Jump to content

Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Goli otok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_otok at least a mention of this must be on Tito's page. HeadlessMaster (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain your reasoning for this? Why is it a "must be"? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Because Goli otok is one of the biggest crimes in the history of Croatia and the Communist Party (and their leader Tito) were responsible for it. Everything is written on the Goli otok's page, including references. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I rather would not delve into what constitutes the "biggest crime in the history of Croatia", Headlessmaster has a point there. If we are to be fair the Historical criticism section of the article should mention the key issues that his critics living in these parts traditionally like to pin on Tito, and the establishment of Goli otok in the Informbiro period deserves a mention. A few sentences added concerning Bleiburg in the same section would be welcome to provide more context about the issue (I skimmed through the otherwise well-written People's Liberation War section but I did not find any mention of Bleiburg there which means that the reader has no clue what the article is talking about when it introduces the topic in the Criticism section). Another issue which may deserve a mention is the crackdown on the Croatian Spring movement in the early 1970s. I'm not saying that the article should take any stand on Tito's role in this or that the article should discuss these at length (a few sentences and links to dedicated articles would suffice), but these are all controversial issues which still dominate the debate about his legacy in former Yugoslav countries and therefore deserve a mention if we are to present a complete picture of the man. Timbouctou 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You're completely right. Btw, I wrote "one of the biggest crimes in the history of Croatia", not "the biggest..." because there were many other crimes and criminals and dictators on the Croatian teritory (including king Aleksandar, poglavnk Pavelić and others). HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Goli Otok was a federal prison much like the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Much to the contrary of the idiotic nationalist myths, it did not house Ustaše or the "Croatian patriots". It was built in 1949, at the start of the conflict with the Soviet Union, and mostly housed Stalinist dissidents which were a very real and immediate threat to Yugoslavia at that time. Only a small fraction of the prisoners were Croats, and Stalinist Croats at that. Much like Andrija Hebrang who was openly in favour of a Soviet takeover and was personally reccomended to Tito by Joseph Stalin, etc. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Need I remind you to check out WP:FORUM? Fact is that whenever Tito's legacy is discussed in these parts the debate usually touches on the issues of Bleiburg, Goli otok and the Croatian Spring movement. There's an abundance of statements from people who knew him, historians and politicians of all kinds of political persuasions who discuss this rather frequently. On the other hand this article has a section titled "Historical criticism" which does not even mention the latter two issues, but gives a great deal of attention to the issue which is seen as pretty marginal in ex-Yugoslavia (the confiscation of Volksdeutschers' property). Also, I find it odd that the section with the word "criticism" in the title does not actually quote any notable critics. It is merely a collection of facts that some editor deemed controversial but the reader has no idea why this constitutes criticism and by whom is Tito criticised for these things. Timbouctou 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those subjects are indeed touched-on very frequently - in ex-Yugoslavia. However much of that is pure nonsense stemming from propaganda-infused "official history" of the rabid nationalism during the wartime '90s. Just sayin' that the NPOV facts are very much different from the general perception of the uninformed public, which is an undeniable fact we have and will continue to see confirmed here and on other Wiki talkpages.

  • Goli. A Guantanamo-like federal prison for Stalinists. Top communists (of Jewish descent) Hebrang and Žujović repeatedly and openly professed their support for Stalin and the Soviet view during the Inforbiro crisis, and were offered by Stalin to head Yugoslavia after Tito was removed and the Stalinist Soviet occupation of our country realized. Soviet Union Mediterranean Fleet HQ in Split? :)
  • Bleiburg. There is written, primary evidence quoted in university-published sources which undeniably confirms that not only did Tito not order or have anything to do with the killings at the end of WWII, but he also 1) issued standard standing orders at all times preventing the killing of captured prisoners of war; 2) actually reaffirmed those orders with a special telegram specifically forbidding "in the sternest language" the massacre of any prisoners of war. He also issued repeated calls for surrender and offers of full amnesty.
  • MASPOK. After the severe repression of MASPOK in 1971, virtually ALL its demands were fully realized and incorporated into the 1974 Constitution. (In turn embittering Serbia so much that it became susceptible to Milošević's nationalist takeover, which in turn caused the dissolution of the SKJ, and reawoke nationalism in Croatia setting the stage for the arrival of the HDZ etc. Chain of events.)

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You of all people should remember that this is not a forum. I am not interested if the allegations against Tito are true or not and/or what your personal thoughts on them are, nor is Wikipedia. But it certainly is our job to report on aspects of his legacy, which undoubtedly include all the issues mentioned above as they are often touched on by politicians and intellectuals from all over the former Yugoslavia. There are political parties whose Tito-bashing got them into parliaments and there are many notable individuals who made whole careers from talking about these issues. And btw the statement that "NPOV facts are very much different from the general perception of the uninformed public" nicely summarizes the point that you have been consistently missing here. The "general perception of the uninformed public" is a notable fact itself if it leads to notable events. I think we can safely say that the "general perception of the uninformed public" had brought about just about any revolution in the history of this planet (as well as the Holocaust among other things), and the "general perception of the uninformed public" is what determines the outcome of any election on a regular basis, especially in this part of the world. Likewise, the controversies surrounding Tito - whether fabricated or not - had played a major role in political events in this whole region in recent decades and simply ignoring them because they don't fit your misguided and misplaces quest for "truth" is unacceptable. A person wanting to know more about Tito and what's all the fuss about him and why do Balkan politicians keep mentioning him at all in the 21st century would be none the wiser after consulting this article. Which is solely the article's fault. Timbouctou 20:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a very interesting point of view there. I'm not quite getting what you're trying to suggest. Are we now going to list the opinions of various politicians on Tito and his culpability? :)
We are here to list objective facts. Public opinion is yet another fact, I agree (and one that also seems to be rather favourable towards Tito, as you may already know e.g. [1]). Opinion polls such as the one you wrote an article on can certainly be mentioned. I also have no problem with elaborating on the "anti-Tito" attitude of nationalist and right-wing political parties of the Balkans. I will, however, not agree on listing nonsense political allegations here. That is to say, all the politicians in the world could gather together and yell "Tito was behind Bleburg" and Wikipedia would still not include such allegations in any assertive way. Picturesque enough? :)
Also Tim, if I may be so bold as to ask... if we're going to enter a serious, lengthy discussion, could you try to avoid over-large posts? (no offense or sass intended) I just feel it may be beneficial to the discussion if we keep our points brief and well organized. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Stop to be vandal! This is a free encyclopedia and has every right to editing. I cited a valid reference for every sentence.--Свифт (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of "dictator" has been discussed at length on the talkpage. Your first reference is a book with no page cited and instead a link to an Amazon product page. This leads me to believe you haven't read a word of the book and simply cited the first thing containing "Tito + Dictator" that Amazon or Google showed. Your second reference was best described by another editor who reverted you: "an encyclopedia is no place for reprinting op-eds from Sun Myung Moon's not widely respected paper." I suppose it's necessary to get whatever dirt you can to get back at DIREKTOR for his involvement on Operation Halyard aye? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
(We're seeing plenty newcomers from srWiki lately, someone must be agitating over there.) "Valid reference"? You must be joking. Published scholars pls, preferably published in peer review university publications. Not op-eds by some ridiculous newspaper. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The whole world knows that was Josip Broz the dictator except of you two. You know very well that I can expand this article. And with very good references. History I know very well. Now you want from me that I do not edit this article. Also, you know very well that the article about Josip Broz false and that much has been tacit of. You guys defend this article. I am fully understand. However, as you know an article about Draza Mihailovic is on mediation, which takes very long time. And there has been no progress. If you want we can agree. Can not you two edit any article. While we the rest are no edit article.--Свифт (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, when you find those good references, be sure to come back... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you thinking of this a references to war crimes of Josip Broz: Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia, Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Serbia, [2] [3][4]--Свифт (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1) Published; 2) scholars; 3) that actually state that Josip Broz Tito is responsible for a crime. Also less crucially, 4) try to make sure they're not ex-Yugoslav sources (i.e. that they're published abroad), and 5) that the authors have not been discredited by the scientific community (as was the case on previous occasions).
Regarding the killings at the end of WWII:
  • Sabrina P. Ramet, Davorka Matić; Democratic transition in Croatia: value transformation, education & media; 2007, Texas A&M University Press; p. 274 ISBN 1-58544-587-8 [5]
    "Regarding accusations leveled at Tito for the execution of the 'people's enemies' at the end of World War II and under his watch, historian Zorica Stipetić notes: 'I have to mention that documents involving this were published a number of times (in Ridley's book Prometej Magazine). Tito's telegram from Belgrade to the main headquarters of the Slovenian Partisan Army, dated 14 May 1945, prohibits in the sternest language the execution of prisoners of war and commands the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court."
(the above can also serve as a good example of a reliable source) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I am shown you some links to make sure that I know the events. In the commissions are very educated person. The findings of such commissions are very valid. Also, I intend to write a lot in this article and to have a valid reference.
  • Collaboration in WW2
  • War crimes in WW2
  • Dictatorship
  • Ethnic cleansing of Italians in Dalmatia and Istria; the Germans in Voivodina and Slavonia
Read this Resolution 1481 (2006)1 of the Council of Europe need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes [6]--Свифт (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I said everything I was going to. 1) Published; 2) scholars; 3) that actually state that Josip Broz Tito is responsible for a crime. It is not necessary that I respond to anything other than actual sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yugoslav partisans have done so under his command. This is the principle of command responsibility. These crimes were committed from 1941 to 1945. The first mass crimes were committed in Uzice on November 1941. Next in Montenegro and Herzegovina 1942. These crimes was investigated historian Savo Skoko and published a book:Krvavo kolo hercegovačko 1941-1942--Свифт (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"Krvavo Kolo Hercegovačko" ("Bloody Dance of Herzegovina") how... scientific. :) Please note, above I cautioned you against quoting local, Balkans-published dribble. Please keep your WP:OR ideas about "command responsibility" to yourself. You clearly have no understanding of that highly complex legal concept, generally inapplicable to WWII. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Very scientific!--Свифт (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have protected this article for 24 hours for edit warring. Please resolve your differences over whether the suggested article is an appropriate source at the appropriate noticeboard or find a better source. Fainites barleyscribs 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

May I recommend semi-protection? The edit-warring only includes IP socks entering obvious nonsense (and being reverted by everyone). Very likely the alarm bells are being sounded on the Serbian Wiki, resulting in these concentrated "IP attacks". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That may well be an idea worth considering for the longer term. For now I wanted to stop the budding edit war. It's not that difficult to find secondary sources. Fainites barleyscribs 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Свифт lets not have this sources thing all over again. You know by now what kind of sources are needed. Does Resolution 1481 specifically name Tito's regime? For collaboration and war crimes in WW2 and ethnic cleansing - (are you talking about during or after the war) - you need a comprehensive, scholalry, well recognised source. For dictatorship - Tito is long gone now and there are many books on his regime. If calling him a dictator is obvious and mainstream you should have no difficulty sourcing it. Fainites barleyscribs 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The current (hard-established) consensus is that he was "authoritarian", and this version is very well sourced. This was previously discussed at immense length. "Dictator" is rather derogatory and unencycopedic in comparison. User:Свифт rather wishes to show that Tito is personally guilty of a number of WWII crimes perpetrated by the Partisans. He has not shown any sources to this effect. On the other hand, we have high quality sources (Ramet) that confirm Tito always issued standing orders not to execute prisoners. Not only that, but that he had reinforced these standing orders with a special telegram "forbidding in the sternest language" the execution of any prisoners in that specific case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sources. Ramet deals with the massacres at Bleiburg and Kocevje at page 160 of "The Three Yugoslavias". She deals with the forced removal of ethnic germans at Vojvodina at page 159. Fainites barleyscribs 14:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Any references to the Prime Minister's culpability? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I wasn't going to type it all out. Just pointing Свифт in the direction of suitable sources. However, since you ask, it says 60,000 Chetniks, Croatian troops and dependents were disarmed by the allies and handed over to the Partisans. The Partisans massacred them at Bleiburg, Kocejve and elsewhere. She then cites evidence to the effect that this was organised at a level which meant that the "exterminators" recieved a holiday as a reward plus 2 or 3 decorations and presents like gold watches from the government (Tito's government). The areas were then dynamited to cover the mass graves and caves. Now I suppose this may have happened despite Tito's orders but it would be staggering if he didn't know about it afterwards at least. She puts the total figures massacred altogether by Partisans during this period at 20/30,000 Chetniks and Slovene Home Guards, 36,000 Croats and 5,000 Muslims. Fainites barleyscribs 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In relation to Vojvodina, she says the Presidency of the AVNOJ declared the Swabian minority to be collectively guilty and interned them. Of the 500,000, 240,000 were evacuated before the arrival of the Red Army, 50,000 died in communist-run concentration camps and 15,000 died at the hands of the Partisans. 150,000 were deported to the USSR for forced labour. A decree dispossessed them of their property and their houses were used to settle people from Montenegro and Bosnia.Fainites barleyscribs 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (Ramet herself has shown it was against explicit orders, see above quote.) It is perhaps noteworthy that no investigation took place. However: can such an "oversight" of the military judiciary, deliberate or no, be connected to the Prime Minister in some way? We should not speculate on the level of Tito's involvement unless he himself (or his government) are named as culpable in some specific way. The fact that military commanders were decorated after the highly successful execution of the General Offensive is hardly surprising and not in itself very significant.
  • Regarding the Germans, several points again: their dispossession was ordered by the Yugoslav parliament, the AVNOJ, not the government. Nevertheless, the German case is already presented in the Criticism section, along with crucial background info as described by Tomasevich. It is important that the reader is not misled into believing Yugoslav citizens of German ethnicity were expelled simply because they were Germans. One must remember there was widespread retribution all along the eastern front, and that the expulsion of Germans from Yugoslavia was merely a part of the huge process taking place in Poland and Czechoslovakia (and even France). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a limit to how much sources should be interpreted one way or the other. No reason is given for lack of investigation and we cannot speculate in the article as to why though the reasons are not difficult to imagine. There is no suggestion of "oversight" in the source. We could speculate as to how one disposes of 60,000 people in a short space of time by "oversight", particularly when they have ben formally handed over by the Allies, but such speculation has no place in the article unless it is sourced. As for the issue of Tito's knowledge - there may well be sources that address this in more detail. I would hope that Свифт has access to sources like Ramet himself as primary or ethnically "internal" sources are unlikely to be suitable or achieve consensus.Fainites barleyscribs 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. In either case, as far as I'm concerned, if a (reliable) source mentions Tito is responsible for not punishing those who took part in the killings - then, of course, it is worth mentioning. My goal here is maximum objectivity as our only "defense" against subjective nationalist sentiment that prevails in the Balkans. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The first issue surely is whether Tito is responsible for the killings. The second is - if he is not - did he turn a blind eye or was it completely outwith his knowledge, or was the desire for revenge so strong and the conflict so brutal that he couldn't have stopped this sort of thing if he'd wanted to. His power and influence at the time was unparallelled and I believe he was also Prime Minister - whilst of course also in charge of the partisans and the conduct of the war. Fainites barleyscribs 23:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he was Prime Minister and supreme commander, Yugoslav forces. Well, as to whether he actually ordered the killing, I can only quote Ramet and Stipetić
  • Sabrina P. Ramet, Davorka Matić; Democratic transition in Croatia: value transformation, education & media; 2007, Texas A&M University Press; p. 274 ISBN 1-58544-587-8 [7]
    "Regarding accusations leveled at Tito for the execution of the 'people's enemies' at the end of World War II and under his watch, historian Zorica Stipetić notes: 'I have to mention that documents involving this were published a number of times (in Ridley's book Prometej Magazine). Tito's telegram from Belgrade to the main headquarters of the Slovenian Partisan Army, dated 14 May 1945, prohibits in the sternest language the execution of prisoners of war and commands the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court."
There are also numerous other sources which show that he repeatedly and publicly offered amnesty to the retreating Yugoslav formations, and that his standing orders prohibited the execution of POWs and troops in Yugoslav collaborationist formations (who were not POWs). In other words, not only have we not seen any proof positive, we actually have proof negative.
As for him being responsible for turning a blind eye afterwards - its possible. And as far as I'm concerned I merely want to see a single source that says so unambiguously. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We can only go by what the best sources say. As for removing the Germans - a lot of countries did that. I'm not saying that made it OK but given that Hitler had used the presence of ethnic germans in various countries as his raison d'etre for the invasion and destruction of those countries it was hardly surprising that people wanted the german ethnic minorities out. Not helped by their general support of the Axis during the war. What do the sources say about Tito's position on that? Regarding AJNOV - Tito was leader of that as well I believe. It's not suggested they made their decisions about the ethnic Germans without his approval is it? I note this aspect is already in the article.Fainites barleyscribs 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking into consideration the terrible atrocities committed by the Yugoslav German volunteer SS Division, the 7th Volunteer SS Prinz Eugen, it would be surprising if the minority was not lynched by their former Slavic slaves (for example, in the little Yugoslav German overlordship of the Banat). Tito was not opposed to the expulsion of Germans, but he was not in charge of the AVNOJ - the head of the parliament (AVNOJ) was Ivan Ribar. That said, the situation in Yugoslavia was quite typical of any country where the ruling party chief is also the prime minister (as is the case in the majority of countries with a parliamentary system, e.g. modern Germany, Spain, etc.). The decision could not have been made without his approval, certainly, any more than Angela Merkel would be opposed by a Bundestag controlled by the party she is the head of. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It helps when you're a one party state though. Fainites barleyscribs 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm just making a point that it doesn't take a single-party state for control over the parliament to be exercised by the PM/ruling party chief.
They also weren't a single-party state just yet, the National Front coalition held the majority in the AVNOJ parliament, a coalition which basically united everyone who wanted the King out and a federal republic established (including centrist politicians). Of course, the coalition was headed by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia :). It must be pointed out that its very hard to imagine any political faction in Yugoslavia, communist or no, would oppose the expulsion of the hated Yugoslav Germans (the "Folksdočeri"), the royalist parties least of all. (Don't get me wrong though, I'm not defending communism in any form.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Titoville.com as a reliable source?

I have twice removed this:

He was also leader of non-aligned movement, a close friend of Fidel Castro, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Saddam Husein, Kim Il Sung, Mobutu Sese Seko, Sukarno, Pol Pot and Idi Amin Dada [1].

Does anybody think it is in any way a good addition or a reliable source? It seems to me to breach WP:NPOV as well as WP:V. --John (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

titoville.com is certainly not a reliable source. However, Josip Broz Tito certainly was a leader of the non-aligned movement. The "close friend" stuff should be removed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
the titoville.com site shows authentic photos of Tito with many world leaders and that makes it a RS. It says nothing about "friends", close or otherwise, -- and it includes besides nasty dictators, Queen Elizabeth, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Winston Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt and Pope Paul VI, the heads of France, Pakistan, Italy etc etc. It appears Tito loved to travel and visit with world leaders. We do have a reliable source that says he was a friend of Nasser and Nehru, but not the nasty people that one editor wants to list for reasons of POV. Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we already mention the non-aligned movement, for which it is easy to find reliable sources. I am glad we can all agree this is not a reliable source for anything. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of the question :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tito was far more likely a puppet of America and Britain as he was the closest with those governments and had received military, political and financial support during and after ww2. He was very close to Churchill and Kennedy and had visited Britain/America every year. He was most likely encouraged by America/Britain to join various other leaders in order to control them in some way. This is almost certain considering how quickly "non aligned" movement fell apart.Vlado1979 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Image on main page with Churchill and Eden

The caption for this image states that it is of Tito with Prime Minister Churchill and Eden in 1950. The problem is that Churchill was not Prime Minister in 1950. The image is probably from 1951 or later, but I have no idea what year. Geoff97 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Persistent trolling

In section Historical criticism there is persistent trolling of accounts DIREKTOR-PRODUCER and recent edits were not of socks! I would like assistance of Jimbo Wales! POV pusher removed links to Goli Otok, Sveti Grgur, foibe massacres, Istrian exodus, 1944-1945 killings in Bačka were crimes against humanity ordered by criminal dictator Broz Tito!--MILAZERO (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You may or may not be right. However, you also appear to be a sock of a banned user evading your ban. Fainites barleyscribs 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I requested page protection, just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's an anon using a dynamic IP address from Zagreb who logs in two or three times every day and adds articles to Category:Croatian atheists. He is focused on 7-8 bios, mostly people who were members of communist parties with a few contemporary writers thrown in for whom their beliefs are a) irrelevant for their notability and b) unsourced. He thus assumes that all communists are atheists and that atheism is a defining feature of all communists. I tried to catch him the other day and explain relevant policies to him but he simply replied with an assumption that I have a problem with atheists in general. I even added an explanation to the category page to clarify this but he simply removed it. I don't know how to deal with this, all I can do is to revert him regularly. Timbouctou (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you want to request protection at the other articles? My thought is we discuss the edits here, and if the IP will not discuss but continues, we can report them. But this edit warring needs to stop, don't you think? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In my experience requesting page protection is useless, usually one just gets reminders how we are supposed to discuss things at talk page first. Fine. But this guy is not interested in discussing anything and he always logs in with some other IP address so leaving messages to him does not work. It would be absurd to describe this as "edit warring" when it is a clear case of vandalism. Is atheism Tito's defining feature? The lead does not mention it but per WP:LEAD it should if that is so. Timbouctou (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Which policy requires that the bar for use of a category or template be that it represents a "defining feature"? Was Tito an atheist? Catholic? Croate? One can be many things at once. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
  • WP:EGRS says "Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic. For a dead person, there must be a verified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." Timbouctou (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There's absolutely no informative value in adding category Croatian atheists to this article and the general consensus (which probably exists in published sources) is based on the mere fact that he was a communist - in spite the fact that had he been an atheist he wouldn't have been able to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church after WWII. So I guess he spent over 20 years living as a Catholic communist (verifiable by sources used in this article). Timbouctou (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I know many people who would identify themselves as atheists but who could be excommunicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to assert with " the general consensus (which probably exists in published sources) is based on the mere fact that he was a communist". And I'm not sure there's no informational value, as to the extent we can document events such as his excommunication, religion is clearly relevant to his public life. What sources do we have in terms of how he self identified? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The Catholic church regards one as being catholic based on sacraments received - not one's beliefs (you dn't need to pass an interview to become a Catholic) - just like the communist party does - and he probably did become an atheist before he joined the communists and the excommunication thing was just a formal and unilateral way of the church breaking ties with him. But it goes both ways and not everyone who was a card-carrying communist was automatically an atheist, in spite of whatever contemporary catholics or communists think. Moreover, the word "atheist" or "atheism" is not mentioned once in the body of the article at all so we have no reason to think that his beliefs, whatever they were, had any impact on his public life. I don't know of any speech he gave (and he gave many) in which he mentioned anything about atheism. So the assertion that "religion is clearly relevant to his public life" leaves me unconvinced. "Clearly relevant" things are usually copiously covered in sources. Timbouctou (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's any doubt that the guy was an atheist, a host of sources can be provided to that effect (someone removed some of them from the article). What his excommunication has to do with this is beyond me.. he was excommunicated simply because he was baptized by the Roman Catholic Church, but he became and atheist decades before that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And let me guess - it is "clearly relevant to his public life" is it, to the extent that removing him from the Croatian atheists category would make this article deficient? Timbouctou (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
What harm does having him in that category do? I've seen one source so far saying he was agnostic, and I just got started. So all three religious categories apply to him. And although there's some dispute, I believe he was a Croate, yes? So why not use the template, it is one of many ways to categorize him. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The harm is in that it adds nothing to the article but attracts pointless edit wars by IPs such as the one this discussion is about. You can find sources that he was an a) agnostic, b) a Catholic, c) an atheist, d) a Communist, e) a Croat, f) only half-Croat, g) a Yugoslav. He was many things to many people, but the issue is which of these is relevant. Did he ever talk about atheism? Did he ever promote atheism? Did he write an article about atheism? Do we have any shred of evidence that he was an atheist apart from the assumption that all communists are atheists hence Tito is one? And how is that relevant for his public life exactly? If the idea that it is relevant is true I find it amazing that this entire article failed to mention this hugely relevant piece of information until now, and if somebody printed it out without the info box he/she would have no clue that Tito was an atheist. That's how relevant it is. Timbouctou (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Tim, honestly, I do not see your point.. if the guy was a Croat and an atheist.. why not include him the the Croatian atheists category? Add the categories about the otehr stuff as well if the sources say that also.. I do not see the problem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I still think his beliefs are completely irrelevant for his biography and having him listed as an atheist, agnostic and/or Catholic adds little to both this article and those respective categories. But hey, if things like his totally non-notable domestic partner deserve inclusion I guess his beliefs and hobbies could go in as well. Timbouctou (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he would have felt the same way.. about his domestic partners in particular ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

I'm surprised there is no mention of Tito's role in recruiting and sending volunteers from Eastern Europe to join the international brigades during the Spanish Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"First Lady of Yugoslavia"

Does the peculiar US term "First Lady" have any validity in a Yugoslav context? Varlaam (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"First Lady", in Serbo-Croatian "prva dama" is an unofficial title for the wife of a president. It can be used, but it need not be.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cult of Personality

There is not even a single mention of his enormous cult of personality. I mean, his portraits were seen everywhere (including all single rooms in schools and offices, etc.), places renamed after him (during his lifetime, of course), he was glorified in schoolbooks, was seen on the most postmarks, speech versus him would lead to the arrest, etc. If articles on Mao Tse-Tung, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu and Gnassingbé Eyadéma mention their cult of personality, then Tito's should be included as well. P.S. This is a fact, not a "nationalist rambling", references to the cities renamed after him are already on this page, and if it's necessary, I can find old pictures showing his portraits in schools, on the streets, etc., as well as scan old schoolbooks or take a photo of the postmarks. HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right, although I beg to differ on the "seen on the most postmarks" part - the majority of stamps issued by the Yugoslav Post did not in fact depict Tito. But everything else is true - the article does not even mention the Relay of Youth, an annual televised event similar to the Olympic torch relays in which members of youth carried a baton from his birthplace to Belgrade, finishing the relay in a grand finale at the JNA Stadium on his very birthday (an official holiday), which also doubled as the date of the Yugoslav Cup final (also known as "Marshal Tito's Cup"). Also, I find it odd that the article devotes a total of two sentences to the Bleiburg massacre in the "historical criticism" section - both claming that Tito, the supreme commander of the Yugoslav Partisans, had nothing to do with it - without ever explaining what the Bleiburg events were or what exactly he has been accused of in relation to it. Also, most of the cities and places named after him had adopted those names immediately after WWII and kept them for more than three decades before his death, which includes the Marshal Tito Square in Zagreb - and the article misleadingly represents those advocating for the name change as "revisionists and neo-fascists" without ever mentioning that their main arguments are a) his alleged complicity in the Bleiburg massacre and b) Goli otok camp for political prisoners established under Tito (which is yet another thing this article never mentions). Also, small correction - while it is true that the self-proclaimed ardent anti-fascists opposing the square name change see the idea that it should be called "Theatre Square" as some sort of resurgence of fascist tendencies - the square in fact never carried that name during WWII when Croatia was a Nazi-sponsored puppet state. But there you go. Articles on Wikipedia are only as good as editors who write them. Overall I'd say it's a pretty good article but the fact of the matter is that anything remotely critical of Tito has a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting included. Timbouctou (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Well, I think that "on the most postmarks" might be a bit too strong, "on some postmarks" should be better, but I guess it's unimportant ;) I also forgot to mention Relay of Youth, but I see you corrected that. Plus, we should include mass gymnastics for his birthday (for which you already said it was a holiday) and regime-ordered propaganda movies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_film), some of which featured direct glorification of Tito. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hm.. Tito was very popular regardless of the "cult of personality". His popularity was capitalized-upon by the communist party as much as possible, and a personality cult was created, I agree. However many sources simply describe him as "being popular". If we are seriously going to try and find a neutral way to cover this, we must be careful not to imply his popularity was due to the "cult of personality".
  • This again... The article already includes more than it should about the Bleiburg massacre. Unless some proper sources can be found that directly state, with primary sources/evidence, that Tito was complicit in the Bleiburg massacre, it seems quite POV to include it here in any capacity. We risk dragging this article into the quagmire of Balkans politics by quoting various politicians. If there are accusations, they should probably be listed only if they were voiced by actual scholars. I must point out once more, that, not only is there no proof positive of his involvement, there is in actual fact very strong proof negative (even though proof negative is not required in the absence of proof positive).
We discussed all this before, Timbouctou. Simply because a number of events are constantly quoted by various Croatian politicians as "Tito's crimes", does not justify their inclusion in the article unless a definite connection has been made, by scholars(!), between any crimes and Josip Broz Tito. And then it shuld be added with context and care. Goli Otok was a federal prison for stalinists, how exactly do we connect the prison with Josip Broz Tito? Did he order any crimes be commited therein? Did he personally order its establishment? What? You talk about a "snowball's chances", but the fact is that a respectable source actually describing Tito as culpable in any criminal activities can be found about as frequently as a "snowball in hell". Which mostly explains the "snowball's chances" of the inclusion of such claims.
P.S. The "Cricle for the Square" has been renounced as "neo-Ustaše" due to its rhetoric, the symbolism displayed (NDH flags), and due to some of its members. Certainly not because of their proposed name.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we discussed it before and you failed to understand what was being said back than and now. You know, merely "being popular" usually does not result in a person's birthday being proclaimed as national holiday, while the person is still alive, by the government which is presided over by that person. It usually does not involve towns being named after the person (unless he/she is a monarch - but then I guess you would conclude that Victoria Falls is merely evidence of Queen Victoria's overwhelming popularity and Stalingrad came into being because Stalin was the contemporary Russian answer to Brad Pitt). Having stadium crowds singing literally "Oh comrade Tito, we pledge to you that we shall not stray from your way" and having children run marathons carrying the president's birthday card or schools organising trips to his birthplace where they are told stories about his childhood days also seems like an unhealthy dimension of "popularity" by modern standards and I don't think we need to be scholars to deduct that. In fact you know this and this is why you won't let anything even mentioning any of this get into the article because you are well aware how facts would look like if they were simply presented as facts, without any scholarly commentary. Also, I love the "communist party capitalized on his popularity bit" - and who controlled the communist party? Are you implying a parallel government system?
  • As for Bleiburg - politicians talking about Bleiburg is exactly why Bleiburg is important and pinning it on Tito is one of the most beaten of horses in Croatia whenever Tito is mentioned, and it has been that way for almost 20 years. Simply ignoring it as hogwash because you somehow investigated it and found that the allegations are not true is a bit like ignoring that the Crusades ever occurred because you fail to find scholarly evidence that Jesus really walked on water or was indeed born in Betlehem. Or maybe like saying that the biography of Richard Nixon should not say anything about the Watergate episode because there is no "scholarly" evidence that Nixon knew anything about it. You are completely missing the point. I don't know it the allegations are true and I don't care if they are. I care about presenting a complete picture of the person this article is talking about. The mere fact that "various politicians" call something a "Tito's crime" is worthy of inclusion. Besides, the article does not eve explan what happened at Bleiburg and only offers two sentences telling the reader that Tito is not responsible for an event that the article never said anything about earlier. It's like adding a sentence out of the blue saying that "Yeah, and btw - he never raped that woman in Moscow in 1956, there's no scholarly evidence for that."
  • As for Goli otok - are you seriously telling me that you believe that Tito, an autocratic ruler (which is btw how he is described by scholarly sources), had nothing to do with the establishment of a labour camp for political prisoners? Are you really telling me that? Are you really telling me that associations of former inmates are all delusional for thinking Tito had something to do with it? What's next? You're gonna explain to us how GULAG was a government agency which had nothing to do with Stalin? Or that the SS was an independent organisation which Hitler had little control over, which only "persecuted stalinists"? Please.
  • "The "Cricle for the Square" has been renounced as "neo-Ustaše" due to its rhetoric, the symbolism displayed by its members (NDH flags), and due to some of its members. Certainly not because of their proposed name." - Yeah, and you deduced that from two quotes which come from a member of a citizens group (how scholarly) and a politician(!) (wow, how scholarly) who are both opposed to renaming the square. In addition, there is not a single quote from people actually calling for the name change which means that they are described solely through quotes by their opponents. Why? Because you somehow decided that whatever they had to say is fascist crap. Read WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:OWN. Timbouctou (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Tone down your belligerent attitude, please, I'm getting flashbacks..
  • Didn't I just admit there was a cult of personality, then and now? I hope you are reading my posts.
  • So you're saying we should list all the Balkans right-wing politicians' "hogwash" here? In spite of it being hogwash? That sounds to me like proposing we list all the rubbish praises sung to him by the communist politicians.. except those are to be condemned as the "cult of personality". Don't you think that rather POV?
  • I am "seriously telling you" to find sources linking Tito with any crimes in Goli. From what I know (and I know a lot) it was built under the authority of UDBA chief Aleksandar Ranković, the man responsible for hunting down stalinists.
  • I did not enter one edit about the square nonsense. I live in Split and could not care less, really. The fact is that there are no scholarly sources on the Circle, so I really don't know how you can attack me in a sarcastic tone for not being "scholarly" about this. The circle has been condemned for carrying NDH symbols and singing Ustaše songs, that is a simple fact..
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you agree that there was a cult of personality then add examples of it or let other people do it.
  • If prominent individuals said that another prominent individual is a criminal then yes - it merits inclusion. I'm not arguing here for any crackpots' statements to be included, but WP:DUE compels us to give significant viewpoints as much space they deserve. One nice example for you (you being an avid fan of Western "scholars") is Ivo Banac, a historian and Yale professor, who practically made a career out of criticizing Tito. There's also a video on Youtube of Tuđman sharing his feelings on Tito. However crazy he may have been - you cannot deny that the country's president's opinion is irrelevant because it is not "proved by scholars".
  • You honestly think that Ranković was acting on his own and that an authoritarian ruler such as Tito let people build large prison camps without his knowledge? Btw, didn't Ranković's career end prematurely (on Tito's order) once it was discovered that he bugged Tito's own house? Can you find me evidence that the most powerful person in the country (described a such by what you call "scholars") lived in some sort of a bubble oblivious that there was a labor camp in which people dropped dead like flies for years? These are the facts. Ignoring them will not make them go away, it will only piss off people who come here looking for them. Telling me to "find evidence linking Tito to Goli" is like telling me to find evidence linking Hitler with Auschwitz. Guess what - there is none, and that's why there are people out there claiming that Adolf had been unaware of the Holocaust all along. That's what you sound like when you oppose inserting information that pretty much everyone on the entire political spectrum has already agreed on. One can debate whether Bleiburg or Goli were really needed or brutal or whatnot - but questioning whether a ruler whose opinion was relevant for pretty much every aspect of life in Yugoslavia did not know about it or did not support is a fringe theory itself.
  • The circle's motivation is primarily anti-Titoist, not necessarily pro-fascist. The reason why it is anti-Tito are exactly the issues this article never talks about. So we have a group of people (large enough to be notable in their own right) regularly demonstrating against a dead man for reasons that the dead man's Wikipedia biography refuses to acknowledge. Whether they carried flags of the International Red Cross or sang Hare Krishna is pretty much beside the point because they claim that their arguments are not idelogically motivated. Maybe they are, maybe they are not - but the point is that noone (not even Tito's fans) question that he was the man behind events they hold him personally responsible for (fans of Tito never even try to deny any of it but respond by putting it in context - which is exactly what this article should do). And it's not really any of your business whether I'm a member. But hey - I don't really care much about Tito's biography. It's fine by me as it is, albeit it's obviously deficient because it offers absolutely no criticism of him (even the so-called "historical criticism" section implies that he is only criticised from a historical perspective, which makes him appear infallible and universally popular while he had been alive, which is demonstrably untrue). Timbouctou (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We need to go about this carefully and in accordance with all sources. The point I'm making is that many sources do not use the term, but merely state that he was "popular". Those sources that do use the term "cult of personality" need to be named specifically, and the whole matter must be placed into context of Tito's public image. That is to say, no "CULT OF PERSONALITY!!" section, but rather a more neutral and balanced text dealing with his status in Yugoslav society in general. I propose we discuss on the talkpage prior to including it, so as to nip any edit-warring in the bud.
  • But how do we balance it out? I assure you Tito's heard more praise than crticism fom both scholars and politicians in the past 50 years. Would it not be POV to just include those statements that criticize him? What about Krleža's views (arguably our best writer)? What about Nazor (first head of state)? The guy wrote a song about him.. :P I'm saying I'd rather not go into this, its a tough subject to cover neutrally.
  • I'm not saying Tito did not know, for crying out loud, everyone knew! I'm saying it was Ranković's "idea" and Ranković's prison. He built it, his service ran it. I'm not saying Tito was oblivious to it, but he did not order its construction or those guards to torture the Stalinists. Sources, por favor.. (Incidentally, are you aware historians have been labouring for decades trying to find evidence linking Hitler with Auschwitz? There is a strong possibility Adolf actually had no idea what was there.)
  • Look no reason to get all hot and bothered about this. Why are we even discussing it? I really don't give a damn about the "Krug za Trg", you can call it "Arrogant Purger Plaza" for all I care.. :)
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

where are sources entered by me? Sunic and other historians are all fascists? Sources removing is vandalism!--Lord Sbur (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunić has been discussed before. He's a neo-fascist, and he is not a reliable source. Do not edit-war please. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I read this discussion: who did claim fascist Sunic? Fascist or not: he is a famous historian! I inserted 14 new sources by 20 scholars! You are in violation of disruption and vandalism! Indeed I will insert sources about cult of personality and other crimes!--Lord Sbur (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunić is not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. Please discuss your opposed edits here on the talkpage prior to once again attempting to push them through with edit-warring. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

you don't answer to me: you refuse every sort of collaboration with other editors; you don't respect other users despite several invitations! You have not consensus here and in article's edits! You are in violations of all wiki rules! Stop your blatant political disruption!--Lord Sbur (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did edit by my IP code and again I agree with Lord Sbur--Thoo7 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one example of Tito's cult of personality (or, "popularity"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0UvKkzqo9Q&feature=player_embedded (lyrics, for non-Croatian speaking people: "Tito, Tito, Tito is our sun, Tito is our heart, Our luck never ends, because the same love unite us"). Also, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig6fuoDL_Lw&feature=related. HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I travelled in Yugoslavia in the summer of 1983, three years after his death.
Graz-Ljubljana-Zagreb-Split-Dubrovnik-Bari. So, modern Slovenia and Croatia.
Every shop and business had a picture of Tito.
But not a mass-produced standard picture: every one was different. Military Tito. Civilian Tito. Portrait. Profile. Full length. Colour, black & white, tinted sepia tone. So every business owner appeared to have carefully chosen his favourite image.
On the train from Zagreb to Split, there was a labourer reading a book. Not the sort of person who typically reads books. He had a picture book of Tito with full colour photos which he was reading and bookmarking.
My impression at that time was that their affection for the man was genuine.
People had had plenty of time to replace their Tito photo on the wall with a photo of Mum.
Varlaam (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Look, all people still had to have his portrait in the office during the communist regime (until 90's), just like in the UAE or Syria you still have the portraits of the deceased leaders. For example, even my grandfather (a language teacher at the time when Tito died), whose uncle (pretty old civilian at the time of the WW2) was killed by Tito's forces, needed to have Tito's portrait in his cabinet even after Tito died and, as a language teacher needed to write songs about how great Tito is. Furthermore, more important people (communist officials, company directors, headmasters) had a little bronze bust of Tito (http://www.njuskalo.hr/antikviteti/tito-bista-poprsje-broncani-odljevak-oglas-1727228) on the working desks, etc. Now, probably, somebody would say that these busts were rare, but even I have one of them somewhere in the basement, and many people do. Even trees were planted to form Tito, or it was made by rocks (at the bottom of the page or this: Picture 1, Picture 2) HeadlessMaster (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Cult of personality was extreme. Not only that there was a photo of Tito in every publicly accessible room (for example, in every teacher's office in school or every hairdresser shop). People got jailed for removing the photo from the wall or for questioning his ideal personality (see example of Oto Vilcnik, a teacher who got imprisoned for several years in 1974 for saying in a classroom "Tito is a puppet." See for example http://www.dnevnik.si/tiskane_izdaje/dnevnik/45476). Unfortunately the whole Tito's Wikipedia profile is biased because of some very active individuals coming from former Yugoslavia (user Direktor being one of them), who try very hard to keep the image of Tito on Wiki as clean as possible. 92.37.63.205 (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New informations

All the informations about Foibe and some other "hot" issues about Tito had been removed since i see this page last time one year ago (maybe more), when an agreement over them was reached as all the passages were referenced. Now the page deals at least with the Foibes again. However it is highly incomplete. It is astonishing that I have to insert the fact that this man ruled over a single-party state. Where are all the informations about his cult of personality, the "irregularities" of yugoslavian elections during his tenure, ... ? You can find plenty of referenced informations about this issues on the very same wikipedia on the other articles about Tito's governament, why here they aren't even linked? AndreaFox2 (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

His accent

I have been informed by an ex-Yugoslav that Tito spoke Serbo-Croatian with a Russian accent.
Is that true? Is that a legacy of his service in the Red Army as a young man?
Varlaam (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as much as I dislike the dictator Tito, he was indeed very fluent in foreign languages, mostly because he lived abroad, in Austria and Russia. Furthermore, he was born in a village in the northern Croatia, whose dialect has many Germanisms and differs greatly from official Croatian language (I can hardly understand it sometimes, even harder than Slovenian), even more from the Serbian. As a result of the time he spent abroad, he pronounced letter "l" (pronounced like it is in, for example English) like Croatian "lj" (it's pronounced like "l" in "Lermontov" or "Lenin"), what is pretty common for the speakers of Russian or German language.HeadlessMaster (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There are also some conspiracy theorists claiming that the "real" Tito was actually killed in the Spanish Civil War where he was allegedly working for NKVD and was then replaced by a double of either Russian or German origin who later went on to rule Yugoslavia. They say his somewhat peculiar accent works as proof of this. I personally don't subscribe to these wild ideas but it is true that when you listen to his speeches his way of speaking sounds a bit unnatural, as if Serbo-Croatian was his second language. Timbouctou (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There were also theories (early on) that he was, in fact - a woman, though those were dispelled rather quickly xD. But seriously, no, he spoke perfectly normal Serbo-Croatian [8]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, if you had never heard Tito before, would you be able to tell just by listening to him where he's from? Because I don't think I could. He uses more ekavian vocabulary than usual for Croatians but he doesn't sound Serbian, and he puts stress on some words differently, akin to what you might expect from a Macedonian or an Albanian speaking Serbo-Croatian (for example in the speech you linked he unusually stresses the second syllables in "pomalo" and "budući" (instead of first) and the first syllable in "nepravilnosti" (instead of the third). I'm no expert on forensic linguistics but I always thought this might be because his first language might have been Slovenian. The pattern of his speech with short bursts of multisyllabic words with longish pauses in between certainly resembles Russian and his "l" almost always sounded like "lj". There could have been a number of reasons for this, but the fact is I never heard anyone pronounce words in the same manner. For comparison, Franjo Tuđman came from the same region of Croatia, spent his entire career in the JNA and used lots of ekavian vocabulary, but his pronunciation was entirely different. Timbouctou (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know many gypsies which spoke Albanian and they indeed tend to pronounce "l" like "lj", but also one of my friends (I think he's Serbian, but grew up in Germany) says "lj" instead of "l" and my Russian friend's father also pronounces it this way. Also, there are great differences between regional dialects. For example, I am familiar with ekavian chakavian (Kvarner region), but people in Čabar, which is pretty close, speak a dialect which is much harder to understand than Russian, at least for me. To stick with Tito, in this video, probably the same you had for an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGTMl5losXY) I can hear some clear kajkavian accent, but also some weird accentes, like "socjalistički" with a short "i". Also, "our" other dictator, Ante Pavelić, also seems to have weird accent, but he reigned in the time before mass media, and it's not as discussed, so I would like to hear you opinions about him, but maybe we should discuss it on his page. However, as he is from Herzegovina with parents from Krivi Put (near Senj), his accent is nowhere close to Herzegovian or Senj-ian accent. HeadlessMaster (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
He spoke ekavian because he lived in Belgrade for a long time I imagine, Serbian pronunciation is very "contagious" for Croats, because its simpler I suppose. I actually know (of) several people who went to Belgrade just for a few months and started talking almost like Serbs without even realizing it. The same thing almost happened to me one time, its uncanny :). Though I think our pronunciation is softer and more appealing to the ear, even if a bit more "complex".
As for his "lj"s, well, it could be Russian.. or it could be something else, the guy was all over the place. But you can certainly hear the Zagorje in there. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The theory Timbouctou mentioned about post-Spanish War Tito being a Russian double has been widely commented, and it started because Tito accent in his speaches when he became Yugoslav President was indeed as Russian as of Viktor Gorlichenko, a local home-made Vodka producer and drinker from the deep Russian village of Zalegoshch... However, his accent was the exact oposite of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Serbs or other nationalities in Serbia, and while ethnic Albanians and gypesies when speaking Serbian tend to speak softer, it is not the accent Tito had back then... I am not saying that it is trouth, or not (about him being a Russian double), just saying that it is not an obscure theory, but a widely commented one... I´ll see if I can find some source where this is mentioned, although I have not much time these days. FkpCascais (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A comment on "serbian" and "croatian" languages. The people of the region Tito was born in, Hrvatsko Zagorje, speak ekavian language. It is better known as "kajkavski", but it is ekavian too. In fact majority of Hrvats actually speak kajkavian, which is the best proof that ijekavian and shtokavian version of serbo-croatian, or croato-serbian, is NOT the true Hrvatski language as it is being portrayed by the Hrvatski nationalists since the destruction of Jugoslavia and separation between the republics. Having a Slovenian mother - Slovenes speak kajkavian which is just slightly different to Zagorje kajkavian Tito would hear from his father - his pronunciation would have been acquired and modeled by her speech. His "accent" and "differences" are perfectly normal for a kajkavian speaker of the era because the second language he would learn was German. For Tito, just as for most of Hrvati, shtokavian and ijekavian was a southern language that he would only meet and learn later on as he started working around. And his natural speech would have been formed by then. Shtokavian and ijekavian was not spoken by Hrvati in the then Hrvatska, althoug it has been in use. The paradox comes from the Ilirian Movement which introduced it as an unifying language of all Slavic people in the region. The only Hrvati who spoke it as their first language lived in Bosnia and Serbia, where it was also the language of at least 50% (90% in Bosnia) of population back in the 19 and the first half of 20th century.

While this is hotly contested by may contemporary wannabe linguists, the fact that orthodox priests in Serbia still perform their liturgies and sermons in shtokavian and ijekavian, which they call "antic" or "true" Serbian, proves this to be the case. Reformer of Serbian language, Vuk Karadzic also considered shtokavian and ijekavian as the true and authentic Serbian. My own grandmother was from Hrvasko Zagorje and she was talking in exactly the same way with exactly the same accent as Tito did. There is no mystery or doubt about his "accent" to anyone who had an opportunity to hear people from that area born in the same period. Even today it is possible to meet elderly people speaking in much the same way Tito did, in Hrvatsko Zagorje. With the hysteric redesign and introduction of "real" Hrvatski language by the nationalists, the people are changing the way they speak for fear of being killed by the new powers to be. The net result is that the old, original kajkavian accent is disappearing fast and is practically unknown outside the ever-shrinking area from where it came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.181.13 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I would advise you, sir, to please keep your Karadzic-derived ideas to yourself if you have no constructive suggestions on improving the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. I am a Dalmatian, and I dare say you have a lot to learn on various forms of Serbo-Croatian. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

IP edits

IP 92.37.53.74, you're behaving in a very disruptive manner. It is not disputed that this court ruling in Slovenia warrants inclusion in the article, but it does not warrant inclusion in the lede, or its own article section. Please take into consideration that, while from your perspective in Slovenia this may seem otherwise, I dare say the vast majority of people, even in former Yugoslavia, never heard of this court ruling. It is also not necessary that you include your own commentaries on the decision, especially while omitting the fact that the ruling makes a point of making clear its decision does not concern Tito himself or his conduct [9]

"The ruling also says that the purpose of the review was not a verdict on Tito as a figure or on his concrete actions, as well as not a historical weighing of facts and circumstances, but the evaluation of the symbolic weight of his name from the perspective of constitutional principles."

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the coverage the case and the ruling have received it is pretty unlikely that "vast majority of people" haven't heard about it. Many in Croatia certainly heard of this, evidenced by the vast amount of articles published in the Croatian media about it, which then spurred renewed debates over the Marshal Tito Square renaming issue.
In addition, the original April 2009 Ljubljana city council decision had already raised brows in the region before the court later overturned it:
Also, thanks for copying exactly what I had said 13 days ago at Talk:Tito street decision in Slovenia. NB, the editor who created that page had already inserted a sentence about the issue in this article on Oct 8, which you reverted opining that the sentence "needs a better source" (it came with two refs, one pointing to the text of the ruling, another to Slovenian Press Agency's article carried by Slovenia Times). How ironic it is that you are here quoting that very same article 13 days later.
On topic - I agree that it merits inclusion here, but since you've spent a good part of your career preventing anything which might shed a negative light on Tito from being added here (or anywhere else for that matter on Wikipedia), there is no article on Wikipedia which could provide a context for understanding the decision. Or do you think what the Slovenian court had in mind when they mentioned "grave violations of human rights and basic freedoms" was the confiscation of property of ethnic Germans? Now that is something nobody in ex Yugoslavia heard or cares about. Timbouctou (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a point, or do you just want to have another argument with me? You know what, I've had it, this is no way to discuss, I'm bringing your behavior up on ANI again. It is absolutely impossible to achieve an amicable agreement with you. Though one cannot really blame you for carrying on like this, since every time you manage to have your way by edit-warring and force. The laughable irony is you think I'm the "bully".. or is that the point? Do you feel good when you think you're "bullying the bully"? As for the news links please read WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, did you actually post all that just to prove me wrong on an insignificant side-point? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So you still think the "vast majority of people never heard of this" in spite of the copious amount of coverage this ruling received in dozens of media outlets in ex-Yugoslav countries? You still think that STA's English-language article is "not good enough" as a source, or did it magically become one once you realised that the Slovenian guy had built an entire article around it (Tito street decision in Slovenia), which he did only after you removed the information on sight here because you just happen to dislike its content? So you might want to squeeze in some explanations in between insults in your next belligerent rant. Oh and btw WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply here - unless you think this is "routine coverage" (which it isn't - see WP:ROUTINE - and even in case it was - it would establish the verdict as even more notable). As for WP:NEVENT, this satisfies WP:EFFECT (the verdict was cited in renewed efforts to rename Marshal Tito Square in Zagreb, Croatia, and was mentioned as a precedent by 550 Croatian notables people who signed the petition only a few days ago); WP:GEOSCOPE (the verdict was reported across the entire region); WP:DIVERSE (there's a huge range of sources up there, from Internet-only portals to national broadcasting corporations). You're going to have to look for some other guideline to misinterpret I'm afraid. As for you deleting referenced information opining that the refs are somehow dubious before you actually read them - this is not your first time you did that, is it? You were caught doing exactly that in June 2011 in the Bleiburg massacre article, (although you later had to apologize for it in the article talk page). Perhaps another apology is in order?
"Do you have a point, or do you just want to have another argument with me?"
I made my point in the last paragraph of my original post, the one which started with the words "On topic...". Basically - what sense does it make to say that the Slovenian supreme court ruled that Tito symbolizes "grave violations of human rights and basic freedoms" in an article which offers nothing to explain why. Just like the lead which currently merely says that "He remains a controversial figure in the Balkans." (why?) and like the criticism section which says that "Despite accusations of culpability in the Bleiburg massacre, Josip Broz Tito repeatedly issued calls for surrender to the retreating column...", without saying what Bleiburg was - or that many of those who did surrender were executed nonetheless (ironically again, it says so in Dizdar's research paper which is quoted here; there's much that can be said about the sloppy referencing put together there, but I'll leave that for later). So in a nutshell - you are right, the verdict should go in the criticism section, but if - and only if - the section is expanded to explain the verdict's background. Timbouctou (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Look, I told you, I no longer read your posts of the above sort. For the sake of all that is sane, what do you want to do with the paragraph on the Slovene court case? Heh. I mean, any Wikipedian worth his salt can see the thing belongs in the Criticism section, which covers exactly those kind of subjects. But who are we kidding? You could not possibly advocate any position that is not in diametrical opposition to mine :). Though it would be nice if you would finally confirm that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So what would you say is the reason for the Slovenia court decision or do you think the readers do not need to know its background? Slovenians inexplicably think that the man's name alone is a symbol of grave violations of human rights? Timbouctou (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Heh. This isn't a poll we're talking about, you should not speak for the majority of the Slovene nation, Tim, let alone its entirety. As far as we can tell the majority of Croats apparently think he's the "Greatest Croat" that ever lived, how would you account for that? Who cares anyway, I'm not in public opinion research.
But let me once again make an effort to try to steer this conversation away from conflict-seeking. Do we agree, or do we not agree, that the Slovene court case belongs in the "Criticism" section. With all the other - criticism. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, on your first point - the Slovenian supreme court's ruling means that in their opinion (which is I guess correct as they know what they are talking about) the number of people who think he symbolizes grave violations of human rights is big enough not to be ignored when naming streets. If this was a fringe view they would have dismissed the case immediately. Apparently it is not. Regarding the second section - yes, it belongs to the criticism section, but it sure does not belong there on its own, especially not with what's there already. Claiming that Tito had nothing to do with Bleiburg massacre or Goli otok are fringe views at best (actually Ivo Goldstein called them "ridiculous" and Bleiburg was described as "possibly the worst atrocity Tito committed" by Sabrina P. Ramet). This needs to be changed in order for the mention of the verdict to make any sense. Timbouctou (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You are being deliberately evasive, as per usual, and are talking about something else entirely, looking for an issue you might have a WP:BATTLE about. After all this, do you actually agree with me and my post all the way above? If you don't start actually discussing the subject of this thread in your fifth post, I'm done being insulted for today. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thing is, the issues why JBT was deemed "a symbol of grave violation of human rights" by a sovereign country's constitutional court have been discussed at length many many many times earlier on this talk page and you have took it upon yourself to misinterpret policies time and again to have your way (which boils down to "JBT was a great guy, whoever thinks otherwise is a crazy nationalist") and effectively block improvements to the article which would mention these events in more detail. The issue of such topic simply missing from the article have been raised more times than I could count over the years. So yeah, of course you want to merge Tito street decision here once your random deletion of referenced information did not solve the problem. Of course you want to bury it in the criticism section and then debate for months how pretty much every book ever published on the subject is wrong, meaning the Slovenia's court ruling was wrong. Sorry but I can't buy that. Yes - this belong to "criticism" and yes - reasons for the ruling need to be expanded further. As in "as soon as possible". Timbouctou (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the Slovene verdict was explained in the verdict, and should of course be elaborated upon briefly in the paragraph on the verdict, along with the court's statement distancing itself from any historical issues. I.e. we do not need your own perceived reasons for the verdict, the court was kind enough to provide them.
For the record, it can be seen above ("yes - this belong to 'Criticism'") that User:Timbouctou does in fact agree with me on all relevant content issues that are the subject of this thread. The user has written several posts apparently for the sole purpose of starting a WP:BATTLE and being insulting. This seemed apparent from the start. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So what does the "grave violations of human rights and basic freedoms in the decade following WWII" part refer to? Can you point it out in this article? (Hint: It's not the Germans.) Btw you can take your musings of what "seemed apparent from the start" elsewhere. Oh right, you already did. Timbouctou (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The decade following WWII apparently refers to the 1945-53 Stalinist period, while the state can be described as "totalitarian" in nature, and could just as easily refer to the period as a whole. I assume (though I would not presume to guess), since they're talking about the post-WWII decade, that the justices refer to the persecution of Stalinists and their internment on Goli Otok.. But, again, I would not presume to guess or use other wording than the court. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, could be. But Goli otok is never mentioned in the article at all and neither is what you called the "overtly totalitarian state" led by Tito in the 1945-1955 period when alleged Stalinists were persecuted en masse. That's a problem. Timbouctou (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I rephrased the above a bit, to better reflect my meaning. The current consensus term, based on numerous sources, is "authoritarian", and I think its an accurate term on the whole. You're not the first or the only person trying to cover this very controversial stuff, Tim. As always, as far as I am concerned, any such edit can stay as long as its from a 1) reliable (i.e. preferably non-local), 2) published, and 3) scholarly source, that 4) actually connects to Tito specifically and not the whole of Yugoslavia. I use those criteria since thats the only way such additions will stay anyway. As I said, this is probably THE most controversial person of our country and region, and trying to do this matter justice would be neither easy nor quick. I'm not doing it right now since, well.. take a look at the Draza Mihailovic collaboration mess, its been over two years now. And frankly I'm hoping another business of that sort won't start here as well. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but your #1 (non-local) is the definition of WP:BIAS (speaking of locals - Dizdar is quoted in the article - I've actually downloaded his paper and what he says doesn't resemble what his research is being used to support here), and your #4 is very debatable since everyone (and by "everyone" I mean scholars both in the region and abroad, the general public, history textbooks, popular media and the like) consider Tito to be synonymous with Yugoslavia, the country where he was the ultimate authority on all matters, including being the country's prime minister, president, defence minister and/or commander-in-chief. When they talk about Yugoslavia's accomplishments they call them "Tito's accomplishments" and when they talk about atrocities they talk about "Tito's atrocities". Insisting that reliable authors must provide proof of his direct involvement in something is in direct opposition with WP:OR. Tito is synonymous with the regime he led for better or worse just like Hitler is synonymous with Nazi Germany or Ante Pavelić with NDH or Nicolae Ceausescu with communist Romania. That's what Slovenian Constitutional Court's ruling said, that's what historians say and that's what the public thinks. The only difference is that his fans focus only on regime's good things and his critics on its bad things. But nobody opposes the idea that it was all him. But the issue remains that this article does not touch on any negative thing at all. So how is a reader going to make sense of the court ruling? Timbouctou (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The "criteria" above, just like WP:V in general, refers to challenged or controversial info (I thought that was obvious). I'm not about to pester people with all of that if noone objects to the text, such as e.g. what his lover's nickname was etc. But if you would care to challenge Dizdar's claim or him as a source, in my view you may have a legitimate case.
Well I certainly wouldn't agree that there is "nothing negative in the article", I dare say you're berating the painstaking search efforts of a lot of people with such an assessment :). Thus far all well-sourced "negative" information that refers to Tito directly has been included. Believe it or not, but Tito's role in the "negative" aspects of SFR Yugoslavia is touched on vary sparingly (or not at all) in scholarly publications. If the matter were clear this would hardly be a controversial issue in the first place. Again, look at Draza Mihailovic. The Chetnik movement's collaboration was industrial-scale, yet it is not permissible to call the man a collaborator simply because he headed the movement (as much as one might like to do so :)). As for Tito being "synonymous" with Yugoslavia, well, that may be your view, but I think you know that's not the sort of notion that should be seriously entertained when going through sources. Historians do not say that, you cannot speak for the public (again), and the Slovenes certainly make no such claim. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Timbouctou has a very good point regarding the whitewashing of Tito´s negative aspects on this article and the unbalance found here. Also, I see you direktor persuing an anti-Mihailovic agenda in industrial-scale even in unrelated discussions, should I say hard feelings for not having demonstrated that on the mediation purpously open to deal with that? You should behave more correctly when discussing sensitive issues. Is it worth asking please? FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for impugning the honour of the Chetniks, FkpCascais. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you should apologise for making phalse and provocative claims and persuing an agenda. That is disruption, considering the intentional bad-faith over that, and the frequent times you did it. The claims you do on that subject are exactly the ones you failed to prove at the mediation (and you had over a year to do it), so you keep on proliferically pushing the phalse idea at semi-related discussions. Be carefull with that, please. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I shall continue to comment on the Chetniks as I please, FkpCascais. As always, if you think my post was somehow "disruptive", you may feel free to post it on ANI and report me. As you've been told by many users, many times, it has been established beyond any doubt that the Chetnik movement collaborated with the enemy during WWII. AS i have often pointed out, it seems necessary to post the same sources over and over and over again when discussing with you. If you find yourself unable to accept that fact, and still find its mention offensive, you must understand I shall not be forced to censor my posts in accordance with your feelings. Certainly not with insults and empty threats of the above sort. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You posted your sources over and over again and you did not get the consensus of any "industrial-scale collaboration", so the only one being abusive and insultin here is you, as you are making phalse hard-core serious accusations of Nazi-collaboration. I will obviously report you if you continue so, because WP is not a place for editors persuing their own missconceptions and propaganda, specially not if offensive and in inadequate places. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This is off-topic and I have nothing more to add. Sources have been posted, and you've been told over and over again by a lot of people, that the extent of the collaboration of the Chetnik movement as a whole has been conclusively established, and that it is not a topic of any dispute. (its spelled "false") --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Who said that to me? Be precise. FkpCascais (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ [10]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_5&oldid=1079335829"