Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Neutral POV?

This article seems overwhelmingly flattering to Tito with hardly any objective criticism at all. It would be greatly enhanced if it wasn't so clear pro-Tito and had a balanced POV that acknowledged his shortcomings and didn't focus on how "beloved" he was. 64.134.71.74 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An advert, indeed. Added a tag and will report further. --No qwach macken (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Again this.. Fellas, I have no objections if you post an NPOV tag on some concrete, source-based grounds. On the other hand, a declaration of "I think this is too positive (based on what I heard)" is not a valid basis to tag an article. The point of tagging is to suggest ways in which an article may be improved.

The Macedonian issue is one of the many rotten fruits that comes from Tito's rule. It has still a great impact on the countries on the Balkan peninsula. Also history has show one thing - even if a dictator comes with peace on the top of a country (Hitler for example was elected democratically but we all saw how that turned out), he doesn't stay there for long without war. The mere fact that Tito and Stalin were for some period of time "pals" (before the obsession for power didn't get between them) speaks for itself. Let's not forget about Goli otok, who was operational from 1946 to 1956. Tito was elected for a prime minister in 1953. I am not saying that the article has to be subjective but there are plenty of historical documents that prove that Tito was not such a saint as this Wiki article describes him to be. One more thing - if Tito successfully united the Yugoslavian states why did so many problems appear right after his death and led to its dissolvement? Those problems were things that were bubbling under the surface for tens of years and if they were NOT present then the death of a single person be it a leader or not should NOT have had such a great impact.Rbaleksandar (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please post specific objections and/or edit proposals (or just do the edits) with regard to NPOV, and support them with reliable sources. Else the tag will not stand for long.

Furthermore, please note that the "Historical criticism" section is not to be expanded, but rather dismantled into the main text of the article (per previous GA style recommendations). Please post any additional "criticisms" into another section. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Riight.. I thought as much. Removing tag, at least until some constructive source-based rationale is provided. -- Director (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This article does NOT have a neutral point of view.

The following terms are used in describing Tito and his policies: effective, statesman, benevolent, successful, popular, unifying, peaceful, highly favourable, distinguished, economic boom, brotherhood. And that's just in the introduction!

Then in the body of the article, we find anecdotes of his courage, leadership, and successes. We read that "Tito sought to improve life" and we find a long section on the awards he received.

Fine. If those things are true, say them.

Can we also mention the large numbers of political or ethnic killings under his command? that Tito imprisoned those who criticized him? that many people risked their lives to flee his country?

I'm not pretending that Tito did only bad things. So don't pretend that he did only good.

108.232.2.70 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Naturally so, and noone could possibly object to such an article improvement (though I don't know how many people "risked their lives" to leave Yugoslavia when the country had a reasonably open border throughout most of its existence.. tourism you know). But please don't write "work orders" for other users. If you have something to introduce, go ahead. -- Director (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Luxurious lifestyle

Perhaps related to the post above, I haven't seen any information in the article relating to Tito's luxurious lifestyle. Being the leader of a communist nation and yet living a surprisingly un-communist lifestyle might be a noteworthy addition, particularity in the sphere of criticism. Buttons (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source actually criticizes him for it; and then we should arguably attribute said criticism in the text (it being a statement of opinion). Our own opinions and criticisms are not noteworthy. Note, however, that none of the facilities enjoyed by Tito were his own property, but rather federal property designated for use by the president (kind of like the White House or Camp David). They are still in use by the Yugoslav successor states as official residences of officeholders.

The bare fact that he enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle is not disputed (or even disputable), and is, I believe, covered to some extent. If you would like to expand on the subject from the BBC source - please do: I see no NPOV issue. Only please try not to state or imply something the source does not state, and please avoid the "Historical criticism" section, which should be dismantled into other sections rather than expanded (see above). -- Director (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dismantled "Historical criticism" section per previous GA review recommendations. -- Director (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note there is (and has been) a paragraph devoted to this subject in the "Personal Life" section. I've expanded it somewhat. -- Director (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Effectiveness=Guns

Wasn't the effectiveness of Tito's Partisans due, in large measure, because they had guns??? When Hitler invaded the Low Countries and France, the first thing he did, as with all countries occupied by the nazis, was confiscate their weapons. My Poli Sci 101 prof stated that after Tito became President of the former Yugoslavia, he made it MANDATORY for every household in the country to have at least one rifle. Any truth to that??? Perhaps that contributed to the bloodiness of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, too.User:JCHeverly 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Tito was not in power before WWII. And it wasn't mandatory to hold weapons in every household, but instead there was a Territorial Defense (TO) force that both functioned as a reserve of the regular military (JNA), and was supposed to augment its activities during wartime through guerrilla activities (that never happened of course, as there was no WWIII). These were essentially reservists, though, so yes, if you were a reservist you had to have your weapons at home. This did not contribute much to the bloodiness of the war, since the TO was mostly disarmed by the Army in Croatia and Bosnia. It did contribute to a certain extent, though, as weapons were often not repossessed in a selective way (i.e. the JNA would disarm some and not others). In Slovenia, though, during the 10-day war, the TO did actually fight vs the JNA.

The WWII Partisans got their weapons from a multitude of sources, these were stolen Axis weapons procured by a myriad of means (such as through sympathizers in the collaborationist formations), then you had weapons of the old Yugoslav Royal Army that often found their way into Partisan hands, then there was the fact that the Partisans actually often had under their control weapons factories which they put to work producing arms and ammunition, sometimes for months on end before the Axis secured the area. They were the ones to disarm the surrendered Italian army formations in 1943, etc. and then of course there was Allied aid, primarily from the British after 1942. There were of course privately-owned weapons that came into use, but these, while certainly much better than nothing, weren't prized as much as actual military weapons. You don't equip an army like that.. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the info. So the World War II Yugoslavs did have access to firearms. As for the TO, were they formed from the Partisan ranks after WWII? I just saw Tito on the home page and read through the article. He was and remains an interesting figure of the Cold War. The US had pretty good relations with him.User:JCHeverly 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. Yes, but you really can't draw such parallels :). Pre-WWII Yugoslavia was a rather uncivilized and primitive place in many of its parts.. there were still brigands in the mountains, being chased by the Royal Gendarmerie. Even if the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had gun control laws (which I doubt), they would be pretty much unenforcable. At that time and place, such things were inconceivable, I mean - you might need guns to defend yourself from wolves where you lived :). That said, I'm sure such personal weaponry did in fact help arm the Partisans against the Nazis in the first year or so, to a certain extent.

No. The Partisans were reorganized into the aforementioned Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), i.e. the regulars. Their modern-day common name ("Partisans") is a little deceptive, as it stems from the first couple years of the war. By late 1944 this was a fully-organized army with up to 800,000 troops, and was more commonly referred to as the "National Liberation Army".

Tito is what you'd call a successful dictatorship. He knew what he was doing, and what he was doing was (more often than not) good for the country. The US was on good terms with him because he defected from Stalin early in the Cold War, and thus made sure the Eastern Bloc had no direct access to the Mediterranean Sea through Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Russia never did anything for him against the Nazis. The guy who did was Fitzroy Maclean. I think we're all loyal to those who help us.User:JCHeverly 03:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The forgotten 500

See the book <ref>the forgotten 500<ref> for some much-needed and sorely-lacking balance on Tito

~~~~doug rudy~~~~ {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=75.185.56.227|2=22:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}}

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" in unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --~~~~