Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{archivetop|NAC: No consensus. There is one '''Support''' !vote and no '''Oppose''' !votes, but mostly '''Comments''', including complaints about the way that the RFC is worded. I won't close an RFC as consensus based on only one !vote when there are so many comments. Recommendation is to reword the RFC in a clear neutral way, and publicize the RFC through various WikiProjects. ] (]) 04:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)}}
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:
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:
Line 142:
Line 143:
===References===
===References===
{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}
{{archivebottom}}
== Orson Welles ==
== Orson Welles ==
Revision as of 04:28, 27 February 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josip Broz Tito article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Josip 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Josip Broz Tito is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
NAC: No consensus. There is one Support !vote and no Oppose !votes, but mostly Comments, including complaints about the way that the RFC is worded. I won't close an RFC as consensus based on only one !vote when there are so many comments. Recommendation is to reword the RFC in a clear neutral way, and publicize the RFC through various WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 27 February 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.
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:
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 . 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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, ...
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...
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 ].
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 Misplaced Pages 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
Cohen, Bertram D.; Ettin, Mark F.; Fidler, Jay W. (2002). Group Psychotherapy and Political Reality: A Two-Way Mirror. International Universities Press. p. 193. ISBN0-8236-2228-2.
Andjelic, Neven (2003). Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy. Frank Cass. p. 36. ISBN0-7146-5485-X.
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."
Rights Before Courts - Page 183, W. Sadurski. Springer. ISBN978-94-017-8934-9. "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."
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"
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.
Orson Welles
I saw there is a slow burn edit-war going on over a quote in the lead. What on earth is a quote from Orson Welles doing in the lead? If it was Churchill, or some other world leader, but a quote from an actor? Seriously? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you are undermining a person, maybe just because you don't like what he said. He was one of the greatest. He was not only an actor and you all know that. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a view on Tito, I haven't really read enough about him yet. But you haven't answered my question. Why is a quote from Welles in the lead? I have no issue with the quote being in the article among other quotes from other people, I just believe that the views of an actor (great or otherwise) regarding Tito is not lead material. If there is going to be a quote in the lead, it should be from a respected biographer of him. Even a quote from Fitzroy McLean at a pinch. But Welles' view just isn't important enough for the lead. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that you are avoiding my answer. But I will repeat. Welles was not only an actor, he was much more. You did not convince me that his quote is not relevant. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
At this point it's you who needs to convince everyone else, as it is becoming clear that there is no consensus to include this quote in the lead. A good place to start would be to explain exactly what the "much more" is instead of being vague about it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, you do not have consensus for this quote to be included in the lead, Tuvixer. Do not restore it. If you have an actual argument for its inclusion, offer it here. Any further edit-warring on this will be reported at the relevant noticeboard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is the quote removed from the article? Again do not engage in a edit war, please. Or I will be forced to report anyone who removes the quote from the article. No one has made any good arguments why the quote shouldn't be in the article. If you don't like that Orson Welles said that, that is your problem. Leave the article alone, don't remove sourced material from the article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Tuvixer, Welles is (obviously) not a notable-enough person to have his quote featured in the lead. And I wouldn't be annoying Peacemaker: he's an sforovac.. he'll kick your ass :). -- Director (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I may have to reconsider my cautionary remark: apparently the average Yugoslav is just about four inches taller than the stunted peoples of the australic regions... ;) -- Director (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
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.--Zoupan07:24, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
