Jump to content

Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

[Closed] Requested move 16 March 2016

Consensus against moving. --Tone 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Josip Broz Tito → Tito – As per WP:COMMONNAME; he is known universally monomynously. – Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Amakuru, and In ictu oculi: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've not yet seen such a stupid proposal. Do people call you by your full first, middle and last name? In fact, Tito should be omitted from the title since it is not his name, but an alias. 89.164.202.230 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So you don't actually understand policy then. Fair enough. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose target is occupied by a page that is not a redirect, and nominator has no proposition on what to do with it. Further, it is not the common name, since the common name is "Marshal Tito" and not "Tito" (which fails the jobtitle guideline). I would say that the more likely primary topic in the English language world for "Tito" is "Tito Jackson" of the Jackson 5; if you want a shorter name, there's Josip Tito ; and since this is English Wikipedia, his name has also been Anglicized, so can also be Joseph Tito -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this should have been a full RM, not a contested tech move. The IP immediately above has a strange idea about primary topic of "Tito", but the pseudonym alone wouldn't be the common name for this chap. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a surname.--Zoupan 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: without a doubt primary topic and common name.--Zoupan 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: He's not known "universally" by the nickname, but frequently as Josip Broz by itself, and frequently by the combined form, including in high-quality sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica and The New York Times [1], just as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is now frequently referred to that way [2]. It doesn't matter if people in his life time called him either Josip Broz or [Marshal] Tito, not Josip Broz Tito; we follow modern source usage. Having the names both appear in the title is the ideal usage because no confusion can result on the part of any reader that they've arrived at the correct article. PS: The name is also frequently disambiguated in external sources as "Josip Broz (Tito)" or "Tito (Josip Broz)"; this does not comport with our exact disambiguation style, but it indicates agreement in these sources that both names should be included for clarity. So, follow the sources on that common sense matter, even if we would not feel obligated to adopt their exact punctuation against our own house style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
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.

Parents dates of birth and death

Is it necessary to have his parents' dates of birth and death in the article? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Well if they have their own articles then no, but if they don't then why no?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs)
Tuvixer because they aren't relevant to Tito himself. A mention that his parents died at a certain point (during the flow of text through the article), would be fine, it is just unnecessary when describing his early life and clutters the prose. BTW, please sign your comments. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
My removal of the life ranges of the parents has been reverted by Zoupan. Please explain the logic behind this. I have not seen another biography which provides this information, and fail to see why it is relevant. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The logic is that it is not irrelevant? His father was 32 and his mother 28 when they had him. He lost his mother when he was 26. His father outlived his mother and was alive while Tito rised the ranks; it's only 8+8 digits, and standard biographical data. It's not like it's a spoiler. Leave the years. We got the classics, Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring.--Zoupan 22:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. I still don't see the point, particularly as I've already added the deaths of his parents into the text at the appropriate spot, but I take your point re: Hitler etc having the information included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoupan, I can live with those dates in the article. But sincerely I do not see your argument. Is it relevant because he lost his mother when he was 26? And so what? Or is it relevant because the same information is provided for Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring? One could argue the information is not provided for Benito Mussolini or Winston Churchill. In a nutshell, can you explain what is the criterion to include such data?--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
No, what I said is that it is not irrelevant. I meant that 8+8 digits gives this kind of information, and is standard biographical data. P67 had not seen the use of dates in other bio, so I linked two examples. Can you explain the criterion not to include such data? You see what I'm saying?--Zoupan 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I see what you are saying: it's brief and does not spoil anything. Indeed I can live with these pieces of (useless) information in the article. But although I see what you are saying, I still miss your point (BTW the fact Tito was 26 when his mother left does not seem relevant in the slightest). And correct me if I am wrong: inserting something in an article requires a stronger argument than the negative answer to the question "Why should I not include it?". Silvio1973 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Roundabout much? Suggest a vote if you like to keep this (useless) discussion going.--Zoupan 06:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No thank you, I got enough on my plate. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think DOB/DOD of his parents brings anything useful to the article, unless it could be shown that these facts are important for Tito's bio. This is a sizable article already (and might still grow), so one might argue that this kind of cruft is actually harmful. GregorB (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course is pretty useless. And I am pretty sure that if we were to vote, the majority of users would share the same opinion. However I have no time (neither will) in requesting a vote on such minor matter. However, several users would highly appreciate if Zoupan stepped back and removed this piece of information. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech reference

Tuvixer and Director remove sourced edits for some obscure reasons, but do not have any problem in pushing unsourced statements. One example is in the section Reforms were it is written: "Reforms encouraged private enterprise and greatly relaxed restrictions on freedom of speech and religious expression". Such strong statement would require more than a source and actually there is not any. The existing links to a pseudo-source (the Time), which is even not accessible. Check to get convinced. I have [citation needed] tagged the sentence, waiting for a source to be provided. Indeed it should be removed, but I am not Tuvixer. I do not remove what I do not like. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer, do you realize that you have just posted something but the claimed source is not accessible? Provide a quotation for your edit or it will be removed.Silvio1973 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Tuvixer, I have no access to the source you provided but of course I assume good faith. However, the problem persists. The quotation you provided does not make any reference to "relaxed restrictions on freedom of speech". Silvio1973 (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It does, please stop edit warring. I have provided the quotations. Now you are just pissed off because I have provided real quotations. Stop this please, it is unproductive, and that kind of behavior will not help you. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Silvio you have removed a valid source, that is unproductive, and your edit was reverted because you had no reason to remove a valid source. You have requested quotation, I have provided it. What is your problem now?? Maybe there is no problem with the article, maybe there is a problem in someones head?? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

1) I did not remove any source (I do not use your methods). I merely tagged a section with a cn.
2) Tell me where is the reference to the freedom of speech in your quotation, because I do not see it.
3) Remain polite, if you are able to do it. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Please Silvio, don't lie. You have removed a valid source. Anyone can see that: [3] Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you provided a quotation I left the source. Again the problem persists. Where is the reference to the freedom of speech? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Where exactly is freedom of speech mentioned in the provided quote? GregorB (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Come on. Of course there is no mention in the quote, this is Tuvixer. When he is prompted to give explanations, he does not reply. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: For the fifth time: can you provide a quotation about the freedom of speech? If you do not reply the contested section will be cn tagged and removed if a source is not provided. And mind well, we asked you five times, so do not complain that this is edit warring. Your conduct is being voluntarily obstructive. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I agree that in normal conditions an unsourced section can stay in the article months (if not years) before being removed. However, the situation here is different. The user who edited the contested statement was requested 5 or 6 times to source it but did not provide any source. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and I'd support immediate removal of the "freedom of speech" part. Of course, one can always insert it back if a supporting reference - with a quotation, as necessary - is provided. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's perhaps a bold move but I removed it. @Peacemaker, please give me one good reason (just one) to leave it. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Repression of political opponents during Tito's presidency

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached to insert in the lead the sentence: concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

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[1][2][3][4], Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies.

References

References

  1. ^ Tierney, Stephen (2000). Accomodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law - Page 17. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 90-411-1400-9.
    "Human rights were routinely suppressed..."
  2. ^ No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations - Page 37, D. Matas, Canada, 1994.
    "Human rights violations were observed in silence... It was not only that the wide list of verbal crimes flouted international human rights law and international obligations Yugoslavia had undertaken. Yugoslavia, a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paid scant regard to some of its provisions."
  3. ^ Rights Before Courts - Page 183, W. Sadurski. Springer. ISBN 978-94-017-8934-9.
    "The name Tito does not only symbolize the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia... it also symbolizes the post-war totalitarian communist regime, which was marked by extensive and gross violations of human rights and fundamentals freedoms."
  4. ^ Café Europa: Life After Communism, Slavenka Drakulic. Hachette.
    "He was responsible for the massacre of war prisoners at Bleiburg and forced labour camps such as Goli Otok, for political prisoners and the violation of human rights"


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: [[4]]. 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 [[5]]. 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:[6]
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)
I have already a bigger version of the section with more sources, ready to be posted. The only issue is that I need at least 24 hours to post it otherwise I am considered an edit-warrior. For some reasons, Tuvixer and Director feel in the right to remove whatever they want. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are you yet again starting an edit war??? Please refrain yourself from unproductive behavior. If you have something, a bigger version, why don't you present it here on the talk page? And please don't edit the article while there is a ongoing discussion on the talk page. Today you have been warned by another user because of your disruptive edits on this article. If you break the rules again I will have to report you. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • support change - balanced, uncontroversial. (editor part of "feedback request service" for RfC) BoogaLouie (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as it makes lead section more balanced. Berti118 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I see nothing controversial in the proposed change. And it adds important information. The present text could lead to the conclusion that he was indeed only a benevolent dictator, which is verifiably not the case. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support first half of change since it has four sources. The quotation after the sources is unsourced, so it should not be included without one. If quote sourced, support entire change. However, four sources in the lead is WP:OVERCITE. Move all but one citation for the claim, and one for the quote, into the main article body, and don't browbeat readers to make a point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I am also concerned about the second half. It should not be there but in the past I failed to obtain consensus to remove it. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. Sources to be moved in the body of the article. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support change Most every source mentions repression as a significant factor here. TheLogician112 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. I have come across multiple sources confirming that there was a repression of political opponents during Tito's role as Marshall. The proposed change seems fair and neutral without demonizing the subject. The sources listed above seem more than enough to validate the change. Stariradio (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support while I usually object to citations (let alone citation bombing) in the lead, I believe this edit is necessary as an interim measure to restore balance to the lead while the article body is improved to properly reflect the academic consensus on Tito's rule. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
If no-one opposes I think this RfC should be closed and consensus enforced. If I am not wrong the count is 10:2 in favor of the proposed modification. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
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.

Too many quotes in this article?

I am not opposed to the use of quotes, but in this article they are used too extensively. By definition a quote is a primary source hence attracts the risk of OR or misrepresentation, expecially if it is not endorsed by a scholar in a secondary source. And in this article there are 7 (yes, seven) quotes. All of them very long. And 4 of them are from Tito himself. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Quotes can't make up the story. That has to be done with secondary sources and that sources can be backed up with primary sources, quotes. 89.164.252.229 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
A quote cannot, per se, be original research, although cherry-picking quotes without context can present a biased POV. Most of the quotes used here are no more than two or three sentences, and that is not "too long" for a quote. I do agree that the quote used in Origin of the name "Tito" is too long and would be better rendered as a summary of what the source says (presumably Dedijer 1953). I should add that criticising an article's content without suggesting the improved text you want rarely leads to productive changes. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I did not mean a change to the article is needed, except if Silvio1973 has some valid suggestion. This discussion has just started, no reason to say that the editor who had opened it does not have a productive change in mind.
@RexxS, I have a fairly clear idea of how the quotes should be used, but before starting to modify I wanted to understand if other users share my very same concern. The first quote in the article is a good example. Inserting a quote from Tito to assert that he was not responsible in the massacres of Bleiburg is WP:PRIMARY. At least as the quote is currently used. In the order those are the issues I see (and for this reasons I have just removed the quote):
1) The quote is the translation in English from a Yugoslav book. Do we have any idea how properly this has been translated in English?
2) The fact that Tito allegedly wrote that telegram, does not mean that actually he actively opposed the acts leading to the massacres of Bleiburg. This is what the article currently implies.
3) The responsibilities of those events are still today a subject of discussion. As the article is written now (i.e. with the use of a quote) Tito's responsibilities are de facto excluded. And mind well that I could on the spot find four or five sources stating the opposite.
4) I guess the use of the quote could be accepted if along with the quote a decent secondary source was referenced. It is not the case as it is now. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
1) I think non English sources can be used as long as the translation is confirmed by people who know the language in question. In my opinion that kind of sources should be posted to talk page to be verified by other editors before posting that to the article.
2) I agree. The telegram itself can't be a prof of him supporting nor opposing those acts. That's a primary source and we need secondary sources. If the article implies something from this primary source that should be removed from the article since that's OR.
3) The article should not cherry pick the sources.
4) If everything above is fulfilled, a quote can be stated. However nothing should be implied with it without a secondary source.

89.164.160.188 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

i think the test should be, when electing to use a primary quote from the source in question above a set of facts from a secondary source, simply: does the quote itself add to the reader's understanding of the topic? is the quote itself, as an artifact, particularly informative or useful in conveying further understanding?
the point is that quotes like that do not simply convey neutral information, as would a scholarly source - they are colored, and seem more intuitive to use as an example of what Tito said in his defense, rather than as a fact about the situation related to the killings. meta-usages, in other words. Thus i'd be wary of any 'naked' quotes - quotes that are not presented in the context of some interpretive apparatus that explains what they mean. For all the reader knows, he could have shown to be lying his head off in those quotes. if that's so, it should be made clear. Happy monsoon day 21:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree.89.164.181.240 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Glad to see I am not the only one believing this article is "over quoted". I have been very busy during the last months in the real life but I should have time starting July and certainly I will start contributing again to this article. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Economic policies during Tito's presidency

I am doing some additional research on the Tito's economic policies. The sources I have found so far say that Tito's economic model (at least starting 1961) was mainly based on debt contracted with foreign lenders, with Yugoslavia being unable to pay interests (let alone the reimbursement of the principal), even including the remittances from emigrants. In 1972 total remittances from emigrants amounted to $2.1 billion; this was insufficient to cover trade deficit and prevent the outflow of foreign currency from Yugoslavia. It looks the popularity of Tito's economic policies claimed in the lead should be rephrased in view of these elements. However, for the time being I will limit myself to the body of the article. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The more I do some research of the alleged success of Tito's economic policies the more I find that modern historians consider them anything but not successful. For the time being I am confining myself to the section "Evaluation", but how do we reconcile this material with the current version of the lead? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not add all of that in a separate section, like "Economy" or "Economic policy"? Other articles about presidents and prime ministers mostly have it that way. Tzowu (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. Do you think I can move forward? Such kind of "bold moves" on this article result invariably in never-ending discussions, regardless of the amount of sources brought forward. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. 89.164.199.102 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tzowu:, I see two alternatives. We keep everything in the section "Evaluation" or we split it in two sections. If we go for the second option I would suggest: "Human Rights during Tito's presidency" and "Evaluation of economic policies". I can't find anything more neutral. Any proposal from your side? Silvio1973 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This is what I did elsewhere. On the Zoran Milanović article I edited his time as prime minister into sections domestic policy, economy, and foreign policy. On the Franjo Tuđman article I added a section about war years, with 3 subsections, and one for post-war policy, which I planned to expand with foreign policy and more about domestic policy. Tzowu (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Formulation currently used in the lead

Should the formulation in the lead "Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies", left such as? It is out of contest that some historians describe in their works Tito as a benevolent dictator. The thing is that the above formulation is so inconsistent with the content of the article to appear (at least in the current state) POV. In a nutshell:

1) It is unclear to whom "by most" refers. Most historians? Most people? Most Serbians? Most Albanians? 2) Once agreed to whom "by most" refers, it has to be proven that it is actually "by most". 3) The link between the "benevolent nature of Tito' regime" and its economic policies is far from evident. Indeed, the sources currently cited in the body of the article suggest quite the opposite (i.e. Yugoslavia was not well managed from an economic perspective). Silvio1973 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the article and not stand alone in its own right. I think these areas that align with a general appraisal of Tito need to be far better sourced and less "puffy". My effort at improving the article is on hold at present, and I don't have the sources to hand that would be needed to determine what the general appraisal of Tito is among academics internationally as well as locally. I imagine, like many things, it depends on who you ask, and there will be plenty of comparing and contrasting of sources needed. Frankly, trying to fix the lead while the later sections are in the state they are in is largely a waste of time, but I'm all for getting rid of the "seen by most" puffery. No doubt there are sources that say he was wily, flexible and had a large ego, as well as many other things, all of which should be in the article. A real assessment of him requires a detailed look at all the "uninvolved" biographies as well as the academic body of work pre- and post- his death, locally and internationally. I don't think the article has much of that at present. As a Level 3 Vital Article, I'd like to put in some more work on it, but I expect strong resistance by POV warriors to a balanced view of the man that compares and contrasts the reliable sources on him. So my motivation is limited at the moment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I will try to propose an alternative to the current format. I am not sure this will resist for any long time. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to the success of his economic policies (because according to the sources listed in the article, they were not that successful) and replaced "considered by most" with "by some historians". Silvio1973 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Tito"

While I do not contest the actual legitimacy of the quote in the article, IMHO the current format is unsuitable for WP. The paragraph is entirely made by the quote. Are other users up to change the current presentation of this material?Silvio1973 (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Unrealiable source

Previously, the article's lead section contained a reference to this article on www.balkaninside.com (not to be confused with Balkan Insight). The website no longer works, but the article was archived. You will notice that, in addition to the poor grammar, the website is citing a Metapedia article which claims, among other things, that Tito was actually a Viennese Jew.

I have now removed the reference as I highly doubt the website is reliable. ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Josip Broz Tito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Reponsbility for massacres and war crimes

Why is there no section on his role in war crimes and atrocities? [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezno_massacre#Forced_marches_and_executions] Can you imagine an article on Hitler without reference to the holocaust?122.59.213.223 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the World War II section of the article as "atrocities after the repatriations of Bleiburg". BytEfLUSh | Talk! 01:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Caption of Photo

"Marshal Tito Street at Skopje. (26 July 1963, the Yugoslav People's Army support stuff for earthquake)" - "stuff" reads wrong but it's not obvious what this is meant to mean; "staff" ? Can someone with knowledge of the photo fix this? Thanks Dorset100 (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I lived in that Yugoslavia

This article looks like it is taken from my then history book at an elementary school. Every single "fact" is the exact copy. However, Yugoslavia was at least a very oppressive country, if not a simple mental institution that was producing its offsprings in order to continue the madness on and on into the future. Now, you tell me that a copied article about the leader who was called in the Constitution itself "the son of all people" and other legal nonsenses like "president for life" has any credibility. He would have loved to read this article, I am sure about that, as would millions who still believe that those times were heaven on Earth, refusing to see what devilish devise that country was.

Every fact written here should be taken with a (huge) grain of salt. It is unlikely that the truth is going to be revealed anytime soon about what was really happening and what is the connection between then-times and now-times.

Instead of writing on top of the article: "historical facts disputed due to 50 years of constant propaganda and brainwashing in the mentioned country", here is my small contribution for those uninitiated.

I am sad to see that the madness continues and that wikipedia or any -edia is not capable of digging through history in a much more accurate manner. I know what they told you to believe in. I am just saying that you do not have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.4.122 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy in facts

In the early life section, I see the following information, quote: "Josip Broz was born on 7 May 1892 [...] He was the seventh or eighth child of Franjo Broz and Marija née Javeršek, his parents having already lost a number of children in early infancy. [...] his parents had been married on 21 January 1891." If his parents were married only in 1891 and Tito was born already in 1892, that would leave hardly any room for other (legitimate) children before him. Cohabitation without marriage and extramarital children were far from a usual option in those times, especially among catholics.


It' an mistake, probably a simple slip in typing. Josip Broz parents marriage was 31. January 1881.. Source: Vladmir Dedijer: "Prilozi za biografiju Josipa Broza Tita", Zagreb: 1953, p. 21. Josip was 7th child. Of 6 older, only 2 survived more then 2 years.--37.0.189.137 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An incorect information here: »In July 1900,[18] at the age of eight, Broz entered primary school at Kumrovec, but only completed four years of school,[17] failing the 2nd grade then graduating in 1905« It's not ONLY: 4-years school was what was binding at that time. After that, peasant's sons could became an aprentice, to study for crafstsman, on nothing; meybe 10% of all man in Croatia then has more then 4 years of shooling. After two years of pause, Josip become an aprentice, and it was the most he realy can achieve in life with 15 years. --37.0.189.137 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image survey

I propose that File:Josip Broz Tito uniform portrait.jpg (the current infobox image), which was published in Yugoslavia in 1963 and is therefore PD in Slovenia (where it was published) and in the US, be the agreed infobox image for this article for the time being. It shows Tito in uniform (reminiscent of WWII), and is an image from the 1960s, which is also an era for which he is remembered. It is regularly replaced with non-PD images which do not have non-free rationales (and which of course would not be justifiable given there is a PD image that shows what he looked like, in 1963 at least). I propose we adopt this image as the default infobox image unless and until another PD image is identified. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey


Discussion

what is "PD"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8c0:37f:8160:d13b:c121:83db:1001 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Public Domain, see WP:PD. It basically means that it is free of copyright, anyone can use it in any way and for any purpose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2019

After the appearance of Žarko Leon is a comment about him being born on 4 February, 1924, and there's elsewhere a reference to "Partisan war crimes in September, 1945". Please remove the commas after the month names. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 21:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Relationship with Leonid Brezhnev

I've been reading about the Socialist Fraternal Kiss and I read that Brezhnev managed to injure Tito's mouth while greeting him in that way. I was wondering what the relationship between the two leaders was like (in other words, whether this was not just a case of an over-enthusiastic greeting but some kind of assertion of dominance on Brezhnev's part going on) 2A01:4B00:F415:A600:80AF:4D40:1B55:8D25 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting a move

This article is currently parked under a title that strikes me as absurd, and I'd love to see it moved. I'm finding one prior move proposal from about four years back, so I wanted to start this as a conversation first. As of today, the article title is Josip Broz Tito, which is the subject's given name, family name, and adopted mononym, respectively. If this format were applied to other famous individuals, we'd have Edson Arantes do Nascimento Pelé, Marshall Mathers Eminem, and Gordon Sumner Sting—titles which defy not only WP:COMMONNAME but also any conventional usage.

I am not well versed in the nuances of WP:PARENDIS, particularly as it applies to people, so I don't feel comfortable suggesting an ideal title for this article, but given the current state of things I'd find any of the following preferable:

Hopefully one or more upstanding editors will have a sense which of these is best (or offer an even better alternative). I look forward to hearing ideas, agreement, and dissent. Cheers —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do You find it absurd? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It is how well-known nicknames are presented in Serbo-Croatian. Like Svetozar Vukmanović Tempo and Slaviša Vajner Čiča. This formulation for nicknames is commonly used in books about Yugoslavia in WWII, although sometimes it is hyphenated ie Josip Broz-Tito. However, an argument could well be made that the article should just be at Tito as he is highly likely to be the person sought when a reader searches for Tito. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
If that construction was used it his native language, then I revise my position and find it unusual rather than absurd. I had been finding very few instances of U.S. publications using the three-name formulation, and the stats make it plain that this has been a relative rarity except in the few years just after Tito's death. The New York Times, for instance, rarely if ever used 'Josip Broz Tito' during his lifetime and usually employed something like 'Josip Broz (Tito)' in the vary rare instances they didn't simply call him 'Marshal Tito'. As best I can tell, it was only around 1982 when the Times adopted the three-name formulation. I note that in the current version of the article, the section addressing his name seems to strongly imply that 'Tito' was always meant to stand alone.
It's an interesting matter, but at present I would still favor a move. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 02:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd support a move to Tito. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Josip Broz Tito
I do not support any move. As I know he is always referred to as Josip Broz Tito. Just Josip Broz could be confused with Joška Broz and just Tito can be confusing in many ways, Tito is a common name and surname in Latin America and even in Africa. "Tito" in Josip Broz Tito became part of his name. We can see in his resting place that he is named Josip Broz Tito. As I see Croatian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia name him also Josip Broz Tito. There is nothing strange about that, first to mind comes another antifascist leader from Yugoslavia Ivo Lola Ribar. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Good points by Tuvixer. Also, it's the name that's on Tito's grave (see picture). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That line break doesn't really point either way. Could be Josip Broz Tito, could be Josip Broz / Tito. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I have doubts about the proponent´s last option. As far as I remember, the correct way to point out something from Yugoslavia in English is Yugoslav, thus the last option should be "That Yugoslav guy Tito". FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if this is one of those cases where highly attuned people would use 'Yugoslav' to suggest an ethnicity and 'Yugoslavian' to suggest a national affiliation? I like the food for thought! —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_11&oldid=1136856491"