1944, Tito signed a the decree that ordered the government confiscation of all property, without compensation, of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans” [73] and “an additional law, promulgated in Belgrade on February 6, 1945, cancelled the Yugoslav citizenship of the country’s ethnic Germans” [74].

Reasoning:
1) It's culled directly from a text written by Sunić for the IHR here;
2) As we have seen previously with other parts of the Criticism section, it makes a complete dog's breakfast of the facts. There was no "additional law". The AVNOJ decree of 21 Nov 1944 was passed into law by the Belgrade decision of 6 Feb 1945. It was the same thing. If you are interested, what the AVNOJ decision actually said was this: "‘Decision on the transition of enemy property into state ownership, on state administration over the property of absent persons, and on sequestration of property forcibly appropriated by occupation authorities’. Article 1 of the decision states precisely the status of ethnic Germans' property: "To be transferred into state ownership on the day this Decision becomes effective: 1. All property of the German Reich and its citizens situated on the territory of Yugoslavia; 2. All property owned by persons of German nationality, with the exception of those Germans who were members of the National Liberation Army and Yugoslav partisan formations, or are citizens of a neutral country who displayed no animosity during enemy occupation; 3. All property of war criminals and their accomplices, with no regard to nationality....". Full details can be found here;
3) It's untrue that Nov 44 decree/Feb 45 law "cancelled the Yugoslav citizenship of the country’s ethnic Germans" - this happened later, in the summer of 1945. Specifically, the Provisional Plenary Assembly of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia passed a citizenship law on 23 August 1945 which stipulated in article 16 that members of those nationalities “whose states had taken part in the war against the peoples of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, and who, during or before the war, by disloyal behaviour, had violated the national and public interests of the peoples of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, and hence their duty as citizens thereof”, could be deprived of their Yugoslav citizenship - it's here;
4) It's quite hard to see how any of the stuff in question here can be converted into criticism of Tito. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A week at the Tito article

Hi Guys,

I know that what I said to you in my outburst, the one that earned me a weekend in the cooler, was wrong. Of course it was. I apologise to you for that. A week later, however, I think you can see what we are up against here in the 'Balkan' domain. AndreaFox entered a post at ANI which superficially looked genuine. You all supported him/her. With hindsight, it can be seen that the edit(s) entered that DIREKTOR and I opposed/rejected/reverted were appallingly POV, entirely wrong in factual terms in various points (eg. about the CCMGS, the ethnic Germans) and supported by a desperate scratching around for internet sources that, when found, ranged from the neo-fascist (Sunić/IHR) to the vaguely circumstantial (Meares the translator). I, personally, have no doubt that Tito was no angel - he was a flawed human being, just as we all are - but I will not stand idly by while POV monsters attempt to abuse our Wikipedia to "fight the good fight". That's why I was (unacceptably) angry a week ago, but I hope that the developments of the last week enable you all to see what we face here. I, speaking only for myself, think that the Tito article in question dwells way too much on the WWII period, with not enough on the major period that should be covered, namely his time as head of state. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither here nor there on the end result, as long as people are providing decent arguments for why sourced information should be removed. In most cases I agree, though I'm not happy with ad hominem attacks on sources; as much as might like it to be otherwise, being anti-Semitic doesn't invalidate every other opinion held by a person. I'd prefer if you confined your remarks to the substance (or lack thereof) in their scholarship, rather than running dangerously close to Godwin's Law.
I'm not convinced that sources referencing the Tito regime don't reflect on Tito himself, but I'm fine with confining detailed discussion to articles related to the incidents themselves. Of course, if we discount negative acts of the Tito regime for which no source directly implicates Tito, we should do the same for positive acts for which there is no evidence of his direct involvement (issuing the orders explicitly, or actively participating). We have far too much completely unsourced information; I'll likely start tagging it in the near future, and remove it if it remains unsourced for more than a month or so.
On the problem of dwelling on the WWII period, I completely agree (thus my initial stab at trimming one section down to those things which directly relate to Tito). If it had been Tito's actions in WWII, I wouldn't mind the length, but when it's a complete history of the Yugoslavian front, it's getting out of hand. I left the other sections untouched; I don't want to take ownership of this article, and would prefer others contribute by performing similar trimming on other sections, where warranted. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
ShadowRanger, being anti-Semitic of course invalidates every single opinion that a person could possibly hold, as it demonstrates that they are incapable of rational thought. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Shadow, you're not anti-Semitic, are you? Your words worry me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
LoL... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh… no, I'm not. Born and raised Jewish actually (still consider myself Jewish culturally, if not religiously, and I still fast on Yom Kippur, mostly out of habit). But unfortunately, if you make the assertion that irrational thought in one area renders all opinions held by a person invalid, you end up discarding 99.999% of all people in the history of the world as a valid source. Religious belief is irrational on a technical level, but I don't hold it against anyone (unless they try and force it on me in particular). Most people have irrational beliefs of one form or another when it comes to economics, or probability, or psychology (and I don't just mean uninformed, I mean beliefs that defy the facts they are personally aware of). If someone was honestly raised to think Jews were horrible people, then yes, his opinions regarding Jews, and possibly religion as a whole are going to be suspect. If you get someone early enough, you can do quite a lot of damage, and it's very hard to undo. But it doesn't mean that you can't trust him to tell you the weather yesterday (well, unless you're Jewish I suppose). It's quite possible to compartmentalize irrational beliefs, and as such, you can't discount works of scholarship solely on the basis of anti-Semitism. That said, if he's got other issues relating directly to the scholarship involved, those are fair game, but anti-Semitism is only relevant if it would affect his judgment on the topic he is being sourced for. I just prefer to comment on the substantive issues over the ad hominem. Besides, unless you've got a source, it's probably a WP:BLP issue. :-) —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
A question: Given my inclusion of "as much as might like it to be otherwise", how precisely did you read antisemitism into my comment? Remember to assume good faith, or at least, don't ignore critical parts of a message and jump directly to assuming bad faith. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It's clear you are scared, Shadow. Has this week of goddam Sunić and untrue nonsense and me spending a week in the cooler been down to this rubbish? Where is your leader Andreja? Nothing from him/her. An anti-Semitic remark from Shadow. And so the whole discussion, that got me a weekend in the cooler, ends up with a farty sound........... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

How about we end this? Anti-semitism does prove one's irrational, but so does religion. :) However, Sunić appears to have substantial biases which render him unsuitable as a reliable source. I'm wondering which of the two listed sources was used to quote this:

  • "“victims of Tito’s mass shootings, forced death marches and concentration camps” has been put at 250,000."

I'm fascinated with these new Yugoslav "concentration camps" that killed a quarter of a million people. First time I ever heard of Yugoslav "concentration camps". Sounds like someone's being "liberal" with the term so I'd like to check the source and at least mention the exact origin of the quote in the article text. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote is from P.H. Liotta. - dwc lr (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, dwc. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh, lol. Unsurprisingly, the source of that is Borivoje Karapandžić, a well known Ljotićevac ("Ljotić-ist"), a Serbian fascist. I'll get back to you on him. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you, Shadow, for correcting my stupidity. :) That could not have been in worse taste. Apologies to all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This week in the news

I'm not interested in getting into the petty arguments surrounding this article. But I will relay the information that Croatian police are reporting the discovery in the centre of the city of Karlovac of a mass grave of people executed by Partisans after World War II [37]. One of several such discoveries this year.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Wanderer, and now the weather... I'm sure they've also found evidence linking those killings to the Yugoslav general headquarters, otherwise you wouldn't be mentioning it on the Josip Broz Tito talkpage, right? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, actually. Apparently Josip Boljkovac, the head of all internment and work camps in Croatia, doesn't quite recall too much about the Dubovac internment camp from which these people were taken and executed. So logically he can't be held responsible. And the discovery of mass graves from Slavonija to Zagorje to Gorski Kotor all the way down through Dalmatia must just have been a few isolated incidents. Ivan Fumić says so, so it must be true. And Tito would certainly have stopped these killings - lasting from May to at least the end of 1945 - but by the time he heard about them, it must have been too late. Tito was truly a great man. And the weather is cloudy today ;).--Thewanderer (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What I find hilarious about titoists who deny such things (In the same realm as people who deny the Holocaust) is that they continue to push his "great leadership" on the democratic intellectual West which is completely illogical - they should take notes from the Goldstiens (titoists and self-proclaimed "antifascists") who state that tito knew about all of it, if he simply "didn't know" about hundreds of thousands of persecutions being attributed to his cause by his own men; well that would -logically- make him a bad leader. AP1929 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment to the free Western world

Josip Broz Tito was a Communist Dictator. Anyone who disputes this fact is whitewashing history and using this media for political purposes. Calling Tito an authoritarian prime minister or president is nothing but mislead rubbish. Tito, as pointed out by his own followers such as the Goldstien's, Djilas' and Bakaric's, knew about the Bleiburg massacres - he ordered them, and he later sent out UDBA spies into the free and democratic world to literally kill over 100 Croatian political emigrants (not including others). He is solely behind the system which put Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac in prison through mock-trial and later killed him as well as thousands of others who were politically persecuted in SFRJ. During the Croatian Spring movement in the 70s, Tito imprisoned his own communist henchmen for trying to preach basic human rights. He took men who fought in his own ranks as well as thousands of other political prisoners from SFRJ and sent them to places like Goli Otok - this is without mentioning Bleigburg, Jazovka, Maribor,Kocevski Rog, Lepoglava etc. What happened to Andrija Hebrang? Ivo Lola Ribar? Bruno Busic? The Djurekovic's ? I am putting through a complaint to Wiki about DIREKTOR's monopoly here in related articles where he continuously deletes sources which do not suit him politically etc. Tito, was a COMMUNIST DICTATOR WHO COMMITTED DEMOCIDE. AP1929 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how User:AP1929 ("AntePavelić 1929") himself claims he's an Ustaše sympathizer and proud of it(!), I'll take his opposition here as a compliment and a pat on the back. Thank you, AP. Please do make your opposition as widely known as possible. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of it, but Tito was a dictator. The Yugoslav people didn't have a choice in who ran their country. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There's no point discussing the matter, the term is highly unencyclopedic and since the Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini articles don't use it, I can hardly see it being pushed here. No doubt AP will quickly begin with his comments... be advised that User:AP1929 is a well known Ustaše POV-pusher. This is not my characterization either, he himself admits it and is proud of it, in fact he apparently considers it a compliment that I should say so... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Authoritarian leader, is the preferred alternate discriptive usage. His top office is 'President of Yugoslavia'. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh... we've so far went by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as our primary source for encyclopedic terms with regard to Josip Broz Tito. The label of "dictator" is highly debatable. The current lead is an adaptation of Britannica's own wording. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd still argue that 'authoritarian leader' should be in the lead (as a descriptive). GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
AP does not stand for Ante Pavelic, and what I said on a user page was complete and utter sarcasm to push your buttons. YOU are a FAN of TITO the YUGOSLAV DICTATOR and MASS MURDERER and his fascist government and illegal state! There is proof on your user page as such. If I am "not credible" based on your idiotic ramblings based on absolute hunches - then how are you as someone who LOVES the democidal locksmith dictator who slaughtered hundreds and thousands of people?! In titos COMMUNIST yugoslavia there were no parties but the communist party of which he was the undisputed ruler! Various encyclopedias, even recent online ones refer to him as a communist dictator, he was also featured on dictatorofthemonth.com ! Take a look at works by Tolstoy, Prcela (the undisputed king of Bleiburg research), Rummel, a GENOCIDE EXPERT - open your eyes and just look at the state itself. Today people want to disguise his communist dictatorship with notions of socialism and democracy which have absolutely nothing to do with tito`s prison state. He lead the REVOLUTION he was STALIN`s war-time puppet, the head of the communist revolution in yugoslavia a pre-war time communist party figure! Tito communist bloodthirsty dictatorship was one of the worst the world has ever seen! AP1929 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
LoL... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica on Josip Broz Tito: He knew that the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others could not be integrated within some new supranation, nor would they willingly accept the hegemony of any of their number; yet his supranational Yugoslavism frequently smacked of unitarism. He promoted self-management but never gave up on the party’s monopoly of power. He permitted broad freedoms in science, art, and culture that were unheard of in the Soviet bloc, but he kept excoriating the West. He preached peaceful coexistence but built an army that, in 1991, delivered the coup de grâce to the dying Yugoslav state. At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos.
  • BBC UK/History on Josip Broz Tito (by Tim Judah): Tito's Yugoslavia also gained enormous prestige as a founder of the non-aligned movement, which aimed to find a place in world politics for countries that did not want to stand foursquare behind either of the two superpowers. Despite all this, and although there was much substance to Tito's Yugoslavia, much was illusion too. The economy was built on the shaky foundations of massive western loans. Even liberal communism had its limits, as did the very nature of the federation. Stirrings of nationalist dissent in Croatia and Kosovo were crushed. The federation worked because in reality the voice of only one man counted - that of Tito himself. Sir Floyd (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
LoL AP, don't be silly :D, you told me yourself what "AP" means, and goodness knows how many times you screamed at anyone who'd listen what a "great man" Ante Pavelić was, and how you're an Ustaše supporter. Heh, always fun...
Sir Floyd, what's all this? Perhaps according to you the "stirrings of nationalist dissent" should not have been "crushed"? I am aware of Yugoslav history, and you can find a dozen interpretations in dozen books. The point is that we're talking about encyclopedic terms describing Tito in general, for that you need encyclopedias (believe it or not :). Britannica uses "Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman", in spite of all the cherry-picked quotes you found in it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you didn't get my sarcasm or irony. People like you, just as tito did, tend to find little non-existent "Ustase" in everyone. You even just pointed to the notion yourself by posing a question to SirFloyd as to whether or not "stirrings of nationalist dissent" should have been crushed and then pointed to the "Yugoslav Wars" (which is a DEROGATORY term used solely by Yugo-nostalgic FASCISTS like yourself who wish to maintain that the Homeland war of Defense or the Bosnian Wars were merely inter-civil wars based around the "big bad nationalists" and religion - which is completely and utterly FALSE). Crushing national feeling the way tito did is wrong. The people acting on nationalism were oppressed and would not have acted as such if they had not been forcefully integrated into titos fascist national-communist state. Do you think people like Franko Tudman, Marko Veselica, current President Stipe Mesic, Drazen Budisa and dozens of others were "Ustase" or big bad Croatian nationalists ? They lobbied for FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS and tito SQUASHED them and branded even them (communists!) as "Ustase nationalists" - this is what brought his demise ! Those who live by the sword, die by the sword and history has proven this over and over again. Wikipedia is NOT simply a carbon copy of Britanica built upon only sources from the mentioned - nor do Britannica entries trump every other source that is available. Tito was a communist dictator who was the totalitarian leader of the one-partied communist yugoslavia which opressed and killed hundreds and thousands of people. Calling him a socialist Prime Minister or President is misleading to the general public and is a disgrace to Western Academia. AP1929 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Good one Mr Director, insulting the whole Croatian people (& Kosovo) to the core. This time you have gone too far. In order to clear this up, can you please explain your comment. This is what I found here at Talk:Josip Broz Tito "should not have been crushed" meaning what exactly? AP1929 you made some good points there but please keep your cool.Sir Floyd (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If I seem a little edgy it is because I am highly insulted by several things DIREKTOR has produced right here on this very page. A few of my family members were persecuted under tito's totalitarian communist regime and users like DIREKTOR (he seems to be the only one but there are a few on here) are producing derogatory comment after comment. I take offense to the rationalizing of "crushing" so-called Croatian nationalists (especially those who weren't even acting out against the state, more so ethnic Croatian communists, who were devout yugoslavs and communists - fighting for regular civil rights). I am highly offended at comments DIREKTOR has made in regards to justifying the Bleigburg massacres in which hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered without trial against the Geneva Conventions and against any form of civil society. Those people, whether he or tito liked it or not - were citizens of the newly created state and were slaughtered unlawfully without trial, to this day no one has been (not one single person!) held accountable for these crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, people like DIREKTOR seem to be wanting to whitewash history in order to preserve the image of the genocidal-democidal locksmith totalitarian communist dictator. I am also offended by the terminology "Yugoslav Wars"; which, again, is highly offensive and misleading. AP1929 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
And I am highly offended that people defend those psychopathic Ustashi monsters that were killed at Bleiburg. If some of your ancestors were NDH collaborators, that is not sth to brag about on some random Internet fora, it's sth to be deeply ashamed of. But seeing that it comes from a person who has Ante Pavelić's initials in his username (and judging from your contribs, that is not a coincidence), it's pretty much clear that DIREKTOR is doing a good job filtering out revisionist Croatian pseudo-historiography, because guys like you are supposed to be infuriated with the truth. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica/BBC UK-History

In the Criticism section I would like to add Encyclopaedia Britannica (or the BBC UK-History [38]) statements. Can we come to a consensus on this, please!

Also I have: Ivo Goldstein: 'Croatia A History', a Mc Gill Queen’s University Press Publication.:

“In Tito’s system no interest or ideas could be expressed in a truly democratic way. This did most harm where feelings of ethnic identity were concerned because their suppression led to growth of extreme nationalism. Furthermore, the economic failure of Tito’s system, most clearly expressed in the protracted crisis of the 1980s, left people who even if they were not poor, were disillusioned and open to manipulation by demagogues. Finally Tito’s practical solutions ensured that he would retain unlimited power during his life time, but foreshadowed the problems would come after his death.” Ivo Goldstein: 'Croatia A History' page 187, a Mc Gill Queen’s University Press Publication. Ivo Goldstein is a Professor at the University of Zagreb.

The below referenced information is from 'Government Leaders, Military Rulers and Political Activists: An Encyclopaedia of People Who Changed the World (Lives & Legacies Series)’ by David W. Del Testa.

Yugoslavia under Tito was a curious combination of relative economic and cultural freedom and total political repression and control. The lack of political freedom made debate on the role of ethnic identity in Yugoslavia impossible. Tito’s regime had created temporary stability in a historically unstable region. Treated almost as a mythic hero in his lifetime, Tito’s image began to decay in the years following his death, undermining the legitimacy of the regime so connected to his cult of personality.' Tito Leader of Yugoslavia-Legacy David W. Del Testa has a Ph.D. in History from the University of California at Davis.

Thank You Sir Floyd (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As always, User:Sir Floyd is simply unable to comprehend that this is not the article on Yugoslav history. For the twentieth time, Floyd, you will not succeed in listing all negative aspects of Yugoslavia, of the Yugoslav economy, etc in this article and presenting them in such a way as to blame it all squarely on this person. This time I won't be the idiot that repeats this time and again.
Sir Floyd, this is all valid, sourced information and please do include it somewhere, but would ya please stop trying to scapegoat all Yugoslav problems on this guy? Listing the negative aspects of Yugoslavia would require that the positive aspects be listed as well, and then we'd have another article on Yugoslav history, except that it would use "Yugoslavia under Tito" or "Tito's regime" or "Tito's Yugoslavia" instead of "Yugoslavia". All because you feel the need to keep on pushing your POV here. If you want to do something constructive, include this info in relevant articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
SirFloyd's additions to discussion are ever so relevant as the paint a picture of what kind of country TITO was the head of, he was the undisputed totalitarian communist dictator who oppressed the people within yugoslavia - yes HIM, not his "regime" not his "country" he directly oppressed the peoples of yugoslavia - ESPECIALLY Croatians. DIREKTOR is simply trying to whitewash history in defending a totalitarian communist dictator who is responsible for democide and genocide. I can not believe other moderators have not stepped in to view this fascist revisionism and national-communism worship (one step higher than national-socialism!) AP1929 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks AP1929. So thats two of us. Any other Editor would like to contribute to this consensus, concerning Encyclopaedia Britannica as valid addition to the Tito article. Dear Director nobody owns a article on Wikipedia (WP:OWN). You know I might just use Ivo Goldstein as a reference in the Yugoslav article. Also I share AndreaFox2 concerns.Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Sir Floyd, the source is not in question, its the fact that you're intent on adding unrelated information to push a political agenda. I'm glad you and the (self-proclaimed) Ustaše sympathizer agree, it acurately paints the picture about your particular point of view in this.
("User:AP1929"? "Ante Pavelić 1929" - 1929 being the year the Croatian fascist/ultranationalist Ustaše movement was founded by Ante Pavelić. For the record, Ante Pavelić has been termed the "Balkans Hitler", while the Nazi-modelled Ustaše movement is responsible for the holocaust in WWII Yugoslavia, numbering hundreds of thousands of victims in concentration camps and the attempt at the wholesale extermination of the Serbian population in today's Croatia and Bosnia on racial grounds. But no, I must be wrong, "AP" now just means "Apple Pineapple", right?) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Direktor! Is this the forum to discuss Editors political beliefs? I don't like Communist or Fascist/Nazi movements. How about you? True in the past, Tito was considered to be a hero, but since the fall of the Berlin wall, from a Western point of view, a different picture is emerging. Wikipedia should reflect that and it can be referenced with Encyclopedia Britannica & BBC-History. I'm not for a dramatic change of the article, for now. There will be more research done concerning the aftermath of WW2 in Yugoslavia and it's not looking good. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Just saying, I'm glad I'm opposing whatever is proposed by a guy that considers being called an "Ustaše" a compliment. (Please, no bull about that being a "joke" AP, I do not happen to be retarded. don't make me start quoting some of your statements here.)
You said it, research is being done concerning events of WWII Yugoslavia - not concerning Josip Broz Tito's involvement in them. This is a distinction you are either mentally unable to grasp after four different users have pointed it out for you on some twenty occasions, or, which seems more likely, you are trying to deceive people here by ignoring it, and cleverly adopting an altogether fake semblance of objectivity. Nice try, the incredible nonsense you pushed on earlier occasions clearly betrays your political agenda here. For future reference, I am not interested in your predictions or your evaluations of this person's behavior. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
So essentially, you have no actual rebuttal other than AP1929 is an Ustasa and because of that he is wrong, and anyone who agrees with him is like him. Hahahahaha - Can anyone count the ad hominems or fallacies of composition? I counted 7, can anyone see any more? This ladies and gentlemen is what these balkan neanderthals act like. It's not about tito anymore, oh no, ofcourse not, even though this is tito's talk page, it is about the genocidal (impossible) Ustasa regime and Ante Pavelic, his supporters and Croatian Franciscans who can defy the laws of physics and slaughter 7 trillion people in one night to win a succulent roasted pig. Who said anything about tito anyways? AP1929 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoping you're not just deleting passages

I decided not to involve myself in this page for some days in order to see what other users think about it and in order not to push things further. I see the majority of the "criticism" section has been deleted, because the deleted passages regarded "Tito's regime", not "Tito". I still don't agree that writing "Tito's regime" or "Tito" is like writing two different things, especially in an authioritarian government. However, as some users think it is something different and they keep repeting passages about "Tito's regime" should be transported in other articles, i will accept their decision, but i still have one question. Are you really transporting passages regarding "Tito's regime" elsewhere or are you simply deleting them? And if you are tranporting them, then can you please tell me where you have transport them? I'm writing this, because if you have said these passages must be transported elsewhere and then you have simply deleted them, then i have to assume you have deleted them only to push your personal POVs and so you have violated wikipedia policies. I hope it's not the case and i hope you'll answer my question. Thanks. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox2, your criticism is nonsensical. Nothing is "deleted" on Wikipedia, the text is still there should you want to move it somewhere. I do not think I am somehow obligated to work to incorporate that text somewhere simply because it isn't suited for this article. Because of your agenda, this article would eventually be turned into the "History of Yugoslavia" article where opposite sides would be listing the pros and cons about "Tito's Yugoslavia" - because you fished out some authors that chose those words to refer to this period. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"Nothing is deleted on Wikipedia" is a petty argument and you should know that deleting a sourced passage without transporting it elsewhere may be considered vandalism. You may be blocked if you keep accusing other users who disagree with you of being Ustase and if you keep deleting their contributions. Particularly I think accusing Floyd and AP of being Ustase is not only against wikipedia policies, as it's clear you're trying a reductio ad hitlerum against them, but it's sadly hylarius too, considering that in your user page you wrote you support militarism, racism and "Josip Broz Tito's views". You are lucky that Tito is a very minor hystorical figure and that people on en.wiki generally don't care about his page, because if he would have been important you couldn't have keep acting like this for so long. I'm telling you this because i want to advise you about assuming a better way of behaving towards other users and towards wikipedia itself, as on the German, French and Italian wikipedia you can see that both the italian and slavic POV pushers have already been banned, while it seems that on en.wiki only the italian ones have been banned. Looks i have to wait some more time. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean AndreaFox2?! Tito wasn't important ?! How could you say such a thing?? Do you know how many important people came to his funeral! Do you know that all of yugoslavia cried when tito croaked ? Hahahaha. It's great that you've noticed that no, in fact, tito is nobody and nothing but a DEMocidal totalitarian communist dictator. To top it off he was a locksmith by trade probably learned to read shortly after the war. He was a a puppet in regards to geopolitical relations between the east and west during the cold war years - his legacy and his psychopathic bloodthirsty trail ended with his sick national experiment which will never ever ever ever return ever. In the end, if people DID care - they would realize that this entire article which DIREKTOR has a WN:OWN on is a disgrace to the western world, freedom and democracy. AP1929 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not constructive talk AP1919 and AndreaFox2. You have made a lot of edits to this article and obviously have a very strong POV from your comments here. I think your comments do not assume good faith and may have gone too far. Polargeo (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if you have feel that way, i didn't want to sound offensive. Maybe you will understand that i may have not assume goog faith from specific users on this specific subject after (as examples) they had call me "twat" and "monster" and after they had not assumed my good faith since the very beginning on the very same subject. I apologise if anyone has been offended by my comment/s. However, i don't understand how can i have "a very strong POV" or how can i have "gone too far" as i only pointed out Tito wasn't that important: that's my opinion and you can disagree. Feel free to question my edits. However, i don't think they are POV: i only transported some quotes on wikiquote, i requested citations for controversial passages and i deleted a piece of article which was copyed by an article already linked in Tito's page. Maybe it's you the one who isn't assuming my good faith. If it's not the case, i apologise once more. See ya. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that we are allowed to use Britannica at all as a reference, let alone quote it? I remember a while back one user told me that we cannot use other encyclopedias as sources that way. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, you spoiled my surprise. We should probably remove that nonsense right now since its in blatant violation of copyright law... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
From WP:RS: Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. The actual usage here does strike me as a proper one under the cited guideline, but dedicating an entire subsection just to "Britannica" and another one to "BBC", without providing any context for the quotes, does not. Obviously we're dealing with more Tito-bashing propaganda of AndreaFox, similar to what he has done before with using other "respectable" sources. No, we're not dealing with neither Britannica nor BBC here, we're dealing with persons they hired to write those article. Those persons have their name and surname, and that is the only thing that should be cited. It is not the official opinion of the Britannica editorial board, it is the opinion of the historian that they hired to write the article on Tito. To clothe it under the fancy "Britannica" appellation would be a plainly transparent attempt to camouflage it under more "elitedom" that it deserves, thus misleading the reader. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

I requested citations for controversial or/and unsourced passages. I deleted a piece of article which was copyed by an article already linked in Tito's page too. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

P.s. Take your time to find substantial and proper citations. I understand we're all on vacation or we will soon be. Happy christmas and happy new year. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas. Heh, I see my unavoidable temporary absence was exploited to full effect. You may rest assured that 90% of the undiscussed POV edits you quickly sneaked in will be promptly reverted, for many obvious reasons. (Shadow was right to remove the "Quotes" section, it is not recommended by MoS.) Its getting so an atheist can't even count on some "decency" during the holidays... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It saddens me you keep declaring you intend to refuse collaboration ("will be promptly reverted") even if i try to keep thinks calmer, even contacting you on your user page in the way i did. Can't we discuss instead? If you write "undiscussed POV edits you quickly sneaked in" and "Shadow was right to remove the Quotes section, it is not recommended by MoS" you give me to think you have written before reading my edits. As i said I only inserted requests for citations. And I transported quotes to wikiquote, not shadow. P.s. Telling to another user he/she has not behaved in a decent way is offensive, even if you put a smile after it. Can you please stop talking this way to me? Maybe you think it's not offensive to write that way, but i feel offended. Thanks. Merry christmas. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah the never-ending politeness of User:AndreFox2. He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way :)
I'm sad that you're so sad. :) Its not "collaboration" if you just insert your POV because I'm away. Half the stuff you demanded citations for is sourced in the article, you just added the tags after pieces of text you disliked. User:Sir Floyd added his standard cherry-picked quotes after his "consensus" with the resident Ustaše guy, and somebody engaged in a little wanton section blanking. Its a mad house, a maaad house... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you really saying ("Its not "collaboration" if you just insert your POV because I'm away")that i have to see if you are on en.wiki before editing on a page? At least i wrote on the talk page what i have changed in order for others to question my edits. However, did you notice i demanded citacions for critical passages (towards Tito) too? Maybe if you wouldn't keep assuming my bad faith...
Yes, i'm polite. And i don't think it's a bad thing, especially on wikipedia. Instead it is a pity you keep ignoring my request to stop talking to me like this, because saying "He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way" and "Its a mad house, a maaad house" or calling other users "Ustase guy" (as the Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) is offensive and irritating, as you are teasing and making fun of me and of other users by saying those kind of things. Please use another way of talking towards me and the others. Thanks. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree! It's offensive and it's not productive. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ps. Seasonal Greetings everybody! Sir Floyd (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, User:Sir Floyd talks of "offensive behavior" and "productivity". As I recall, Sir Floyd, after almost getting banned for WP:OUTING violations and confirmed "plotting" with a banned clique of users directing flinging threats of violence and personal attacks, you told the admins and everyone here you would not restart your edit-wars on this article, am I right? Looks like you've instead decided to show up and start reinserting your cherry-picked quotes (who's insertion in this article is btw a direct violation of WP policy :). This will not stop you from claiming "offensive behavior", though. Enough of this nonsense, however, when I'm back we'll talk at length. Again, merry Christmas everyone. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to business

Looks like I've been forced to cut my Wikibreak a little short thanks to AndreaFox :). User:AndreFox2, ref tags were placed after referenced statements, we generally don't use them to mark any statement we don't like, and we check the sources before claiming something is unsourced. User:SirFloyd, your additions are 1) blatant violations of copyright law, 2) you knew they were opposed for good reason yet you chose to try and insert them anyway? Do I need to mention the massive undiscussed removal of info? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Wanderer, you may not believe me but it was an honest mistake. Your edit was hidden among the cca. fifty AndreaFox2 edits... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, looking at the stuff you removed or readded you removed, I agree with a few, disagree with a few, and think Andrea was on the right track but misusing the tags in a few others. Some changes were completely unjustified, as you say. Some citation neededs were justified, but put in the wrong place, usually right in front of particular wording that she disagrees with, but the sentence as a whole was unreferenced. Many of the unjustified tags were not completely off base though. There's a lot of peacock wording that was tagged that should be removed since it does nothing to inform. Now, it's entirely possible that a reference for a preceding line supports the subsequent line. In those cases, a named ref backreference would suffice to support them. Examining the changes from looking at this diff: [39]
  1. The first citation needed tag removed (for provisional democratic Yugoslav government) needs a citation for the sentence. The tag was petty (challenging what he chose to call it), but it is a factual sentence that should be supported.
  2. The second tag removed was invalid, in that the statement was supported, but it did point out a peacock word. It's sufficient to say he had popular support; "massive" is a peacock term.
  3. Similarly, just below terms like "ultra-nationalist" can be viewed as pejorative and peacock terms. It's sufficient to identify them as nationalist. And the "overwhelmingly" is similarly unnecessary. "in favor of tolerance" seems incredibly subjective. You'd need at least cite a source supporting that as the stated aim, since the results seemed to work in the opposite direction.
  4. "Second only to Stalin" should definitely be tagged for a citation; that laying claim to an importance beyond that expected from a single, relatively small state under Soviet hegemony.
  5. "new" communist states: Not sure why it matters. Were there existing communist states that liberated themselves without Red Army support? If not, the new seems unnecessary, but mostly irrelevant.
  6. The two tags on expulsion from the group and Tito's assassination. Looks like the first tag is legit (though again, it should be at the end of the sentence as the whole sentence needs support). The second tag seems unnecessary, the follow-up text on the exact same subject elaborating on the info is cited, which should be sufficient.
  7. "much" international recognition. Much is unnecessary (if it's not "much" it's not even worth noting, so it's a bit redundant). The sentence should be cited; all it would need is a single newspaper article from outside Russia and the Eastern Bloc indicating the interest in Yugoslavia triggered by the rift.
  8. The paragraph on establishing prison camps does appear uncited, and should be referenced.
  9. The book cite with a cite tag doesn't need a new citation, it just needs someone to fill out the author tags properly instead of falling back on "Several authors".
  10. While a citation would be nice on the repair of Tito's statue, I don't think it's needed. I'm willing to accept that on faith.
That covers most of it. The direct encyclopedia quotes should stay gone, though paraphrases with references would be acceptable. Ideally we could reconstruct the same information with second party sources, but Wikipedia does allow third party sources until reliable second party sources can be found. If you disagree with any of these points, please respond below. Otherwise I'll make the changes in a day or two. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.javno.com/en-world/mass-grave-massacre-ordered-by-josip-broz-tito_240674
  2. ^ http://www.javno.com/en-world/mass-grave-massacre-ordered-by-josip-broz-tito_240674
  3. ^ in http://www.javno.com/en-world/mass-grave-massacre-ordered-by-josip-broz-tito_240674 it is stated that Tito was his commander, commander of Janez Stanovnik, the partisans and the communists “”
  4. ^ http://www.croradio.net/jazovka.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_3&oldid=1078397970"