Jump to content

Talk:Josip Broz Tito: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Tito - Stalin: new section
Nbanic (talk | contribs)
463 edits
Line 89: Line 89:


{{Ping|Peacemaker67}} Hi, this kind of edit by user Nbanic, combined with other edits that she/he has made, clearly shows that she/he is only interested in pushing her/his own point of view and that she/he is not interested in improving this article. It is pointless and unproductive to add a quote or citation to the lead just to make a POV push. First, I have no problem and I do not dispute that some consider that Tito was "equal" or "as bad as" Stalin, etc. Most of them, if not all, consider that he was even worse than Stalin. That is mostly because they are guide by their personal feelings which can cloud someones objective thinking. The phrase "''taste for bloody revenge against enemies''" seems like something from a trash movie, but ok. That point of view is already covered in the lead by "...''his presidency has been criticised as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised''... So I will moved the added content to a more suitable place in the article. Do you think maybe that it is better to state this in the section about Tito-Stalin split? Thanks --[[User:Tuvixer|Tuvixer]] ([[User talk:Tuvixer|talk]]) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
{{Ping|Peacemaker67}} Hi, this kind of edit by user Nbanic, combined with other edits that she/he has made, clearly shows that she/he is only interested in pushing her/his own point of view and that she/he is not interested in improving this article. It is pointless and unproductive to add a quote or citation to the lead just to make a POV push. First, I have no problem and I do not dispute that some consider that Tito was "equal" or "as bad as" Stalin, etc. Most of them, if not all, consider that he was even worse than Stalin. That is mostly because they are guide by their personal feelings which can cloud someones objective thinking. The phrase "''taste for bloody revenge against enemies''" seems like something from a trash movie, but ok. That point of view is already covered in the lead by "...''his presidency has been criticised as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised''... So I will moved the added content to a more suitable place in the article. Do you think maybe that it is better to state this in the section about Tito-Stalin split? Thanks --[[User:Tuvixer|Tuvixer]] ([[User talk:Tuvixer|talk]]) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

:Hi, I am for a neutral point of view and this did not seem to be the case with the previous version of the article. If his evaluation is already given in the introduction, than it should be neutral by giving both points of view. Tuvixer also says that he also does not dispute that some consider him a dictator similar to Stalin. So, in order for the evaluation in the introduction be neutral, this should also be stated. [[User:Nbanic|Nbanic]] ([[User talk:Nbanic|talk]]) 09:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:36, 22 April 2020

Former good article nomineeJosip Broz Tito was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Vital article

Dictator

In the article it is claimed that Tito was seen by most as as a benevolent dictator. However, this may be very misleading. Namely, after taking a closer look at the referenced text, it can be seen that it is taken from a book that contains testimonies of ordinary people with various opinions and possible biases. Thus, the claim that Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator is again the opinion of a single person as can be seen in the book that has been referenced there. On the other hand, however, there are numerous sources that claim Tito's reign to be a bloody dictatorship.[1][2][3] Therefore, the claim about Tito being a benevolent dictator is biased and it should be said in a more neutral way, namely by mentioning the other side as well. Nbanic (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Stepinac

Aloysius Stepinac is mentioned in this article and the content dealing with him has been changed several times. Namely, today his trial is considered to have been a show trial. This may have been unclear from some older versions of this article. In order to make things more clear to a reader, it useful to mention that on 22 July 2016, the Zagreb County Court annulled his post-war conviction due to "gross violations of current and former fundamental principles of substantive and procedural criminal law".[4] Namely, there were numerous communist trials that were later not annulled, but this specific one was condemned even back in 1992 by the Croatian parliament. Therefore, mentioning this fact gives a reader a more clear picture about the facts. Nbanic (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You consider it to be a show trial. If Stepinac was a war criminal or not is not the subject of this article. Do not change the lead of the article as you like, that kind of edits show that you are just interested to push your own POV, so please educate yourself on how Wikiepdia works. This kind ob behavior is unproductive and disturbing, so please educate yourself on how Wikiepdai works, and please DO NOT ENGAGE IN EDIT WARS. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote had to do with the sources, i.e. I wrote sourced content. That means that I wrote what a large number of authors consider. Additionally, if Stepinac is already mentioned in the article and his trial is also mentioned in the article, it means that it should be clarified further. Otherwise, someone may get only partial information. Please, do not engage in an edit war as you do without reasoning your actions of deleting sourced content. Nbanic (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

In the current version of the article it is mentioned that ten years after Tito's death Yugoslavia descended into civil war. This claim is very dubious and it seems that is should be changed just to the claim that it descended into a war, i.e. not a civil war because it avoid many possible mistakes. For example, the Croatian_War_of_Independence is also one of the resulting wars there. However, already on that page you can read the following text that I have copied directly from that page: Two views exist as to whether the war was a civil or an international war. The government of Serbia often states that it was entirely a "civil war".[5][6] The prevailing view in Croatia and of most international law experts, including both international courts ICTY and ICJ, is that the war was an international conflict, between the rump Yugoslavia and Serbia against Croatia, supported by Serbs in Croatia.[5][7][8] Neither Croatia nor Yugoslavia ever formally declared war on each other.[9]

So if already the prevailing view of the international law experts is that it was not a civil war, it would be much better to simply drop the civil there. Does anybody have any objections? Nbanic (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Yugoslavia descended into civil war" does not apply only to the Croatian war of Independence but to all the armed conflicts in Yugoslavia which followed after its dissolution. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't, but take a look at e.g. the Bosnian War. There is the same issue and therefore it should as least be argued that there are significant differing views. And there also seems to be a reference missing about this being a civil war, i.e. it is unsourced. Nbanic (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total News Croatia - Stepinac - Ustashe - Saint

@Peacemaker67: Hi, can you please tell me how is Total news Croatia RS? Also, what is the point in stating that the conviction was annulled in 2016? This article is about Josip Broz Tito, who died in 1980. The section, in the article, where the sentence: "On 22 July 2016, the Zagreb County Court annulled his post-war conviction due to "gross violations of current and former fundamental principles of substantive and procedural criminal law"; was added, continues with: "In October 1946,..." So we go from year 1945 to 2016 and then back to 1946. This is not how an article should be written. I do not dispute that some consider it to be a show trial, or that the conviction was annulled in the 21st century. The topic is too complicated to be merely composed in one sentence. It is wrong to burden this article with that kind of "discussion about Stepinac". Is it not better to remove the two newly added sentences, and change the existing sentence, like this: "The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on trial.", so that it redirects to the article about the trail, where the content about the trial is and should be covered? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the mentioned change would be more appropriate like this: "The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on a show trial.". Nbanic (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe even better like this "The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on what is by many considered to be a show trial." Nbanic (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Here all the currently used references could also be put.[reply]
Is not stating that it was a "trial" neutral and that it was a "show trial" not neutral? Best to see what other users think. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is neutral if it is a fact, there are numerous sources that claim that it was a show trial, even back then it sent shock waves in the diplomacy. So the statement is definitely neutral because it is in accordance with the facts and it gives more information by simply giving an additional word to the sentence. Nbanic (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tito - Stalin

@Peacemaker67: Hi, this kind of edit by user Nbanic, combined with other edits that she/he has made, clearly shows that she/he is only interested in pushing her/his own point of view and that she/he is not interested in improving this article. It is pointless and unproductive to add a quote or citation to the lead just to make a POV push. First, I have no problem and I do not dispute that some consider that Tito was "equal" or "as bad as" Stalin, etc. Most of them, if not all, consider that he was even worse than Stalin. That is mostly because they are guide by their personal feelings which can cloud someones objective thinking. The phrase "taste for bloody revenge against enemies" seems like something from a trash movie, but ok. That point of view is already covered in the lead by "...his presidency has been criticised as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised... So I will moved the added content to a more suitable place in the article. Do you think maybe that it is better to state this in the section about Tito-Stalin split? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am for a neutral point of view and this did not seem to be the case with the previous version of the article. If his evaluation is already given in the introduction, than it should be neutral by giving both points of view. Tuvixer also says that he also does not dispute that some consider him a dictator similar to Stalin. So, in order for the evaluation in the introduction be neutral, this should also be stated. Nbanic (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Bern, Gregory (1947). Behind the Red mask. Bern Publications. ISBN 1135742901.
  2. ^ Pintar, John (1954). Four years in Tito's hell. H.P.K.
  3. ^ Sebestyen, Victor (2014). 1946: The Making of the Modern World. Macmillan. ISBN 0230758002.
  4. ^ "Court Annuls Verdict against Cardinal Stepinac". Total Croatia News. 22 July 2016.
  5. ^ a b Bjelajac et al. 2009, pp. 238–239.
  6. ^ Daniel Böhmer (17 October 2009). "Warum sollte Serbien Mladic schützen?" [Why should Serbia protect Mladic?]. Die Welt Online (in German). Die Welt. Retrieved 16 December 2010. Boris Tadic: "Eine Täterrolle für Serbien muss ich ablehnen. Das war ein Bürgerkrieg, und daran war jeder beteiligt. Wir alle müssen uns unserer Verantwortung stellen" (Translation: "I must refuse the role of a perpetrator for Serbia. This was a civil war, and everyone was involved. We must all shoulder our responsibilities.")
  7. ^ "The Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule"". International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 5 October 1995. Retrieved 19 January 2011.
    The armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia started shortly after the date on which Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence on June 25, 1991 between the military forces of the SFRY and Slovenia and Croatia. Such armed conflict should, of course, be characterized as internal because the declarations of independence were suspended in consequence of the proposal of the EC for three months. After the expiration of the three months' period, on October 7, 1991, Slovenia proclaimed its independence with effect from that date, and Croatia with effect from October 8, 1991. So the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia should be considered international as from October 8, 1991 because the independence of these two States was definite on that date
  8. ^ "Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) – General Conclusions and Recommendations". United Nations. 27 May 1994. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  9. ^ David Binder (8 January 1992). "U.N.'s Yugoslavia Envoy Says Rising War-Weariness Led to the Cease-Fire". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 January 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito&oldid=952454253"