Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Tito)
Former good article nomineeJosip Broz Tito was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 5, 2004, April 5, 2005, April 5, 2006, April 7, 2009, January 14, 2015, January 14, 2018, and January 14, 2021.


Native name in SC Cyrillic[edit]

A couple of days ago, the subject's name in Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic was removed by editor @Andro611 from the infobox on the basis that Serbo-Croatian was in fact not the subject's native language. This relies on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language, or in this case, as if it was not acknowledged as such during the subject's lifetime. Languages spoken by Tito are documented in a paragraph in § Family and personal life. Tito claimed Serbo-Croatian as his native language. Specifics about his accent or native Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language are other topics that need not be discussed here. SC Cyrillic writing of Josip Broz Tito's name should be returned to the infobox. –Vipz (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His native name is the same as his name in English, so this parameter would have been unnecessary but for the fact that in his native language two scripts are used, and when his name is written down in the non-Latin script it is no longer the same, script-wise. Therefore, using this parameter to record the native name in the aspect in which it differs from English is consistent with the purpose of the parameter. I agree with Vipz. —Alalch E. 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Vipz for the reasons stated above. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. Doremo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things to unpack here. I removed the Cyrillic not on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language nor was is about the “Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language” which was a topic brought up by @Vipz in this diff. I removed based on the simple fact the Cyrillic script was never used in Hrvatsko Zagorje where Tito is from nor in Slovenia where he was raised. It was used neither before nor during his life and implying he wrote his name in Cyrillic in his native language is absurd. Why not add it to Tuđman's infobox? Or the Herzegovian Ante Pavelić? Both of whom were more Serbo-Croatian than the Slovenian-raised and descended Tito ever was. Pavelić was from a Serbian majority village, surely Serbian was spoken there.
Secondly, extending Cyrillic to Croat-majority Croatia is a pars pro toto logical fallacy. Even language unitarists did not try to impose Cyrillic on Croatia. Croatia in Yugoslavia had its own variety of Serbo-Croatian called “hrvatskosrpski” or Croatoserb which was exclusively written in the latin alphabet and ijekavica. This wasn't some fringe linguistic nationalism, this was state policy done by unitarists themselves. After 1967 the scholarly consensus in Croatia was that Croatian was a separate language precluding any potential use of Cyrillic in the future, nevermind the fact that it wasn't even used anywhere among Croats prior to 1967.
To write Tito's native name in Cyrillic because some parts of the Serbo-Croatian sprachraum (not his birth place!) use Cyrillic is akin to writing Beijing-born Xi Jinping's native name in Portuguese because one specific part of China, that is Macau, uses Portuguese. Andro611 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic script is far more pertinent to Josip Broz Tito than any other leaders you mention. Tito is notable not for being born/raised in Zagorje, Croatia or Slovenia, but for leading a country whose primary language had two official, fully equal scripts, Latin and Cyrillic. Were Tito to have presided over only one republic in federal Yugoslavia that did not use Cyrillic, perhaps this would not be the case, but he presided over the whole country straight from the headquarters in Belgrade, SR Serbia. –Vipz (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pavelić presided over a country with a similar percentage of Serbs to Tito's Yugoslavia. Your point over where he presided from and his notability is irrelevant. The infobox asks for his name in his native language. Not the language of the country or place he ruled from. Tito was raised in an environment that used and still uses the latin alphabet exclusively.
This is Tito's own personal diary. Written in the latin alphabet. This should be conclusive proof that his native writing was indeed the latin alphabet. Andro611 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. Stalin's native language was Georgian, but we also present his name in Russian Cyrillic in the "native name" field. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. Doremo (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalence. Stalin was born in the Russian Empire where the dominant and official language was Russian, and the infobox also includes Georgian in the native name field. Tito was born in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia where the official language was never written in Cyrillic. The Cyrillic name should most definitely not be returned in the “name in native language” field. P.S. There already is a Cyrillic rendering of his name in the first sentence of the lede. I am not opposed to including it in the article, but it simply does not belong in field “name in native language”. That's not how you write his native language. Andro611 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation section, why is a Law professor quoted as a source?[edit]

On the Evaluation section of the article, it includes a statement by Dominic McGoldrick. I did some research into who he is, he is a law professor. https://law.yale.edu/dominic-mcgoldrick. Is he really qualified to make this statement? He is not a historian or political scientist. Logimite (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A publication by a legal expert is an appropriate source for information about legal matters (human rights). Doremo (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

Maclean, Fitzroy (1980). Tito: A Pictorial Biography. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-044671-7. is pure hagiography. it likely does list the bare bones facts and has lots of photos, but even though its from a western mainstream publisher, its entirely pro tito, so not a balanced account. i question whether it should be in further reading, and i would question its use as a source for this article. i havent checked to see if it was used. (user: mercurywoodrose) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]