Misplaced Pages

Talk:Josip Broz Tito: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:03, 15 March 2016 editSilvio1973 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,933 edits RfC - Repression of political opponents during Tito's presidency← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:01, 18 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,070,584 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 12 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(737 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |search=yes }} {{talkheader|search=y}}
{{not a forum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{British English}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=00:30, 4 October 2008 |action1date=00:30, 4 October 2008
Line 9: Line 10:
|currentstatus=FGAN |currentstatus=FGAN
|topic=History |topic=History
|otd1date=2004-04-05|otd1oldid=5385970
|otd2date=2005-04-05|otd2oldid=16335137
|otd3date=2006-04-05|otd3oldid=45850514
|otd4date=2009-04-07|otd4oldid=282286448
|otd5date=2015-01-14|otd5oldid=642283538
|otd6date=2018-01-14|otd6oldid=820369107
|otd7date=2021-01-14|otd7oldid=1000193830
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|listas=Tito, Josip Broz|vital=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|blp=n|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Tito, Josip Broz}} {{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=C|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|class=C {{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=High|Zagreb=yes}}
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =no
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Mid}}
|b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> =yes
{{WikiProject Montenegro|importance=High}}
|b3 <!--Structure --> =yes
{{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=Mid}}
|b4 <!--Grammar & style --> =yes
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=High|Belgrade=yes|Belgrade-importance=High}}
|b5 <!--Supporting materials --> =yes
{{WikiProject Slovenia|importance=Mid}}
|b6 <!--Accessibility --> =yes
|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Cold War|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y|Balkan=y|WWI=y|WWII=y|Cold-War=y|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=C|importance=High|Belgrade=yes}}
{{WikiProject Slovenia|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=C
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1= no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2= yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3= yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4= yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes
|Balkan=yes
|Biography=yes
|WWII=yes
}} }}
{{contentious topics/talk notice|e-e}}
{{WP1.0|class=C|category=category}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K |maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 9 |counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 51: Line 42:
|archive = Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=C}}


== Native name in SC Cyrillic ==
{{0.7 set nominee|20th Century post-colonial leaders}}
{{OnThisDay |date1=2004-04-05|oldid1=5385970|date2=2005-04-05|oldid2=16335137|date3=2006-04-05|oldid3=45850514|date4=2009-04-07|oldid4=282286448|date5=2015-01-14|oldid5=642283538}}


A couple of days ago, the subject's name in Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic was ] by editor @] 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 {{slink|Josip Broz Tito|Family and personal life|nopage=y}}. Tito claimed Serbo-Croatian as his native language. Specifics about his accent or native ] 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. –] (]) 15:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
== RfC January 2016 ==
{{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:


: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. —] 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:While his presidency has been criticized as ]<ref name=Cohen>{{cite book|title=Group Psychotherapy and Political Reality: A Two-Way Mirror|last1=Cohen|first1=Bertram D.|last2=Ettin|first2=Mark F.|last3=Fidler|first3=Jay W.|year=2002|publisher=International Universities Press|isbn=0-8236-2228-2|page=193}}</ref><ref name=Andjelic>{{cite book|last=Andjelic|first=Neven|title=Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy|publisher=Frank Cass|year=2003|page=36|isbn=0-7146-5485-X}}</ref> and several concerns raised about the respect of human rights<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=SAyizpsg-Z8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Accommodating+National+Identity:+New+Approaches+in+International+and+Domestic+Law&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=x1dTVfGeKqLW7AaH6IHgBg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Accommodating%20National%20Identity%3A%20New%20Approaches%20in%20International%20and%20Domestic%20Law&f=false|title=Accomodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law - Page 17|last=Tierney|first=Stephen|year=2000|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=90-411-1400-9|page=17}}<br />"''Human rights were routinely suppressed...''"</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.co.za/books?id=Iz6pvc3YSr0C&pg=PA37&dq=tito+regime+human+rights&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o4dUVZrACPLfsASDtYGYCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tito%20regime%20human%20rights&f=false|title=No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations - Page 37, D. Matas, Canada, 1994}}<br />"''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.''"</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.co.za/books?id=i-glBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&dq=tito+regime+human+rights&hl=en&sa=X&ei=629UVaOQAaW17gaE_4PIBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tito%20regime%20human%20rights&f=false
::The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
::Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
::Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
::Is[REDACTED] true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks ] (]) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::I see it now, the infobox is using this: native_name = {{nobold|Јосип Броз Тито}
::The native_name is not and can not be on Cyrillic. ] (]) 07:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


:I also agree with Vipz for the reasons stated above. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. ] (]) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
|title=Rights Before Courts - Page 183, W. Sadurski|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-94-017-8934-9}}<br />"''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.''"</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=_UM9gVkjh78C&pg=PT67&dq=violation+of+human+rights+Tito&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20Tito&f=false|title=Café Europa: Life After Communism, Slavenka Drakulic|publisher=Hachette}}<br />"''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''"</ref> Tito was "seen by most as a ]". --] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
: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 @] in this . 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.
<br>
: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. ] (]) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::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, ] and ]. 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. –] (]) 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::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'''.
::: 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. ] (]) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::This is irrelevant. ]'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. ] (]) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. ] (]) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
:Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
:Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
:Is[REDACTED] true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks ] (]) 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:@] the relevant criterion here for inclusion is the answer to the question - is an average English reader going to commonly encounter the topic's name in this format / script, would it help them to have it noted here? As there is a body of work written in Serbian Cyrillic about him, it's fair to say it's possible that they'll encounter it, so we should keep it. There is a much larger volume in Latin scripts (both English and Croatian), so the real nuance here is whether this is worthy of inline ] placement or should it perhaps be in an annotation so it doesn't clutter the initial sentence. ] is applicable here, but it's a matter of editorial discretion whether this label and text is clutter or not. --] (]) 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::I checked the article history and I see the Cyrillic spelling has been in the lead for several years now. It should stay unless we can identify complaints from an average English reader to this effect. Note average English reader, not the average Tito supporter or detractor. --] (]) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I am not the supporter or detractor but the observer of the Cyrillic spelling used on English Misplaced Pages.
:::There can't possibly be two major World figures with presented native name on Serbian Cyrillic, both born in Croatia, unless there is some interest in this presentation.
:::I am with @] on this one. ] (]) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Again, there's a body of scholarly work about both of these people written in Serbian Cyrillic, because both of them are indeed {{tq|closely associated with a non-English language}} (per Manual of Style), and there has been a lot of interest in them among authors who used this language and alphabet. The distinction between Latin and Cyrillic scripts here may mean something you ''you'' and cause ''you'' to think of a (nefarious?) {{tq|interest in this presentation}}, but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader, to whom it's presented in parentheses or in notes. --] (]) 07:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::And, to reference applicable policies, ] applies here. Arguments should be based on that, not on assertions of some sort of a conspiracy. --] (]) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also to remind everyone, the actual rendering of the infobox "native_name" parameter does not annotate the value as such to the readers, so readers aren't even informed that this string of foreign letters is a "native name". This argument sounds like it's for meant for editors who see that parameter name, but those are a small minority of readers, and ]. --] (]) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Then we should change the parameter. I would not object to the use of another parameter that does not denote the Cyrillic as his native name. ] (]) 11:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] Maybe review the template {{tl|Infobox officeholder}} formatting for options. Note that formatting like <nowiki><small></nowiki> probably needs to be reconciled with ], which explains how normal infobox text is already smaller, so if you change this subheader, measure the outcome for readability first. --] (]) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], interesting read. Particularly "but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader".
:::::Any yet, the " due weight" suggests using Cyrillic, but at the same time it means little to the average English reader?
:::::To remind everyone, the Serbian Cyrillic[REDACTED] exists for Tito. It does not contain any representation of his name on Latin characters, but it does contain a Latin translation of the same page where this is a significant information in the same infobox we are discussing here:
:::::Порекло хрватско
:::::translates on same Latin page to:
:::::Poreklo hrvatsko
:::::I would strongly suggest to include this information on English[REDACTED] below nationality. This would be the same as on Serbian Cyrillic[REDACTED] and I think it would be right and acceptable choice.
:::::@] and @], would you support this? ] (]) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::And of course, @] might also support this, while standardization of the native name parameter is resolved. ] (]) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::@]: I'm not opposed to removing lead sentence clutter by putting native name stuff into annotations. As for the infobox, annotating or even outright removing inscriptions of the person's name in a closely associated language — this is not conventional practice.
::The native name parameter needs a standardization at a Misplaced Pages-wide level. I'm not aware of a biography that presently denotes native name languages in the infobox (cf. ], ], ], ], ], etc.), none inform readers what these strings of foreign letters represent. Another issue is the need of using {{t|nobold}}; if the standard practice is having native name text in biography infoboxes non-bold, then the template should not bold it in the first place.
::Were it to become a new practice, it could be denoted for Josip Broz Tito as {{xtn|{{native name list|tag1=sh-Cyrl|name1=Јосип Броз Тито|paren1=omit|postfix1=&nbsp;(])}}}}. –] (]) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


==Further reading==
::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?
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) ] (]) 17:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


== Infobox arrangement ==
::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 --] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi @], I'm well aware of ] and ] but I nevertheless think it's perfectly fine to link "]" in {{para|birth_place}} and include "]" in {{para|death_place}}. For ]'s case, Austria-Hungary, you know, no longer exists; I mean, none of the examples in MOS:GEOLINK include a country that no longer exists. For ]'s case, I don't think most readers know it's a part of Slovenia; also, you know, it wasn't Yugoslavia's capital or largest city, unlike ]. ] (]) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Could someone properly format the RfC and put it in a separate section? ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
:Done (at least I think). --] (]) 14:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC) :Agree, it provides context. ] (]) 09:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:I brought up the issue with ] regarding historical countries/subnational entities over at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking|MOS:GEOLINK for former countries/entities}} and hope to have community consensus formed there to resolve this disagreement. –] (]) 20:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

:By that logic, wouldn’t Kumrovec, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary make more sense and provide context as well given people are even less likely to know where Kumrovec is or that it is part of Croatia? Also SR Slovenia and Yugoslavia are no longer states but seem to be advocated listing.
*'''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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 23:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
::Not at all, the edit is fully supported by the cited sources.--] (]) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC) :To be clear, I agree with including SR Slovenia and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia sub-states to give context to readers. Seems helpful not harmful to the infobox. ] (]) 12:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I'm actually fine with {{para|birth_place|], ], Austria-Hungary}}. The subdivision doubles this parameter's length, though. ] (]) 13:04, 9 October 2024 (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 --] (]) 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
::Or can we try {{para|birth_place|], ], Austria-Hungary}}? ] (]) 13:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Was about to recommend the option to just shorten it since Austria-Hungary is short form as well. Sounds good. We’ll see what Vipz finds with Geolink. Cheers. ] (]) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::@Silvio. That is not a reply. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the middle part of the sentence as, "and human rights were violated under his rule", which appears to be what is said in the sources cited. Cheers, ] (]) 08:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
::Overemphasis. "Human rights" are being ] under ]'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 ] prison camp.. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] so far as the lead is concerned. Cheers, ] (]) 02:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::"]" 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. "]" argues (in relation to ]) that some things don't need to be ''sourced'' for being plainly obvious... neither have anything to do with the issue - unlike ''']''', for example. But if that's your last word.. cheers, I guess. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 06:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Silvio1973}} Which ''specific'' sources do you put forward for the claim that violations of "human rights" were '''"common"'''? With regard to ''']''', 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 ] 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? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 04:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. This is a question of ] weight, not about sourcing, and therefore represents an editorial decision subject to ]. 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.<br>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 ] 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 {{tq|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. ] (]) 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 ] 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". --] (]) 11:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
:::If you recall, literally ''dozens'' of sources were brought forward for that, with those exact words used. Whereas you in reality have a ''single'' source (an essay) that claims "regular" violations of human rights. Once WP:OR is applied, your list of nine quotations gets whittled down to two that actually claim "human rights" violations. The rest not mentioning "human rights", or being a WP:PRIMARY quote.
:::I will remind you once more that you are NOT the arbiter of what is or is not a "violation of human rights". <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 17:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
::::No I am not the arbiter. Three different sources say ''verbatim'' that violation of human rights occurred during Tito's regime, but (not surprisingly) you do not like those sources. Well, apparently other users do not have the same concern. However, let's wait and see what other editors think. ] (]) 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 --] (]) 19:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Silvio1973}} I will say again, and for the fifth time: your source "#8", "Sandusky", is '''<u>misquoted</u>'''. 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). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|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 ] (]) 18:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)that). ] (]) 09:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, provide the quote wherewith Sandursky endorses the judgement. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::It does, because uses the example of the decision of the Court to show a situation (to use '''verbatim''' Sandurky's words) of "incompatibility of the former communist regime with the European standards for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms". The source is not primary, as I am not citing as a source the minutes of the Slovenian Court. Feel free to reply, but in this sense for me the discussion is closed because we made clear our views. Everyone willing to participate to this RfC can build its own opinion in this respect.] (]) 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 <u>deliberate deception</u> on your part. The Slovene court is a ] 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 ], and you continue to edit war with your tags, I will inquire whether sanctions are appropriate with regard to your conduct. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 16:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sure, enquire. :)). ] (]) 18:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Possibly other users will join this RfC, but in the meantime it might be worth to make a short summary of what we have. The number of users joining this RfC has been so far quite limited and their positions are relatively different. 4 sources (one contested because primary) have been provided affirming that under Tito human rights violations occurred. ] 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 ]. In view of the provided sources, ] does not oppose a sourced reference to the violation of human rights, but not in the lead as this would be ]. ] 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. ] (]) 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". <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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.] (]) 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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::], the "benevolent thing" is not in the object of this RfC. You do not have to discuss about it if you do not want. Indeed, I do not intend after this RfC to raise that issue again, but I might join the discussion if someone else will raise it in the future. Which IMHO will happen, because the way it is written (and with so much prominence in the lead) that statement pushes a strong POV. Now, can we agree that during the 36 years of Tito's regime political opposition was repressed? I propose the following modification (actually posted in the article but undone by Tuvixer):
:::::''While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised, ...''
:::::What do you think?] (]) 14:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
:No thanks. The part you added, without a consensus, is idiotic. It makes no sense. So please stop vandalizing the article or whatever you are trying to do. There is no reason to add that part, it already states that it was "authoritarian". You do not have a consensus, so please stop. Tnx --] (]) 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.'' ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 10:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:], 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... ] (]) 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 ]. (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 ] (]) 12:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:::], 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?] (]) 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 --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. {{ping|Director}}, please don't take me wrong, but when I see the history of the modifications to this article (and also to others) it looks that when you tell him to shut-up, he becomes quiet and remissive. Interesting...
:::However, what do you think about the proposed edit? Can we agree something and close this RfC? ] (]) 11:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The time to close this RfC has come. I had a brief discussion with GregorB. He also supports the insertion in the lead of a reference to the "repression of political opponents". Except Tuviver, all other users who participated to this RfC seem to agree about this modification. Tuvixer, if you disagree please state here briefly why. ] (]) 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 --] (]) 19:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::For clarity, I agree with the inclusion in the lead of a reference to "repression of political opponents". Cheers, ] (]) 23:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::Ditto, as noted by Silvio, even if my original reservations still apply. ] (]) 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Except Tuvixer, everyone in this RfC agrees to include a reference to "repression of political opponents". So Tuvixer, where is your problem? Please consider that on top of ignoring the opinion expressed by other users in the RfC you are also using abusive language. You will almost certainly revert again my edit. If you do, I will have no option but filing a report. ] (]) 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 --] (]) 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, ] (]) 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 --] (]) 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 --] (]) 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
===References===
{{reflist-talk}}
{{archivebottom}}

== Language dispute ==

I noteced 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. ] (]) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
:We're on the same page there, Fkp. Seemed a completely reasonable edit by {{u|Zoupan}}, adding further information about the identity controversy. I tried to re-instate it, but Tuvixer reverted. I think {{u|Tuvixer}} should be explaining why it shouldn't be included. Cheers, ] (]) 00:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{tqi|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, {{u|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.--] 07:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I really thought that opinions of a anonymous people should not be mentioned. Even if it is an opinion of one single journalist, why should it be mentioned? I mean, if people start to use as sources opinions of Rush Limbaugh this would no longer be 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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
:Silvio you should first read the article. Tnx --] (]) 16:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the conclusion to this "dispute" should be clearly stated. Croatian language is very diverse and among 3 major dialects it has many regional and local dialects. That had caused NSA to make a mistake in their study and that should be stated more clearly since it seems some people still think that Tito's origins are questionable due to that NSA study. What seemed to NSA as a strange dialect is in fact the proof of Tito's origins. I also think that Mihailovic's opinion on the matter is totally irrelevant. He is not expert and he is a native speaker of Serbisan, thus completely unfamiliar with Croatian Kajkavian dialect. ] (]) 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I found the source I had in mind when I was writing the above comment. I would like it is incorporated. . I also now see that the original version of the article made a quite clear conclusion on that matter, however mentioning opinions of Mihailovic and Tito's doctor who aren't any experts on the matter made that conclusion questionable. The paragraph should mention that there were disputes but that they are wrong as the source I posted states, giving it a more detail explanation to why NSA report is wrong by stating some of the arguments stated in the source.

I personally think that this mistake by NSA is perfectly illustrating how diverse and interesting Croatian language is. Even the native speakers of Croatian language can hear new words and different accents every day. In such a small country one can pinpoint someone's origins very accurately on their dialect and accent. ] (]) 15:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

:So can someone, please, explain how are opinions of Matunović and Dinić relevant? Tnx --] (]) 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
::There are only some features overlapping between and . Did he really pick up some speech manners in his years preko, i.e. ''š'' and ''anomalji'' sounding very Russian. Note also that he needs to search for words. It would be good if a study was found on the matter (Tito's speech), perhaps from Croatian linguistical journals. Matunović and Dinić are not unrelevant given their relation to Tito and the fact that they wrote monographs on him.--] 19:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

:::This is why we don't do original research. There are many local dialects within Kajkavian dialect and you are comparing apples and oranges here. Here, listen to this and compare it with the two examples you gave. So, let's jump from original research to sources. Did you read the source I posted? It says that Tito's speech is the best proof of his origins. It has a very good elaboration on that claim done by Croatian experts who had studied Tito's speech. Note that the article in Croatian newspaper that I had posted as a source was written by the head of Institute for Croatian language. ( autor je ravnatelj Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje ). I stand by my claim that non-expert opinions are totally irrelevant. You might as well go to streets of Belgrade and ask a random person for his opinion and write it here, it would be the same. It maybe is interesting from the historical side that those people had thought that way, but nothing more. The article can't portray their opinions are relevant. If someone wants to mention it from that point of view that can be stated, but the last claim should be the source done by Croatian experts not the claim of Tito's doctor or any other non-expert. That way the conclusion on that matter is done objectively. State those claims as interesting facts but not as claims with equal weight to the one made by experts. The most interesting thing here is the terrible mistake done by NSA. I would like to add a sentence which would explicitly mention that mistake. This is the most interesting aspect of this all ordeal. It's not surprising that native Serbian speakers and non-experts are making such mistakes but one should expect more from NSA. So people who mentioned Mihailovic, Matunovic and Dinic can have their sources included but only as an interesting historical fact on their mistake. The same goes for NSA. As I said, Croatian language is a holy grail to anyone interested in linguistics and whenever I'm speaking about it, I always mention that mistake done by NSA. It's much more than Serbian language so I really don't like that Serbo-Croatian comparisons which are done mostly by foreigners who, like NSA, are pretty much wrong. Lastly, there is no identity controversy and the article should made that clear. ] (]) 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the article. Let me know what you think. I included all sources, but I made sure that the last one mentioned is the expertise done by Croatian experts so it is clear that the NSA's report is flawed and that the impressions of non-experts like Mihailovic and others are completely irrelevant and flawed. I hope everyone is happy now since everything is included. ] (]) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

==Disruptive reverts by Tuvixer==
In spite of the consensus reached, Tuvixer continues to remove the sentence about the repression of political opponents from the lead. What should we do? --] (]) 10:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
:Read this please: #
:If you revert me again I will have to report you. Please don't revert. It has been stated by {{Ping|Robert McClenon}}, no consensus. Tnx --] (]) 10:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
::Tuvixer, you are just making this process more tedious than actually needed.] (]) 10:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

==RfC - Repression of political opponents during Tito's presidency==
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=7951C4C}}
Do you agree to insert in the lead of the article ] 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<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=SAyizpsg-Z8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Accommodating+National+Identity:+New+Approaches+in+International+and+Domestic+Law&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=x1dTVfGeKqLW7AaH6IHgBg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Accommodating%20National%20Identity%3A%20New%20Approaches%20in%20International%20and%20Domestic%20Law&f=false|title=Accomodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law - Page 17|last=Tierney|first=Stephen|year=2000|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=90-411-1400-9|page=17}}<br />"''Human rights were routinely suppressed...''"</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.co.za/books?id=Iz6pvc3YSr0C&pg=PA37&dq=tito+regime+human+rights&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o4dUVZrACPLfsASDtYGYCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tito%20regime%20human%20rights&f=false|title=No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations - Page 37, D. Matas, Canada, 1994}}<br />"''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.''"</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.co.za/books?id=i-glBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&dq=tito+regime+human+rights&hl=en&sa=X&ei=629UVaOQAaW17gaE_4PIBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tito%20regime%20human%20rights&f=false
|title=Rights Before Courts - Page 183, W. Sadurski|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-94-017-8934-9}}<br />"''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.''"</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=_UM9gVkjh78C&pg=PT67&dq=violation+of+human+rights+Tito&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20Tito&f=false|title=Café Europa: Life After Communism, Slavenka Drakulic|publisher=Hachette}}<br />"''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''"</ref>, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies.''
===References===
{{reflist-talk}}

<br>
As it is now? --] (]) 10:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
:This is not the question of the RfC. Reply if you agree or not (first the ] and after the ]). --] (]) 11:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
::Then this RfC will fail, again. Please provide the exact wording of the sentence. Tnx --] (]) 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 --] (]) 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 '''].''' <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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? ] (]) 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, , its even part of why I'm semi-retired - ''but that's how it is.'' Its why we have "]" instead of "Mount McKinley" even though every policy says we shouldn't, etc. etc. etc... <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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.] (]) 13:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
*I agree with the change. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be whitewashing history.] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
#'''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 ], somewhat bullshitted by the fact that if it's in the body, and it's notable, it should probably be in the lede too. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 --] (]) 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Please note that the opening of a new RfC was explicitly recommended . ] (]) 16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::But not the opening of the same RfC. --] (]) 16:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, the same RfC, but adequately reworded, which is precisely what Silvio has done. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages? Does anyone support that? Tnx --] (]) 17:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
{{od}} 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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)? ] (]) 09:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Sure. This is one example: ]. 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. ] (]) 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.

:::::<nowiki>#1</nowiki> 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? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 10:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Well Director, I did not have the time to even start editing and you removed the entire section ]. 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. ] (]) 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?'' <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Director, here's a quote:
:::::::''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. ] (]) 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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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. ] (]) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: It may be worth a whole section in the ] 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. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 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.] (]) 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 --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. It is called ]. ] (]) 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 --] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:01, 18 January 2025

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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Josip Broz Tito. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Josip Broz Tito at the Reference desk.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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 Misplaced Pages'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.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconSocialism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYugoslavia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconJosip 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance
WikiProject iconJosip Broz Tito is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCroatia: Zagreb High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Zagreb task force.
WikiProject iconKosovo Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconJosip Broz Tito is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMontenegro High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro 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.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED] North Macedonia Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia 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.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSerbia: Belgrade High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject iconSlovenia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

WikiProject iconCold War Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War I / World War II / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.


Native name in SC Cyrillic

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)

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)
The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
Is[REDACTED] true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks Platipusica (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I see it now, the infobox is using this: native_name = {{nobold|Јосип Броз Тито}
The native_name is not and can not be on Cyrillic. Platipusica (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
Is[REDACTED] true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks 120.16.158.148 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vipz the relevant criterion here for inclusion is the answer to the question - is an average English reader going to commonly encounter the topic's name in this format / script, would it help them to have it noted here? As there is a body of work written in Serbian Cyrillic about him, it's fair to say it's possible that they'll encounter it, so we should keep it. There is a much larger volume in Latin scripts (both English and Croatian), so the real nuance here is whether this is worthy of inline WP:LEAD placement or should it perhaps be in an annotation so it doesn't clutter the initial sentence. MOS:LEADLANG is applicable here, but it's a matter of editorial discretion whether this label and text is clutter or not. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I checked the article history and I see the Cyrillic spelling has been in the lead for several years now. It should stay unless we can identify complaints from an average English reader to this effect. Note average English reader, not the average Tito supporter or detractor. --Joy (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not the supporter or detractor but the observer of the Cyrillic spelling used on English Misplaced Pages.
There can't possibly be two major World figures with presented native name on Serbian Cyrillic, both born in Croatia, unless there is some interest in this presentation.
I am with @Andro611 on this one. Platipusica (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, there's a body of scholarly work about both of these people written in Serbian Cyrillic, because both of them are indeed closely associated with a non-English language (per Manual of Style), and there has been a lot of interest in them among authors who used this language and alphabet. The distinction between Latin and Cyrillic scripts here may mean something you you and cause you to think of a (nefarious?) interest in this presentation, but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader, to whom it's presented in parentheses or in notes. --Joy (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
And, to reference applicable policies, WP:Due weight applies here. Arguments should be based on that, not on assertions of some sort of a conspiracy. --Joy (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Also to remind everyone, the actual rendering of the infobox "native_name" parameter does not annotate the value as such to the readers, so readers aren't even informed that this string of foreign letters is a "native name". This argument sounds like it's for meant for editors who see that parameter name, but those are a small minority of readers, and Misplaced Pages is writtten for the readers first. --Joy (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Then we should change the parameter. I would not object to the use of another parameter that does not denote the Cyrillic as his native name. Andro611 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Andro611 Maybe review the template {{Infobox officeholder}} formatting for options. Note that formatting like <small> probably needs to be reconciled with MOS:SMALL, which explains how normal infobox text is already smaller, so if you change this subheader, measure the outcome for readability first. --Joy (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Joy, interesting read. Particularly "but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader".
Any yet, the " due weight" suggests using Cyrillic, but at the same time it means little to the average English reader?
To remind everyone, the Serbian Cyrillic[REDACTED] exists for Tito. It does not contain any representation of his name on Latin characters, but it does contain a Latin translation of the same page where this is a significant information in the same infobox we are discussing here:
Порекло хрватско
translates on same Latin page to:
Poreklo hrvatsko
I would strongly suggest to include this information on English[REDACTED] below nationality. This would be the same as on Serbian Cyrillic[REDACTED] and I think it would be right and acceptable choice.
@Vipz and @Andro611, would you support this? Platipusica (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And of course, @Joy might also support this, while standardization of the native name parameter is resolved. Platipusica (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Joy: I'm not opposed to removing lead sentence clutter by putting native name stuff into annotations. As for the infobox, annotating or even outright removing inscriptions of the person's name in a closely associated language — this is not conventional practice.
The native name parameter needs a standardization at a Misplaced Pages-wide level. I'm not aware of a biography that presently denotes native name languages in the infobox (cf. Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, Xi Jinping, etc.), none inform readers what these strings of foreign letters represent. Another issue is the need of using {{nobold}}; if the standard practice is having native name text in biography infoboxes non-bold, then the template should not bold it in the first place.
Were it to become a new practice, it could be denoted for Josip Broz Tito as Јосип Броз Тито (Cyrillic). –Vipz (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Further reading

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)

Infobox arrangement

Hi @Vipz, I'm well aware of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and MOS:GEOLINK but I nevertheless think it's perfectly fine to link "Austria-Hungary" in |birth_place= and include "SR Slovenia" in |death_place=. For Kumrovec's case, Austria-Hungary, you know, no longer exists; I mean, none of the examples in MOS:GEOLINK include a country that no longer exists. For Ljubljana's case, I don't think most readers know it's a part of Slovenia; also, you know, it wasn't Yugoslavia's capital or largest city, unlike Belgrade. Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it provides context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I brought up the issue with MOS:GEOLINK regarding historical countries/subnational entities over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking § MOS:GEOLINK for former countries/entities and hope to have community consensus formed there to resolve this disagreement. –Vipz (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
By that logic, wouldn’t Kumrovec, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary make more sense and provide context as well given people are even less likely to know where Kumrovec is or that it is part of Croatia? Also SR Slovenia and Yugoslavia are no longer states but seem to be advocated listing.
To be clear, I agree with including SR Slovenia and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia sub-states to give context to readers. Seems helpful not harmful to the infobox. OyMosby (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm actually fine with |birth_place=Kumrovec, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary. The subdivision doubles this parameter's length, though. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Or can we try |birth_place=Kumrovec, Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary? Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Was about to recommend the option to just shorten it since Austria-Hungary is short form as well. Sounds good. We’ll see what Vipz finds with Geolink. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Josip Broz Tito: Difference between revisions Add topic