Talk:Josip Broz Tito

RfC January 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sourced references to violation of human rights during Tito's regime have been added in the article but constantly removed by two users. Wider input from the community is requested to assess if the proposed edit is correctly sourced. The contested edit (and the relevant sourced) is "and several concerns raised about the respect of human rights" in the following sentence:

While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and several concerns raised about the respect of human rights Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator". --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted just because you added more unnecessary sources to the lead. You are not willing to edit the article, just the lead, which shows that you are only trying to PUSH your own opinion. Why you are obsessed with Tito is not for me to discuss or to try to find out, but it seems that is the case here. Why on earth are you willing to risk getting banned with pushing your own opinion?

You have never started a discussion, you just edit the article and hope that you will bully your edits by threatening everyone. It is really frustrating, and because of users like you I am sometimes disgusted with Wikipedia. What have you proposed? Nothing. What are you trying to do? Pushing your own opinion. It is really boring. Again you have not proposed anything. You just try to bully your way in the article and hope that no one will object to your bullying. Well baby, that is not going to happen. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer, you should comment the edit not the editor. Please read well, my proposal in the RfC. Your (pertinent) comments are welcome. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone properly format the RfC and put it in a separate section? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Done (at least I think). --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I fully support an elaboration on the topic of human rights violations in the article. The addition to the second sentence of the lead seems shoehorned however, and doesn't reflect the tone sources generally take in summarizing this person's contribution to history [1]. It does not seem encyclopedic. Moreover the thing rather stinks of POV-pushing: the user, instead of using the sources to expand the article in a constructive way beneficial to the project, looks like he's trying just to quickly cast a more negative light on Broz in as prominent a way as possible. The lead summarizes the article, it doesn't serve as a prominent "noticeboard" for ideological venting: we have little or nothing on human rights in the body - we shouldn't push the topic into the lead like this. -- Director (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, the edit is fully supported by the cited sources.--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. What human rights? Again the lead is flooded with citations, and it was and it seems still is a platform for your POV-pushing. The article should talk about human rights, sure, about the good and the bad stuff, but there is no mention of this in the article so it should not be included in the lead. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio. That is not a reply. -- Director (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support the middle part of the sentence as, "and human rights were violated under his rule", which appears to be what is said in the sources cited. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Overemphasis. "Human rights" are being violated under Obama's "rule" as well (probably on a greater scale at that), yet you won't find it right up next to the first sentence.. The analogy works quite well, since the sources seem in good part to be referring to Stalinists and the Goli Otok prison camp.. -- Director (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As the sources clearly state, violation of human rights during Tito's regime were common. Concerning Obama and Guantanamo this is not the right place to discuss about it. Open an RfC elsewhere if you want to discuss of that. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly some reliable sources state that human rights violations under Tito were common. So it should be in the lead. I haven't assessed weight, but I am sure there are plenty of reliable sources that agree with the ones used. Director, your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. We are talking about Tito and human rights violations, not Obama or Stalin. I don't have anything else to add, other than that this is almost a case of WP:BLUE so far as the lead is concerned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"WP:OTHERSTUFF" is an invalid argument in deletion discussions. In an RfC its perfectly valid to point to other articles, or the tone of a tertiary encyclopedic source, in determining whether a bunch of googled cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes warrant a change at the top of an article. "WP:BLUE" argues (in relation to WP:V) that some things don't need to be sourced for being plainly obvious... neither have anything to do with the issue - unlike WP:UNDUE, for example. But if that's your last word.. cheers, I guess. -- Director (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Which specific sources do you put forward for the claim that violations of "human rights" were "common"? With regard to WP:OR, only two sources, #1 and #9, even mention "human rights". Source #8 is (predictably) misrepresented: what you present is an excerpt of a quotation within the book, of a Slovene court decision (a WP:PRIMARY source). In other words, Sandusky does not "write" that.

Of the two (#1 and #9), #9 merely states there were human rights violations, and doesn't really make a comment as to their commonality. Leaving #1, a quote from a brief essay on Yugoslavia by Dominic McGoldrick (not "Tierney"). I myself am not prepared to grant you your claim of "commonality" (or your proposed change to the top of the article) on the basis of that one source. D'you have more? -- Director (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a question of WP:DUE weight, not about sourcing, and therefore represents an editorial decision subject to WP:CONSENSUS. So please, spare us a dozen references in the lead — that is always an indicator of some kind of point-making. Lead should just summarize article contents, and references are, strictly speaking, not even necessary if the body of the article is adequately referenced.
  On to the point of the question: we should do what other major biographies by respective historian do in the abstracts/introductions. One readily available is that of Ivo Banac in Britannica: (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Josip-Broz-Tito): It does not mention the human rights issue neither in the introduction nor in "Assessment" section. The most it gets is one sentence Trials of captured collaborationists, Catholic prelates, opposition figures, and even distrusted communists were conducted in order to fashion Yugoslavia in the Soviet mold.. We should assess other sources, of course, but my preliminary assessment is that a sentence like the proposed could find its place in 4th paragraph of the lead, that summarizes Tito's rule in a historical fashion. No such user (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The proposed sentence can find its place on the 4th paragraph of the lead. The position is really not a problem. Side note: yes there is a issue of WP:DUE weight. Affirming on the very top of the lead that Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" creates a major imbalance in the article. Such sentence describes as general a concept merely contained in only one source and does not summarize the article content. And of course, creates the ideal ground for any kind of discussion. Indeed, for this reason some users suggested (without success) to replace "most" with "many". --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you recall, literally dozens of sources were brought forward for that, with those exact words used. Whereas you in reality have a single source (an essay) that claims "regular" violations of human rights. Once WP:OR is applied, your list of nine quotations gets whittled down to two that actually claim "human rights" violations. The rest not mentioning "human rights", or being a WP:PRIMARY quote.

I will remind you once more that you are NOT the arbiter of what is or is not a "violation of human rights". -- Director (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No I am not the arbiter. Three different sources say verbatim that violation of human rights occurred during Tito's regime, but (not surprisingly) you do not like those sources. Well, apparently other users do not have the same concern. However, let's wait and see what other editors think. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to point out that the construct "and several concerns raised about the respect of human rights" is idiotic. What in hell should that mean?? The lead states that "his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian", that is enough. We have to ask ourselves a question, why is Silvio pushing for a change in the lead while he does not want any changes to the article body? It is common knowledge that human rights are violated in any regime, be that a democratic or a socialist or any other one. It is nonsense to put that in the lead. Also adding a human rights section in the article can be debated, but this "war" against Tito is ridiculous. If Silvio does not like the term "benevolent dictator", and he has pointed that out many times, why should someone use an argument that the lead is out of balance? How is it out of balance is never explained. Again adding citations to the lead is not welcomed by most users. We have that citations in the lead just because users like Silvio start to edit war if you remove them. As I have seen before they will never accept a consensus or try to work on one. This article is a perfect example of that. Months ago we have come to a conclusion how the lead should look. There was never a debate about the article body, it was always about the lead. Always initiated by the same people, always repeating the same boring arguments. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: I will say again, and for the fifth time: your source "#8", "Sandusky", is misquoted. That is a Slovene court decision on the naming of a street after Broz. Its not a statement made by Sandusky, which means its not a scholarly, secondary source. It is a primary source to be quoted verbatim (which It already is in the "Legacy" section). Please feel free to remove it from your list. As for the other two sources, I do not challenge them, but they are insufficient for what you want (in my personal judgement). -- Director (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Director: I understand your point, but for the third time: I disagree. Sandusky endorse the statement so the source is not primary. In my personal judgment the sourcing provided is sufficient, nevertheless I want to be clear about something. The amount of sources citing the repression of political opponents outweight significantly those referring to the violation of human rights (which certainly happened during the first decade of Tito's regime). Possibly a compromise can be found in this direction. However, the interest of an RfC is to enlarge the discussion to other users, so let's wait and see what the others think. One side note, I have (briefly) checked in the sources and the adjective used more frequently for Tito's dictatorship is not "benevolent" but "mild" (and I think there is no contest about Silvio1973 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)that). Silvio1973 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, provide the quote wherewith Sandursky endorses the judgement. -- Director (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It does, because uses the example of the decision of the Court to show a situation (to use verbatim Sandurky's words) of "incompatibility of the former communist regime with the European standards for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms". The source is not primary, as I am not citing as a source the minutes of the Slovenian Court. Feel free to reply, but in this sense for me the discussion is closed because we made clear our views. Everyone willing to participate to this RfC can build its own opinion in this respect.Silvio1973 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The source makes no claim of violation of human rights. But that their "protection" did not meet "European standards". The source further does not (as you claim) "endorse" the decision: you have not shown that, and you can not quote the decision as a statement by the secondary source. That is deliberate deception on your part. The Slovene court is a WP:PRIMARY source, and that is not debatable in the slightest.

And yes, I do very much feel free to reply, just as I'm sure other users do not need you encouragement to form their own position. If this second RfC again fails to make you understand WP:UNDUE, and you continue to edit war with your tags, I will inquire whether sanctions are appropriate with regard to your conduct. -- Director (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, enquire. :)). Silvio1973 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Possibly other users will join this RfC, but in the meantime it might be worth to make a short summary of what we have. The number of users joining this RfC has been so far quite limited and their positions are relatively different. 4 sources (one contested because primary) have been provided affirming that under Tito human rights violations occurred. Peacemaker67 posted that he is sure that there are plenty of sources confirming that human rights violations under Tito were common and that this is actually WP:BLUE. In view of the provided sources, Director does not oppose a sourced reference to the violation of human rights, but not in the lead as this would be WP:UNDUE. No such user posted that this issue is not of sourcing but of editorial nature and that sources speak more of the repression of political opponents rather than of violation of human rights. I tend to agree, there are quite a few sources stating that violation of human rights under Tito occurred, but they are overweight by a large (actually very large) number of sources actually pointing to the repression of political opponents. Perhaps the reference to the repression of political opponents should find place in the lead (and I strongly agree to move it to the 4th paragraph of the lead) and the concern about the violation of human rights elsewhere in the article. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The referred-to repression of political opponents occurred in the 1945-49 Soviet period, and that should be made clear. Otherwise I think that's DUE, in principle (I still wonder what your wording will be). I too think the article may be a bit too "praisy". -- Director (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of the proposed sources, the repression (mind well, I write repression, not suppression) of political opponents occurred during entire Tito's rule (opposed to the violation of human rights which certainly and mainly occurred during the first 10 years of his regime). The proposed wording for the lead would be: While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents raised.... Description of the facts occurred during the immediate aftermath of WWII would be appropriately developed in the body of the article.

About the rest of the sentence, as you know I have (along with other users) a problem. Many sources qualify Tito's dictatorship of being "mild" (no contest about that). It is true that some sources use the word "benevolent (indeed I have even found "benign"), but from there to say that "most" sources considers Tito a benevolent dictator there is an obvious distance.Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence again.. and the benevolent thing - again. As always... one push after another. That's why I always found it impossible to discuss with you. If this is where the RfC remains (with three users opposing your proposed edit), after a reasonable period I'll be removing the tag. Rest assured it will not remain on account of your not achieving consensus. -- Director (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Director, the "benevolent thing" is not in the object of this RfC. You do not have to discuss about it if you do not want. Indeed, I do not intend after this RfC to raise that issue again, but I might join the discussion if someone else will raise it in the future. Which IMHO will happen, because the way it is written (and with so much prominence in the lead) that statement pushes a strong POV. Now, can we agree that during the 36 years of Tito's regime political opposition was repressed? I propose the following modification (actually posted in the article but undone by Tuvixer):

While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised, ...

What do you think?Silvio1973 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. The part you added, without a consensus, is idiotic. It makes no sense. So please stop vandalizing the article or whatever you are trying to do. There is no reason to add that part, it already states that it was "authoritarian". You do not have a consensus, so please stop. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer, invariably you classify the posts of other users as "vandalism". Also, when you disagree with the edits made by your fellow editors, you do not hesitate writing that their posts are "idiotic" or "no-sense". I checked your last 30 contributions and you showed such attitude with plenty of users, not just with me. I don't know if you realize that is just funny, almost ridiculous. It is so funny that does not even deserve an ANI report to be filed. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (just a brief and general one, because the above discussion is TLDR for me). So:
  • It is always OK to edit the intro to better reflect what already legitimately exists in the article body.
  • Whoever adds a sentence in the intro must be prepared to add ten in the body, if it's something that the article does not mention but should.
  • Adding POV stuff in the intro without showing interest in the article content in general is a hallmark of tendentious editing. By saying this, I'm not accusing anyone here of being tendentious: I'm rather saying that this is how it is going to appear to most editors.

I believe "human rights abuses" or such are well-supported by reliable sources, but it needs to be adequately discussed in the body first. (I'm not saying that it is or that it's not adequately discussed, just noting the priorities.) GregorB (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

GregorB, I see your points and I actually agree. Possibly there are sufficient sources to support a reference to human rights abuses in the lead, but you are absolutely right in writing that whatever posted in the lead needs to be firstly developed extensively in the body of the article. If I gave the impression not to share this principle and if I am insisting too much on the lead, this is because the formulation currently used at the very top of the lead to describe the nature of Tito's regime IMHO does not reflect the content of the article itself. Concerning the repression of political opponents, the issue is of different nature. The matter is discussed in the article and sources abound, hence a reference is due. Last but not least, I would like to start editing the body of the article but this is impossible. Tuvixer is currently in "combat mode" and reverts everything is done to the article. However, I have just tried. Let's see... Silvio1973 (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is something else I wanted to say but I forgot: Tito is a big topic, so editors should really take this into consideration when applying WP:BOLD. (Of course, "big topic" does not mean changes may simply be summarily reverted either.) If there is a disagreement about a particular piece of content, please discuss this here (in a separate section, preferably), ping me (and/or others), and we'll take a look GregorB (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

GregorB, it has been discussed extensively in this RfC (and elsewhere in the talk page) to mention the repression of political opponents in the lead. If I understand correctly, all users (except one) accept the proposed modification. Is this understanding correct?Silvio1973 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Silvio, I congratulate you on your first real input to the article, by adding content to the Tito-stalin split section. You have used to many own wording and used some sources that are really not necessary. Two of the three provided don't really speak about Tito, but about the regime in general. I also have to point out that one source, which you provided, clearly states that "Criticism of the human rights record of any regime can easily be turned into a weapon of delegitimization", again I point out ANY REGIME. You have made a good contribution to the article, there is no need to add anything in the lead. As seen it this discussion, you are the user who proposed that it should be included in the lead, but you are also the only user who supports that motion. Congratulations for your contribution to the article, the repression of stalinists should be mentioned in the article, I agree. Just not in the lead. The human rights violation have more to do with the regime, and not only with one person. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Tuxiver, the mention of violation of human rights in the lead is not anymore in discussion: we all agreed to mention it in the body of the text and not in the lead. On the other hand all users (except you) agreed to mention the repression of political opponents in the lead. Concerning the modification you have just done to my edit, IMHO it is not English. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is going nowhere. Silvio1973, I believe its clear your proposal for an addition with regard to human rights violations in the (start of the) lead doesn't have consensus. I myself will not discuss that further with you, therefore I ask you: is this RfC about that, or something else? If so, what is your exact proposal with regard to political opponents? -- Director (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Director, yes it is time to close this RfC. My proposal is to add the following words: "and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised". Just to move it forward I am changing the article in this sense. Let me know what do you think. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also follow No Such User's suggestion and move all the text from While his presidency to nations of the Yugoslav federation, from the 1st to the 4th paragraph of the lead. But I guess other users might disagree, so I do not dare to do it without discussing first. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks there is nothing really that can be done to this article. Tuvixer reverts or changes whatever the other users post. Instead, he feels to have the right to change others' posts (by the way using a doubtful English) without passing through the Talk Page. @Director:, please don't take me wrong, but when I see the history of the modifications to this article (and also to others) it looks that when you tell him to shut-up, he becomes quiet and remissive. Interesting...

However, what do you think about the proposed edit? Can we agree something and close this RfC? Silvio1973 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The time to close this RfC has come. I had a brief discussion with GregorB. He also supports the insertion in the lead of a reference to the "repression of political opponents". Except Tuviver, all other users who participated to this RfC seem to agree about this modification. Tuvixer, if you disagree please state here briefly why. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The RfC was over a long time ago. You do not OWN this article. Please stop this. It is disgusting how you realized that I was not a couple of days online, so you made this edit. Shame on you. YThis will not pass. Sorry, but don't ignore the RfC, it has been clearly stated that it should not be included in the article. So this RfC is over. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, I agree with the inclusion in the lead of a reference to "repression of political opponents". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto, as noted by Silvio,[2] even if my original reservations still apply. GregorB (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Except Tuvixer, everyone in this RfC agrees to include a reference to "repression of political opponents". So Tuvixer, where is your problem? Please consider that on top of ignoring the opinion expressed by other users in the RfC you are also using abusive language. You will almost certainly revert again my edit. If you do, I will have no option but filing a report. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not the only person against this, and you very well know that. No consensus has been made, so please stop edit warring. You are adding nonsense to the article, and your bullying will not be tolerated. You can't just ignore the whole RfC discussion and act like nothing happened a month ago. A month ago this RfC was done, over. No, again after one month o no discussion you come here and try to bully your opinion in the article. Not going to happen. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Tuvixer, who else agrees with you? My assessment of the consensus here is that you are in the minority. We could just ask for an uninvolved admin close of this RfC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would advise you to read the whole RfC. You will see that, for example, user Director is against this. And again, it has not been explained why that sentence should be included in the article. It is always the same argument that someone thinks it should be included, but when they are asked why, they ignore the question. This is not how Wikipedia works.

And for the last time. This RfC is a failed one. The user who suggested it is always running the same unconvincing argument. The discussion stopped a month ago. That is when this RfC has ended. There is no point to repeat the same thing all over again. Everyone can read Silvio, you can't just ignore the whole RfC. A smart man once said that, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is... Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer, also Director agreed to include a mention about the "repression of political opponents". You just revert everything you don't like counting on the fact that the other users won't report your behavior. Disgraceful and useless (indeed I have just reported your conduct to ANI). However, I have requested to an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus and close the RfC. I hope this will help. The request is here [[3]].

That is simply not true. And anyone can read what was said in the discussion. Again your bullying won't help you. You edit war, and there is no question about that. There has never been an instance when you even tried to wait for a discussion to end. You have always edited the article first, and the you went to the talk page and started an edit war. Everyone can see that, it is unproductive, and I am sure it is not the way Wikipedia should work. If you introduce a change to the article, and some user, or I revert that edit and say that we do not agree, and that you should provide more evidence, or in this case, just make a better formulated sentence, then you have no right to start an edit war and revert the other user who has reverted you. I hope that you understand that we have to finish the discussion first, like we did whit that edit on Tito-Stalin split section. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language dispute

I noteced this reverting going on and I must say that I dont see a reason why is the sourced content being removed. About lnks to Yugoslav Sociialism, the problem is that it is just a redlink for now, if the article about it become created I would support its inclusion. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We're on the same page there, Fkp. Seemed a completely reasonable edit by Zoupan, adding further information about the identity controversy. I tried to re-instate it, but Tuvixer reverted. I think Tuvixer should be explaining why it shouldn't be included. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

there is no discussion to have, it has messed up with pictures in that are now in the wrong places, and he has introduced changes to the article, he can go to the talk page, please don't start an edit war, and if you have problems please go to Talk, tnx. It seems that others don't see my edit as problematic, so I will just wait on your response, Tuvixer. I think that the pictures should not stay as they are now, all located outside their scope (WW2-pictures at Tito-Stalin split, etc.), in the wrong places, and there are too many.--Zoupan 07:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I really thought that opinions of a anonymous people should not be mentioned. Even if it is an opinion of one single journalist, why should it be mentioned? I mean, if people start to use as sources opinions of Rush Limbaugh this would no longer be Wikipedia. That is why I removed that part. But ok, I mean, if others don't see that problematic then ok. It is clearly stated that he is from Zagorje, where they speak a distinct version of the Kajkavian dialect. And we already have NSA opinion. Just seems to me that opinions of two anonymous people are not that important. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, your edit is absolutely reasonable. I actually even does not understand how could it be opposed. But mind well that it is Tuvixer who is reverting and this explains everything. The idea is simple: Tuvixer reverts or changes whatever he does not like. The fact that the edit is sourced is completely irrelevant for Tuvixer.--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Silvio you should first read the article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the conclusion to this "dispute" should be clearly stated. Croatian language is very diverse and among 3 major dialects it has many regional and local dialects. That had caused NSA to make a mistake in their study and that should be stated more clearly since it seems some people still think that Tito's origins are questionable due to that NSA study. What seemed to NSA as a strange dialect is in fact the proof of Tito's origins. I also think that Mihailovic's opinion on the matter is totally irrelevant. He is not expert and he is a native speaker of Serbisan, thus completely unfamiliar with Croatian Kajkavian dialect. 141.138.20.168 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I found the source I had in mind when I was writing the above comment. I would like it is incorporated. [4]. I also now see that the original version of the article made a quite clear conclusion on that matter, however mentioning opinions of Mihailovic and Tito's doctor who aren't any experts on the matter made that conclusion questionable. The paragraph should mention that there were disputes but that they are wrong as the source I posted states, giving it a more detail explanation to why NSA report is wrong by stating some of the arguments stated in the source.

I personally think that this mistake by NSA is perfectly illustrating how diverse and interesting Croatian language is. Even the native speakers of Croatian language can hear new words and different accents every day. In such a small country one can pinpoint someone's origins very accurately on their dialect and accent. 141.138.20.168 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So can someone, please, explain how are opinions of Matunović and Dinić relevant? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are only some features overlapping between this "original" Kajkavian speech and Tito's speech. Did he really pick up some speech manners in his years preko, i.e. š and anomalji sounding very Russian. Note also that he needs to search for words. It would be good if a study was found on the matter (Tito's speech), perhaps from Croatian linguistical journals. Matunović and Dinić are not unrelevant given their relation to Tito and the fact that they wrote monographs on him.--Zoupan 19:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This is why we don't do original research. There are many local dialects within Kajkavian dialect and you are comparing apples and oranges here. Here, listen to this [5] and compare it with the two examples you gave. So, let's jump from original research to sources. Did you read the source I posted? It says that Tito's speech is the best proof of his origins. It has a very good elaboration on that claim done by Croatian experts who had studied Tito's speech. Note that the article in Croatian newspaper that I had posted as a source was written by the head of Institute for Croatian language. ( autor je ravnatelj Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje ). I stand by my claim that non-expert opinions are totally irrelevant. You might as well go to streets of Belgrade and ask a random person for his opinion and write it here, it would be the same. It maybe is interesting from the historical side that those people had thought that way, but nothing more. The article can't portray their opinions are relevant. If someone wants to mention it from that point of view that can be stated, but the last claim should be the source done by Croatian experts not the claim of Tito's doctor or any other non-expert. That way the conclusion on that matter is done objectively. State those claims as interesting facts but not as claims with equal weight to the one made by experts. The most interesting thing here is the terrible mistake done by NSA. I would like to add a sentence which would explicitly mention that mistake. This is the most interesting aspect of this all ordeal. It's not surprising that native Serbian speakers and non-experts are making such mistakes but one should expect more from NSA. So people who mentioned Mihailovic, Matunovic and Dinic can have their sources included but only as an interesting historical fact on their mistake. The same goes for NSA. As I said, Croatian language is a holy grail to anyone interested in linguistics and whenever I'm speaking about it, I always mention that mistake done by NSA. It's much more than Serbian language so I really don't like that Serbo-Croatian comparisons which are done mostly by foreigners who, like NSA, are pretty much wrong. Lastly, there is no identity controversy and the article should made that clear. 141.138.20.168 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the article. Let me know what you think. I included all sources, but I made sure that the last one mentioned is the expertise done by Croatian experts so it is clear that the NSA's report is flawed and that the impressions of non-experts like Mihailovic and others are completely irrelevant and flawed. I hope everyone is happy now since everything is included. 89.164.74.150 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive reverts by Tuvixer

In spite of the consensus reached, Tuvixer continues to remove the sentence about the repression of political opponents from the lead. What should we do? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Read this please: # NAC: No consensus.

If you revert me again I will have to report you. Please don't revert. It has been stated by @Robert McClenon:, no consensus. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer, you are just making this process more tedious than actually needed.Silvio1973 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Repression of political opponents during Tito's presidency

Do you agree to insert in the lead of the article Josip Broz Tito a mention about "the repression of political opponents" during Tito's presidency? The sentence currently being:

While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies.

Would become:

While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies.

References

References

As it is now? --Tuvixer (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not the question of the RfC. Reply if you agree or not (first the melody and after the arrangement). --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Then this RfC will fail, again. Please provide the exact wording of the sentence. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This was what you were proposing to include in the article lead: "...and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised...". I have removed it because the last RfC failed, and there was no consensus, so the RfC failed. We have to follow the rules, right? Please don't revert me again, please, because I will have to report you if you revert me. Everyone can see that there was no consensus in the last RfC. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again!?? This is the last straw. I'm removing the tag, and requesting a topic ban if you start another fanatical edit war. Work towards a consensus for your edit from there. If you can't achieve it, I most sincerely advise you to accept that at this point. -- Director (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Director, remove the tag. Do what you want. And if you think that I am fanatical because I want to add that "concerns have been raised because during Tito's presidency political opponents were repressed", please feel free to report me. However this is surprising, because you wrote that this modification was actually due. And BTW, who is fanatical here? The user editing a sourced mention about the repression of political opponents during 38 years of dictatorship (however "benevolent" that dictatorship could be), or those who oppose the edit? Silvio1973 (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, its simple: don't keep a tag on until you get your way, and don't edit-war to push an opposed edit. Easy. Work towards what you want from the status quo ante. If you can't get what you want, relax, and go away. I'm afraid this project functions on the basis of consensus above everything else, I don't like it, its even part of why I'm semi-retired - but that's how it is. Its why we have "Denali" instead of "Mount McKinley" even though every policy says we shouldn't, etc. etc. etc... -- Director (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Director, it does not go that far. The edit proposed with this RfC is sufficiently sourced. It is not fanatical to affirm that during Tito's presidency political opposition was repressed.Silvio1973 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the change. Wikipedia shouldn't be whitewashing history.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I see nothing controversial in the proposed change. My reservations about the intro vs the article body still apply (see previous RfC for details), but if the question is whether on the whole it is better to include or omit, I'd say include, no doubt about that. GregorB (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Note Should not be adding references to the lede. They are superfluous, as they only reflect what is already referenced in the article body. The whole question is, according to WP:LEDE, somewhat bullshitted by the fact that if it's in the body, and it's notable, it should probably be in the lede too. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There are circumstances in which references in the lede are fine and - while I'm not arguing that's the case here - given the choice between two evils (so to speak), I'm simply choosing the lesser one. GregorB (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, indeed I am also fine in moving the references to the body of the article. Indeed, the references have been added here to justify the insertion. Let's see what is the result of the RfC. If the modification is approved, the references can be moved in the body of the article.Silvio1973 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the fact that you want to add more references to the lead. Also it is luducrious that we are having the same discussion, when your last RfC failed. Will you star an RfC every month, about the same topic? Is that how Wikipedia should work? Again I have to state that the only thing that interests Silvio1973 is the lead of this article. He is not interested in the rest of the article. Everyone can see why is that. He was warned on the AN/I by another user to stop doing that, and that he has the same MO in other articles. Now I will have to repeat myself. In the lead there already states that his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, so there is no reason to add that questions about repression of political opponents were raised. If you could propose something about that topic that could be included in the article body then it would be great. Of course you need to present good citations. It is known that every country during the Cold war had problems with the prosecution and repression of political opponents. Just remember that insane man Joseph McCarthy and his which hunt. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the opening of a new RfC was explicitly recommended here. GregorB (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

But not the opening of the same RfC. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the same RfC, but adequately reworded, which is precisely what Silvio has done. GregorB (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It is same as before, it is about same topic, which was suggested, but it was not suggested that it should be the same in everything. Well can I ask you why has Silvio opened a new RfC 2-3 weeks after that was suggested to him and after the last RfC was closed. Why did he wait so long? The last RfC failed, I removed the part that that he proposed because the RfC failed, and we have to follow the rules, but when I removed it he started to edit war. Is that kind of behavior that is allowed on Wikipedia? Does anyone support that? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

this RfC should be speedily closed, more information to support the inclusion of this statement should be included in the body, THEN an RfC drafted to gain consensus for the change. Repeating this RfC without adding substantially to the body of the article is not the right way to deal with this issue. The lead should only reflect the body. At present there is one sentence in the body that addresses this issue, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it in the lead at present. IF there was more information (other sources) for it in the body, then it could be given greater weight and thus get into the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that there is already enough information in the body of the article to justify the insertion. I would have no problem in adding more facts in the body but the sad truth is that Tuvixer reverts/changes everything. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of Tuvixer's reverts you're referring to (removal of sourced content added to the article body by you)? GregorB (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. This is one example: [[6]]. Tuvixer changed completely the text and removed the sources. I wrote on the talk page that I disagreed but he did not care. However, I have reinstated the section so that now it makes sense with the wording proposed in the RfC. However, I have just started a specific section on the repression of political opponents and I intend to extend it. I only hope that I will have the possibility to write it without being reverted immediately. Obviously, I cannot edit an RfC for each added sentence just to placate Tuvixer. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You link to an article version, not a diff. We can't see if any attempted changes to the body were reverted there.

#1 So far as I can see there was no mention of suppression of political opponents in the body until now. #2 I personally don't recall you ever previously making any edits to the body, or discussing them on the talkpage when reverted. #3 I consider Tuvixer's reverts justified in that you repeatedly (for months now!) push the same edits without consensus - in full knowledge of their being opposed and their controversial nature. EVEN NOW you're edit-warring with your changes to the lede, while they're under discussion in your RfC. #4 I fully agree with Peacemaker's post, and draw attention to my first comment in the above closed RfC: the lead is a summary of the article, not a venue for minimum-effort "correction" of a perceived slant.

Speedily close the RfC, and lets see if the user is here to improve the article, or vent ideological frustration. Please move on from this RfC, stop edit-warring constantly, and discuss the edits you have in mind for the main text. I for one do not agree to an entire "Repression of political opponents" section... slamming stalinists into federal prison with the Red Army massing on the border 40 miles from Belgrade, Yugoslavia set to become Europe's Korea.. that's a bit of context isn't it? -- Director (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Director, I did not have the time to even start editing and you removed the entire section [[7]]. You even reinstated the modification that Tuvixer did in the "Tito–Stalin split" section. You might want in this case to correct the grammar, it is even not English... However, I had listed in that section intellectual and writers sent to prison later in the 50's when the Red Army was not anymore massed at Yugoslavia's border. BTW I have reverted the modification in the lead, so now the article is 100% at Director's and Tuvixer's taste. As things are now, it looks this article is clearly owned. Any modification is impossible. Whatever the wording and sourcing provided. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, your inability to push edits through edit-warring is a clear sign that the place is "owned". I mean, what's a POV-pusher to do? Discuss the actual changes to the main text? Preposterous!

You are aware that you're engaged in an edit war to push the change to the lead - even as you've posted this RfC? Right? Does that strike you as, lets say inappropriate? -- Director (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Director, here's a quote:[8]

Yugoslavia had more political prisoners than all of the rest of Eastern Europe combined, outside the Soviet Union. [...] The Helsinki Federation knew some 360 political prisoners within the Soviet Union, although the possibility of many more, who were not identified, existed. Within Yugoslavia, there were over 1,100 political prisoners.

I suppose this refers to the 1980s, but there were more, rather than less political prisoners in the earlier decades.

BTW, edit warring always involves at least two sides. GregorB (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even going to look at the source. The contention is that ridiculous. You have heard of gulags, right? The figure may be true for a snapshot in the 80s, but to compare the two countries in terms of political repression is absurd to the point of comedy. We might as well conclude that the US too is also more politically oppressive than the USSR.. how many people are in Guantanamo right now?

And yeah, but only one side is the carcass-beating instigator. -- Director (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. The only thing I can do is to continuously propose a better section in the body of the article. And of course, Director and Tuvixer will remove it. Well, I will continue in proposing something bigger, better and more sourced. At some point they will have to stop and who knows may be an administrator will realize what is happening here. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth a whole section in the SFRY article, but not here. I think what you're adding should be scaled down a bit and integrated into the existing sections, within the appropriate context (of immediate and deadly national peril). We previously had a similar "All Bad Things" section and it was discouraged as a format in a review of the article. -- Director (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, what I am writing is not a "bad thing section" and I encourage you to check dates and sources. Political repression was not limited to the aftermath of WWII but lasted for the full duration of Tito's presidency. But you are right. When the country was in national peril people were executed, later they are merely arrested and put in prison.Silvio1973 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973 close this RfC, and propose changes you want to bring to the article, here on the talk page. Please don't edit the article before the matter is discussed here on the talk page. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuvier, you keep removing a section that I am making at every step bigger and better sourced. I do not need your approval to edit the body of the article. Also I am not violating any rule and I am sourcing my edits. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Direktor, Tuvixer - I don't fully get your position here. Are you against mentioning the suppression of political opponents in the body of the article too? Direktor, are you claiming that there was no significant suppression of political opponents in Yugoslavia? Or that it was, but that it shouldn't be mentioned at all because of Guantanamo or whatnot? Or that it was, but Tito had nothing to do with it? So far, I've been able to tell what do you oppose, more or less. Well then, what would you support? Could you please clearly state your position? GregorB (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's like that. I cannot edit the lead because I add facts that are not in the body of the article. But I cannot edit the body of the article. :))))). This has a name on Wikipedia. It is called WP:OWN. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If you did not realize by now Silvio, but there is a ongoing discussion on that matter. Please close this RfC, and propose the changes you want to add to the article body here on the talk page, not immediately in the article. Tnx

@GregorB do you support the behavior of user Silvio1973? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I support nobody's behavior (except perhaps mine :-) ). This is after all not about behavior, but rather about content. So, back to my question: content-wise, what would you support? GregorB (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

haha, good answer :) Well ok, I will have to repeat myself but ok. I would support something if he could propose the content he wants to add to the article body, so that we can discuss it here. It is rude and unproductive of him to edit the article while we are having a discussion here on the talk page. During the Cold war every country in the world, in a sense, prosecuted or/and repressed political opponents. So we need to put that in the context of time and the global situation. Is that something that was only about Tito, or should that be mentioned in the article about SFRY? Well I am more inclined to mention that in the article about Yugoslavia, and not here. I mean, Tito did not say "that and that person should go to Goli otok",that sort of things were decided elsewhere. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We are not speaking of the SFRY but of the role of Tito in the repression of political opponents. Please not that all the sources I provided specifically speak of Tito's Yugoslavia. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And BTW Tuvixer, concerning the edit in the section "Tito-Stalin split" that you keep changing, you could at least try to write in English. Read it again and spot the mistake(s). If you can. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: if it's indeed your position that, ideally, political oppression should not be mentioned at all in this article, why do ask of Silvio to "propose the content he wants to add to the article body, so that we can discuss it here". Because, predictably, you are going to reject it, all the while baiting Silvio to produce yet more edits, only for you to dismiss them all and call him an edit warrior? Why, then, didn't you say it upfront: you're against any changes to the article, sourced or not, that deal with political oppression? GregorB (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I just said that I think it would be much better to mention it there then here. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, so what kind of mention would you consider appropriate for this article? (Or, alternatively, what's wrong with Silvio's submissions?) GregorB (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)