Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

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)

The condition of political opponents during Tito's presidency

Tuvixer keeps saying that I am problematic because I do not discuss the changes on the talk page first. Well to demonstrate that I am doing everything to solve the issue I propose to add a specific section to explain the condition of political opponents during Tito's regime. I suggest to add the following material (I tried to add it in the article but it was removed by Tuvixer):

Criticism has been raided by a number of historians about the repression of political opponents and dissidents during Tito's presidency. The main victims of this repression were during the first years known and alleged Stalinists, such as Dragoslav Mihailović and Dragoljub Mićunović, but during the following years even some of the most prominent among Tito's collaborators were arrested. On 19 November 1956 Milovan Đilas, perhaps the closest of Tito's collaborator and widely regarded as Tito's possible successor, was arrested because of his criticism against Tito's regime. The repression did not excluded intellectuals and writers, such as Venko Markovski who was arrested and sent to jail in January 1956 for writing poems considered anti-Titoist.

Tito's secret police was modeled on the Soviet KGB. Its members were present everywhere and acted often above laws, with victims including middle-class intellectuals, liberals and democrats.

As the head of a highly centralised and oppressive regime, Tito wielded tremendous power in Yugoslavia, with his authoritarian rule administered through an elaborate bureaucracy which routinely suppressed human rights. According to David Mates, outside the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia had more political prisoners than all of the rest of Eastern Europe combined.

Silvio1973 (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am happy that you have followed my advice and presented the changes you want to make here, instead of your disruptive edits to the article. :) Progress, of a kind. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not like you. I try to do everything I can to make thing moving on. Would you mind, in the meantime, answering about your missing quote? You are pushing unsourced material. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Temporary change to formatting of References section etc

I have temporarily changed the formatting of the References section to make it easier to access one section at a time while I format the References properly. I'll change it back after I've finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

@silvio1973 Please stop edit warring. If you have an issue then present it on the talk page. Stick to the facts, and please resist your urge to edit war. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuvier, your behavior has been already classified as problematic by one user and one administrator [[6]] and [[7]]. Be precise if you have something to complain about. And what's more important, source your edits or get out of the way. You are on the good way for another report to ANI. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973, you need to calm down. Feel free to report me again. You will embarrass yourself again, that is not my problem. You don't understand one simple thing, you are not allowed edit war. You can't revert my edit just because you "think" something is incorrect. Have a good argument, or show some good faith and revert your last edit to the article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to edit that Tito participated to the Spanish Civil war, source it. Otherwise stop posting unsourced material. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So you think that every sentence in an article needs to be sourced? --Tuvixer (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. But if you edit that Tito participated to the Spanish Civil I have no option but removing the edit and ask you to source it. Anyone with a little knowledge of Tito's biography knows that he never fought in Spain but instead was in France involved in the recruitment of the Yugoslavs volunteers. Of course when an edit is not sourced but there is the smallest possibility that it's genuine, I show good faith and merely tag it with cn. And BTW for the 6th time: do you intend to source your edit about the "freedom of speech"? I am being patient, but if you do not source it, the edit will be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox mention of him serving in the Spanish Civil War was unsourced in the body of the article and I was completely correct to remove it from the infobox. The body of the article merely states he recruited for the war, not that he served in it. Unless service in the Spanish Civil War is reliably sourced in the body of the article, it needs to be left out of the infobox and lead. BTW, using someone's user name in a section heading of a talk page is verboten and could be considered a personal attack or harassment. I have changed it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues with Encyclopaedia Brittanica, esp in lead

There are serious issues of copyright violation and close paraphrasing of the Britannica article by Ivo Banac on Tito, particularly in the lead. Earwig says a 12.3% chance of copyright violation, but a cursory examination of the two indicates other close paraphrasing. This will require some rewriting of the lead as soon as practicable so that it is in WPs words, not Banac's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to shortened footnotes

G'day all, I propose to move the citations in this article to the much easier and tidier shortened footnotes format ({{sfn}}). This automatically groups any citations from the same page of each source, and makes the text more readable in edit view. Any objections? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. And well done for taking the pain to format the article. It is a quite tedious job. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it that I have agreement to go ahead with this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, just for the sake of democracy, and also I think it is unnecessary. Let some other user decide. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Democracy? So far the consensus is for the change, Tuvixer. Unless someone else chimes in, I'll start implementing this tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. One person is fora, and one against. That is not a consensus. Even if two persons were for, and one against, there would still be no consensus. Be patient and let other users express their opinion. why are you in such a hurry? Be productive and respect other users, they also have to say something about this. There is no deadline. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus, two against one, and your !vote is virtually worthless, as you have expressed no reason for your stance. You have merely said you don't agree with it, despite that fact that the change would make the article easier to edit and easier to read in edit mode, and would enable a tidying of sources and automate duplication. I would be the one doing all the work, you are not being asked to do anything. This is a Level 3 vital article which is in a parlous state from a MOS perspective and should be improved to GA level. Please explain why you are opposed to the change. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On the basis of the reasoning stated above, and with two editors for (myself and Silvio) and one against (Tuvixer, who has failed to provide any reason for his opposition), I will go ahead with this and start working through the citations as I get a spare few minutes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Material from McGoldrick

Page 17 of "Accommodating National Identity in National Law and International Law", by Dominic McGoldrick, in Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law says that, "Theoretically decentralised powers were in fact highly centralised and oppressive. The Communist Party was dominant. An authoritarian leader, Tito, dispensed enormous power through a complex set of institutional structures. The Army gradually increased its role in society. Human rights were routinely suppressed." I propose rendering this material in the body as follows: "As the head of a "highly centralised and oppressive" regime, Tito wielded tremendous power in Yugoslavia, with his authoritarian rule administered through an elaborate bureaucracy which routinely suppressed human rights." If it needs to be contrasted which sources that take a different view, I propose to preface it with "According to Dominic McGoldrick, Professor of International Human Rights Law at the University of Nottingham," Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a completely false presentation of what is written in that article, or whatever you want to call that source. What human rights were routinely suppressed? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Peacemaker67: for this material. I am integrating your edit in the proposed section above (reference list need to be better organized, I will take care of it if the modification flies). Let me know what you think. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I get your M.O. now: you're shooting down every change that would mention political oppression, second-guessing or outright denying what reliable sources say. (Balancing views or putting them into context is one thing, but denying outright Tito's responsibility is absurd.) You said you're not unconditionally against such changes.[8] Yet, when asked repeatedly[9][10] what kind of change would you agree with, you simply do not respond and carry on as if nothing happened. That's not collaboration, that's obstruction. Once again (for the third time!): please state upfront what kind of changes would you accept - don't make other editors guess. GregorB (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it a false representation of that material? I have put up an entirely reasonable proposal based on a chapter in an academic text on international and national law written by a professor of international law and it accurately reflects the content in the source. Anyone can see that, as I have quoted the source. Do you have a source that directly refutes McGoldrick? If you do, it can also be included in the article to compare and contrast with the material from McGoldrick. Your unsourced assertions do not matter, this is about what reliable sources you have, and even if you have them, all that happens here on WP is that they are compared and contrasted with McGoldrick in the article, under no circumstances would McGoldrick be left out of the article because you don't agree with him, or even if you had a source that disagreed with him. Tendentious stone-walling behaviour on the inclusion of material from reliable academic sources will be reported to AE. Either come up with sources to compare and contrast with McGoldrick or get out of the way. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you are talking to a user with just 2000 edits and a third of them are probably reverts... However I keep expanding the section above with more sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@GregorB: I have answered that question before. Everyone can see that. However, no sane person would ever support that what Silvio1973 is proposing. 80% of his proposal is not sourced, he used the same source two times, one next to another, and there are grammatical errors. That proves my point, which I had from the beginning. Silvio1973 is not interested in improving the article at all, he is only interested in the lead. His proposal, that he has constructed now, is ludicrous. It is something he made up quickly, just for an excuse, if that is in the article then he can edit the lead, and so on. It is really confusing that you are supporting such nonconstructive and disruptive user. Why not add a section that is named "Criticism" or something like that? And again, what human rights were routinely suppressed? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ludicrous? Well, there is no point in adding a section "Criticism" per se. The objective is to describe properly the condition of political opponents during Tito's presidency. If you think the proposed change in POV propose alternative sources. Mind well, that I am targeting to add by the end of the week in this proposal around 10 sources. This cannot be WP:FRINGE of some revisionists. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My proposal is only about McGoldrick, I'm not interested in incorporating McGoldrick into something else Silvio is doing. Just McGoldrick. McGoldrick doesn't say which human rights were routinely suppressed, he says that human rights were routinely suppressed. That is all that is required for the inclusion of the above proposal, that the text accurately reflects the source. It is clearly a reliable source, and it is also clearly verifiable. Please explain your objection using WP policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: So where exactly in the article body would you like to incorporate it? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: maybe you have answered that question before, but had I seen your answer in the mountain of text, I wouldn't have asked you about it three times, would I? So for the fourth time: could you please answer my question or provide a link to an answer? GregorB (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in the Presidency section, obviously, but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate subsection. On that basis, at the top of the section before the first subsection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the same. There is no appropriate subsection, hence my proposal to open a specific section like "The condition of political opponents during Tito's presidency" (but another name could be better suitable). Again, my intention is not to express all criticism in that section. What's for? Tito's regime was certainly repressive, but less than others. The intention of this section is to describe as much as factually is possible the condition of political opposition and the restrictions on the freedom of speech under Tito. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, would you like to add a Criticism subsection to the Presidency section? --Tuvixer (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely think that opening a subsection Criticism opens the door to any post motivated by ideological reasons and from an encyclopedic approach is not the ideal formatting. Hence my suggestion for a different title. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a more neutral section title for such material would be "Assessment", "Evaluation" or "Critique"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would still prefer a more precise title such "Freedom of speech during Tito's presidency" but I can live with "Assessment". Silvio1973 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not "Criticism" or "Critique"? It can be negative or positive. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism is generally considered negative. Critique can be both, Assessment and Evaluation are probably the most neutral. Remember that this proposed section will no doubt have both positive and negative things to say about Tito. I suggest Evaluation would be best. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with "Evaluation". Does it work if we specify "Evaluation of freedom of speech during Tito's presidency" or the idea is to have a subsection were everything goes in? The reason why I would like to restrict to a specific topic is that, in view of the history of changes on this article, there is substantial possibility that this subsection would become after a while just a new version of the lead. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Then Critique would be the best option. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I am for Evaluation or Assessment. It has to be a neutral title. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am going with Evaluation until a different consensus appears. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added some material to the section. I still need to enter the sources with the sfn format. I need a few hours to learn the syntax, as I am not familiar with it. Thank you for the patience. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is enter it with sfn then a pipe then the author last name (with more pipes if more than one author, then the year, then p= with the page number. The ref field in the source should be set to harv. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, @Peacemaker67: I do not have anymore sources to format. Tuvixer removed all the edits and all the sources... Silvio1973 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Silvio1973, don't ignore what I have written, and also don't ignore the RfC that you have started. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Silvio, you need to closely cite the sentence "Concerns have been raised by a number of historians about the repression of political opponents and dissidents during Tito's presidency". I would expect to see several citations at the end of that sentence, from the historians that have raised such concerns. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973, why are you adding material that is subject of an RfC?? You need to follow the rules. Stop what you are doing, or close the RfC and the propose your changes.

Also where is the consensus on naming the subsection Evaluation? Can somebody share an example of another world leader that has the subsections "Evaluation" in his article? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973, I have said. If you continue your disruptive behavior I will have to report you. That material that you have included in the article is the subject of an RfC you have opened. It can't be introduced to the article until the RfC is closed. Close the RfC, or wait. If you start to edit war, that will not help you. Please Silvio, behave, at least once, lake an adult. Everything can be resolved on the talk page. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer, you have wholesale removed all my edits and their sources. Only the first line was similar to the RfC, all the other edit added additional facts and where sourced. I do not know if you realise that you have been disruptive for the last week. Also I have been since the target of your personal attacks. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's just work through this slowly. McGoldrick has been incorporated, what's next? Also, Tuvixer, both Silvio and I agreed on Evaluation, only you wanted Critique. The weak 2/3rds consensus is therefore for Evaluation. If a different consensus appears as different editors get involved, it is easy enough to change it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of order and to minimise potential disruptions to the process I will add peogressively more material starting from the absoluely bomb-proof sourced stuff. To be continued. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your forbearance is appreciated. Perhaps you could start a new thread to detail the sources that support the statement "Concerns have been raised by a number of historians about the repression of political opponents and dissidents during Tito's presidency"? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As this is also the incipit of the RfC I prefer to wait. I will start from something that is verbatim reported in the sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added material supported by 3 sources which are not in the list. I suppose I need to list the sources at the end of the article and only after I can use the sfn. Correct? Let me know if you are fine with the edit and the sources. If they are OK I will try to do this "sfn job" by myself. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Peacemaker67, I started editing the references with the sfn format. Let me know if the job is done properly. Is the first time I do it.--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)