Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Josip Broz Tito. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Serbia - Kosovo

I don't want to start a nationalist row here, but isn't Kosovo recognised as an independent nation these days? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the world is divided on the issue... why do you ask? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I misread. I thought the cities that were named after Tito are still called like that. I suppose they were called like that when Kosovo was still recognised as part of Serbia by most states. Sorry to bother you. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo is still recognised as part of Serbia by most states... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

...and also the cities that were named after Tito were all renamed back to their former names shortly after the dissolution of former Yugoslavia, still in early 1990s. Check each of the articles and you´ll see. FkpCascais (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter. I think it is more accurate to say that Kosovo has been recognised as a separate state by 88 of 193 United Nations member states. 'Most' is so vague. I believe that correlates to a little more than 45% of United Nations member states. There are large number of other states that are considering the situation and have not made a definite decision. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Titova sahrana.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Titova sahrana.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Titova sahrana.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tito's Ribbons.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tito's Ribbons.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tito's Ribbons.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

harry truman about tito

why is there no sentence what said truman about tito and it is mention in others wikipedia

President Truman:"I am told that Tito murdered more than 400 000 of the opposition in Yugoslavia before he got himself established there as a dictator" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.37.176 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because Harry Truman never said that? Anyone can edit wikipedia, so please feel free to edit the article if you can add new, constructive and non-biased information to it. Also, Please provide sources to any quotes you might put on this site - for such a disputable quote multiple sources would be appreciated. Xzpx (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

main photo

The photo has recently been changed, from one depicting a younger Tito holding a pipe to one of an older Tito smoking a cigar. I propose we return to the former, which is certainly more flattering - but more importantly, because it is more recognizable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.70.90 (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the photograph should be a face-on portrait (so not the profile one in uniform used at one point), but he was president/prime minister far longer than he was an operational military man, and a portrait in civilian clothes is more appropriate than one taken during the war. It's also not our job to flatter the man, he's dead, and he looked like this at one point. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the cut-away with an actual photographic portrait, where he also isn't making a grimace. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very heroic, but it is a profile and there must be a face-on one in civvies available. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he was a three-time National Hero of Yugoslavia :). Seriously though, whether he's in civvies or not.. I can't see the relevance. "The Marshal" was a synonym for Broz in Yugoslavia. I grant that a face-on portrait would be preferable to a profile portrait, but I also think any portrait is better than that awkward, low-res cut-away. -- Director (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really committed to a particular pic, and I don't object the the current one particularly except that it is in profile. Any reasonably clear photo of Tito face-on would be better in the infobox than a profile shot. But I'd just be happy if we could get the pic relatively stable, whatever it is. It seems to change twice a week on average. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is folks just don't know how to upload images that will stick, and someone has undertaken to clean-up this article. I found this pic just yesterday, it seems to be well sourced. -- Director (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I say, no issue here. I just think it should show the man's face properly. When one appears that is in uniform or in civvies that shows the man's face properly, it should go there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical criticism

why no mention of the istrian exodus and foibe in the criticism section? It seems a strange omission to not include at least two links to the respective articles

max — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.101.235 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Because, as far as we've seen, there's no connection between those events and this person, other than he was the head-of-government at that time. -- Director (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism"? There is little of that here. The sentence "Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator," and was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad" is entirely POV, and misses the point that he was both a dictator and the leader of a communist regime. I suspect most Germans regarded Hitler as a benevolent dictator too, but no one would write that about a Nazi, so why treat a communist more favourably?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ARBMAC Reminder

The slow burn edit war here is ridiculous. Please resolve it here, not through edit summaries. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity #2

There is no dispute that this person's mother was Slovene. However, ethnicity does not necessarily have anything to do with ancestry. To cut to the chase, dozens of independent sources explicitly state that Tito was an ethnic Croat, no source states he was an ethnic Slovene or an ethnic "Croatian-Slovene" or anything of the sort. None that I could find, anyway. This has all been discussed at length and the sources were presented before. A consensus had been reached. I had simply restored the consensus, altered by a Slovene user who was no doubt acting on the basis of his knowledge of the person's ancestry. Here's a quote from the previous discussion.

"Now, I'm not some Croat nationalist or whatever, but the sources should be represented:
"Tito, an ethnic Croat, held the disparate nations together in the Yugoslav federation by allowing cultural autonomy"
James Minahan, One Europe many nations, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000

"Although an ethnic Croat, Tito opposed any form of political autonomy and promoted the centralization of the country."
James Minahan, Miniature empires: a historical dictionary of the newly independent states, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000

"Tito, who was an ethnic Croat, skillfully pleased the West, without ever resigning his Communist ideology."
Rade Petrović Kent, Is it poor memory or Just one more treason?, L'AGE D'HOMME, 1998

"Tito was little more than an ethnic Croat."
David Bruce MacDonald, Balkan holocausts?, Manchester University Press, 2002

"Tito (Croat) being the supreme commander offered certain hopes to all constitutive nations."
Dejan Jović, Yugoslavia: a state that withered away, Purdue University Press, 2009

"...the Partisans led by the Croat Tito."
Lenard J. Cohen, Jasna Dragović-Soso, State collapse in South-Eastern Europe, Purdue University Press, 2008

"Ribar - Croat; Tito - Croat;..."
Michael Barratt Brown, From Tito to Milosevic, Merlin, 2005

"Tito, a Croat..."
North American Society for Serbian Studies, Serbian studies, Volume 16, North American Society for Serbian Studies, 2002

"How did Tito, a Croat, rule Yugoslavia for so long?"
Khoon Choy Lee, Diplomacy of a tiny state, World Scientific, 1993

"Tito, the Croat, was a traitor to many of his countrymen."
Anne Alexander, Nasser, Haus Publishing, 2005

"After the war, Yugoslavia fell under the control of Marshal Tito (a Croat), whose Communist government in Belgrade..."
Katie Wood, Cheap Sleeps Europe, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003

"Yugoslavia's new president was Marshal Josip Tito, a Croat born near Zagreb."
Yahia H. Zoubir, François-Serge Lhabitant, Doing business in emerging Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

"After the war, Tito, a Croat, made a second attempt to create a viable Yugoslav (South Slav) nation..."
Wayne Bert, The reluctant superpower: United States' policy in Bosnia, 1991-95, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997

"He may or may not have heard about the hard-faced Croat named Tito,..."
Whittaker Chambers, Terry Teachout, Ghosts on the roof, Transaction Publishers, 1996

"...indeed, it appeared that Tito (a Croat) intentionally sought to limit the Serbs' clout..."
Lori Fisler Damrosch, Enforcing restraint: collective intervention in internal conflicts, Council on Foreign Relations, 1993

"Tito, the Croat metalworker Josip Broz who joined the Austrian army and later the Bolsheviks in Russia,..."
Nicholas V. Gianaris, Geopolitical and economic changes in the Balkan countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996

"As is well known, the communists under the Croat Tito dominated the partisan internal resistance..."
Paul B. Rich, Reaction and renewal, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996

"More importantly, Mihailović was a Serb and Tito a Croat,..."
Richard Harris Smith, OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency, Globe Pequot, 2005

"However, Josip Broz Tito, a Croat and communist who fought the Germans"
Kristen P. Williams, Despite nationalist conflicts: theory and practice of maintaining world peace, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001
...etc. etc. I could practically go on like this in perpetuity."

While there are sources referring to the fact that this person was half-Slovene by ancestry, I've not found a single source that says Tito was "Slovene" or an "ethnic Slovene". There might be one, theoretically, but even if so - it would be WP:FRINGE. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, DIREKTOR, a little decorum. Most of those "quotes" are nonsense, they are not reliably published and/or have no context. Such tactics are beneath you. This can be resolved without such nonsense. If the man said he was a Croat, he was a Croat. That is enough. I was recently reminded of this with the Kulenovic brothers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that was from a long time ago :), but I assure you the sources are accurately quoted. Anyway you get my point: an abundance of sources state explicitly that this person was an ethnic Croat. Please don't make me quote them all over again from this huge list. What he says doesn't matter at all, quoting him is essentially OR.

I'd like to see some sources that state he's an ethnic Slovene (in referring to his ethnicity, not the fact that his mother was Slovene). -- Director (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen in Italian (with cn tag), in German and in Hungarian wikis it is reported he was of Italian ancestry (from Trentino region): Broz is a typical surname of that area -> http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=broz&x=0&y=0#.UK-EEuTK4oM Do you know something about this? --Grifter72 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. First time I hear about it.

@Eleassar, kindly provide a source for your edits. -- Director (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition

..is an excellent example of WP:WEASEL WORDS. -- Director (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

if you don't stop your vandalism, I will block you!--Alojow (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? Do go ahead :)

Seriously though, your edit seems to be supported by a pile of random copy-pasted refs from elsewhere in this same article - I question the accuracy of your referencing. Your phrasing is also classic WP:WEASEL WORDS. The bottom line is the insertion of such a characterization is controversial with regard to this person. If some of your sources actually say what you quote them for, the accusations presented therein would certainly warrant inclusion in the appropriate section - but I don't see them in the lede. Of course, that depends on what exactly the sources say. Can you provide a quote or two?

P.S. it is generally a good idea to avoid sources published in the SFRY and ex-Yu when discussing controversial issues such as this. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

sources inserted by me are well known and were added by other users in various articles! Your reaction is full politically flamed!--Alojow (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, your sources are not properly quoted - they're simply copy pasted from elsewhere, page number and all. Can you please provide a quote or two so we can evaulate the position of the sources more accurately. One way or the other the current wording cannot stand. -- Director (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring on this issue has exceeded the threshold of WP:3RR. The edit Alojow has made is clearly contested, and I am reverting it for that reason alone. If consensus cannot be achieved here on the talk page, use dispute resolution, do not engage in any further edit-warring, as I will report the matter to ARBMAC. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, you don't go to ARBMAC for one 10-minute edit-war. But I will report this guy on the appropriate noticeboard if this really gets out of hand. Its an obvious sock, one that's posting personal attacks in every comment to boot. -- Director (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the quoted references. I've removed the refs pointing to the Slovene court decision about naming a street after Tito - because that's not a "historian accusing Broz", because its already covered below, and because its against MoS to post too many references for the same unchallenged fact.

That basically leaves two (non-local) sources. One of which I can and have verified. When talking about Yugoslavia itself, the author basically states that "human rights were routinely suppressed". As the author clearly refers to the period of Tito's dictatorship, I myself can see it as relevant. However, this too is not quite a "historian accusing Tito of violating human rights". I've rephrased the statement accordingly.

Regarding the Slovene court decision, a couple facts were omitted. Firstly, it was omitted that Slovenia (and probably all other ex-Yugoslav republics) still have streets and squares named after Tito. I.e. the Yugoslav-period names were generally not changed, and the court decision was only regarding the renaming of an additional street after Tito. Secondly, it has been omitted that the Slovene court explicitly distanced itself from the actual person of Tito and his actions. The decision was stated to have concerned only the sentiments associated with the name "Tito". -- Director (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Director, I'll take that under advisement. I'm sick to death of this type of behaviour across the board. Discretionary sanctions are sometimes needed to get some editors to modify their behaviour, and given this topic area I think some ARBMAC attention might be valuable. I'll leave it if this gets more sensible. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be patronizing, its just that generally speaking WP:AE is a pretty "serious" noticeboard. This guy just arrived and we had a brief altercation, for that sort of incident I think WP:ANI would be more appropriate. But really, these sort of brief edit-wars are pretty commonplace on the "Balkans articles" (which is no doubt why you're sick of them :)), reporting this won't stop the endless tide of disgruntled readers with strong opinions. Of that you can be certain. In instances such as this I usually refrain from bothering our venerable admin corps (even though the user attacked me several times and looks like a sock [1]), because I think this can be resolved quickly. Perhaps it already has been. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to repeat that statues and squares dedicated to Tito were erected and renamed during the Yugoslav period (when else?). I also don't think its necessary to twice repeat that Podgorica had reverted to its original name during the Milosevich period. I don't see the relevance with regard to the Slovene court decision?
"Dictator" and "dictatorship" are probably pretty accurate terms for Tito's rule, but they are also value-laden terms that are not used in that way.
Regarding the cult of personality.. that's a complex issue. I know it has support in sources, but I've also often read that much of the popularity was genuine and was due to his exploits as a resistance leader, and due to the (locally rather unprecedented) economic boom. In short, I'd rather not go into it all for the sake of a passing reference. Suffices to say that: there has been no cult of personality for almost thirty years - but the vast majority of the streets, statues and squares remain.

-- Director (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No! You use basic or elementary technique of trashy propaganda! Your reaction against my edits is typical of a guy who makes sentinel on this article and related others: your deleting edits are always few minutes after mine! It is not necessary ARBMAC because I will put tags of "disputed article" again! You removed previous tags posted by me: now you wait since potential -third opinion-! The solution of disputed issues can be participation of other users in this talk but you wait: you don't remove tags by me! You respect rules of this project! This article is full politically oriented! I dispute entire article: introduction, sections of WWII, Stalin-Broz split, long dictatorship, criticism and all! No edit war by me but only use of wikipedia's rules! Do you understand DIREKTOR account?--Alojow (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another Wikipedia rule: WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I suggest you read it carefully. I could just as well say you're the one using "trashy propaganda techniques". If you're able (with regard to English skills), I sincerely suggest you get off the high horse and start working towards an agreement, point by point, and in a civil manner. Do not expect a deus ex machina to arrive and defeat the villains you're apparently combating. Unless there are some specific changes and criticism to be discussed, I for one certainly intend to eventually remove the feel-good tags you've added to this very well sourced article.

Why do we need to repeat that Podgorica changed its name (under Milosevich), when that's already elaborated-upon in detail in the "Family and personal life" section? It also has nothing to do with Slovenia.
"Dictator" is a value-laden term, and should be avoided per WP:LABEL. You might note that Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc. are also not referred to as "dictators" on this project.
Before we proceed at all on this point, I would like to see a source in support of the claim that these streets and squares were named after Tito as part of a cult of personality. Otherwise that claim is WP:OR

-- Director (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Luxurious lifestyle

Perhaps related to the post above, I haven't seen any information in the article relating to Tito's luxurious lifestyle. Being the leader of a communist nation and yet living a surprisingly un-communist lifestyle might be a noteworthy addition, particularity in the sphere of criticism. Buttons (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source actually criticizes him for it; and then we should arguably attribute said criticism in the text (it being a statement of opinion). Our own opinions and criticisms are not noteworthy. Note, however, that none of the facilities enjoyed by Tito were his own property, but rather federal property designated for use by the president (kind of like the White House or Camp David). They are still in use by the Yugoslav successor states as official residences of officeholders.

The bare fact that he enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle is not disputed (or even disputable), and is, I believe, covered to some extent. If you would like to expand on the subject from the BBC source - please do: I see no NPOV issue. Only please try not to state or imply something the source does not state, and please avoid the "Historical criticism" section, which should be dismantled into other sections rather than expanded (see above). -- Director (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dismantled "Historical criticism" section per previous GA review recommendations. -- Director (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note there is (and has been) a paragraph devoted to this subject in the "Personal Life" section. I've expanded it somewhat. -- Director (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk^talk 14:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Effectiveness=Guns

Wasn't the effectiveness of Tito's Partisans due, in large measure, because they had guns??? When Hitler invaded the Low Countries and France, the first thing he did, as with all countries occupied by the nazis, was confiscate their weapons. My Poli Sci 101 prof stated that after Tito became President of the former Yugoslavia, he made it MANDATORY for every household in the country to have at least one rifle. Any truth to that??? Perhaps that contributed to the bloodiness of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, too.User:JCHeverly 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Tito was not in power before WWII. And it wasn't mandatory to hold weapons in every household, but instead there was a Territorial Defense (TO) force that both functioned as a reserve of the regular military (JNA), and was supposed to augment its activities during wartime through guerrilla activities (that never happened of course, as there was no WWIII). These were essentially reservists, though, so yes, if you were a reservist you had to have your weapons at home. This did not contribute much to the bloodiness of the war, since the TO was mostly disarmed by the Army in Croatia and Bosnia. It did contribute to a certain extent, though, as weapons were often not repossessed in a selective way (i.e. the JNA would disarm some and not others). In Slovenia, though, during the 10-day war, the TO did actually fight vs the JNA.

The WWII Partisans got their weapons from a multitude of sources, these were stolen Axis weapons procured by a myriad of means (such as through sympathizers in the collaborationist formations), then you had weapons of the old Yugoslav Royal Army that often found their way into Partisan hands, then there was the fact that the Partisans actually often had under their control weapons factories which they put to work producing arms and ammunition, sometimes for months on end before the Axis secured the area. They were the ones to disarm the surrendered Italian army formations in 1943, etc. and then of course there was Allied aid, primarily from the British after 1942. There were of course privately-owned weapons that came into use, but these, while certainly much better than nothing, weren't prized as much as actual military weapons. You don't equip an army like that.. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. So the World War II Yugoslavs did have access to firearms. As for the TO, were they formed from the Partisan ranks after WWII? I just saw Tito on the home page and read through the article. He was and remains an interesting figure of the Cold War. The US had pretty good relations with him.User:JCHeverly 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. Yes, but you really can't draw such parallels :). Pre-WWII Yugoslavia was a rather uncivilized and primitive place in many of its parts.. there were still brigands in the mountains, being chased by the Royal Gendarmerie. Even if the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had gun control laws (which I doubt), they would be pretty much unenforcable. At that time and place, such things were inconceivable, I mean - you might need guns to defend yourself from wolves where you lived :). That said, I'm sure such personal weaponry did in fact help arm the Partisans against the Nazis in the first year or so, to a certain extent.

No. The Partisans were reorganized into the aforementioned Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), i.e. the regulars. Their modern-day common name ("Partisans") is a little deceptive, as it stems from the first couple years of the war. By late 1944 this was a fully-organized army with up to 800,000 troops, and was more commonly referred to as the "National Liberation Army".

Tito is what you'd call a successful dictatorship. He knew what he was doing, and what he was doing was (more often than not) good for the country. The US was on good terms with him because he defected from Stalin early in the Cold War, and thus made sure the Eastern Bloc had no direct access to the Mediterranean Sea through Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Russia never did anything for him against the Nazis. The guy who did was Fitzroy Maclean. I think we're all loyal to those who help us.User:JCHeverly 03:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The forgotten 500

See the book the forgotten 500 for some much-needed and sorely-lacking balance on Tito

doug rudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.56.227 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

Most of this comment is tl;dr and not on point. For example, Penn and Teller are totally irrelevant to this page and the edits in question. Somehow your comment doesn't even appear to address the distinction between "religion = atheist" (which is not in the article) and "religion = none (atheist)", which has quite a different meaning. If you could try to make a comment that is on topic and to the point, that would be great. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you couldn't be bothered to read even the first paragraph of my comment, which clearly said " 'Religion = None (atheist)' is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but 'Religion = None' is unambiguous.", directly contradicting your assertion that my comment "doesn't even appear to address the distinction between 'religion = atheist' and 'religion = none (atheist)'". Let me know if you have any disagreement with what I actually wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I beleave we may have two different points here. I agree with Guy Macon that not having any religion is not automatically same as being atheist. In this specific case, what matters here is what sources actually say Tito was. Then, all this drives me to another much broader issue, which is Why do we have the religion included in the infobox of politicians anyway? Is it that important? I wouldn't mind having this discussion at some wikiproject about biographies in general and the inclusion of religion, or not, in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely or with any other solution that cannot be read as implying that atheism is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Guy Macon imposing his "quotes" as a source for this particular change, and I consider his method (including the pontificating edit summary) to be offensive to those that hold no beliefs. Nevertheless, for the idea that atheism is a religious belief to stand, we would have to decide that a. religion is in the infobox fields for a reason that is superior to having no belief, and b. that the person concerned had no belief. I challenge WP to get serious on a. because many people have no belief, and that does not make them atheistic, it just means they have no belief. I take his point, but in my view, the WP:WEIGHT would have to be with whatever is in the reliable sources. If that reflects that the person in question had no belief, that doesn't make them an atheist, it just means they had no belief. THAT is what should be reflected in the infobox, not religion, belief. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. More personal attacks. What a shock. Did not see that one coming. Have any of you ever considered just talking about what should and should not be be in the infobox instead of talking about me? I'm just saying.

There is a basic problem with your "beliefs = X" suggestion. Some members of some religions object to it. See Creed#Christians without creeds, where you will see that "belief = Unitarian Universalist" would be objectionable to some Unitarian Universalists. Meanwhile, it does not satisfy the objections of those atheists who strongly object to anything that implies that atheism is a religion. They would object equally to anything that implies that atheism is a belief as opposed to being the lack of one. Your suggestion does open the door to things such as "belief = Quartermaster Creed", "belief = Bushido" or even "belief = Ghosts". I am not sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion = None would be optimum choice. As it's not assertive and may prevent disputes over sources.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Religion = None", removing the religion entry entirely, or with any other solution that does not imply that atheism is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not suggest the field should be "belief". Please read my comment again. Or not. Any chance we could just remove the "religion field from this infobox? There doesn't appear to be any consensus on what would go there in any case. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to read your comment again when your comment is unclear. Reading an unclear comment again does not make it any clearer. You wrote "THAT is what should be reflected in the infobox, not religion, belief" (exact quote). Are you now saying to retain the "religion =" on the left but to put something other than a religion on the right? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, or more generally? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

This article seems overwhelmingly flattering to Tito with hardly any objective criticism at all. It would be greatly enhanced if it wasn't so clear pro-Tito and had a balanced POV that acknowledged his shortcomings and didn't focus on how "beloved" he was. 64.134.71.74 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An advert, indeed. Added a tag and will report further. --No qwach macken (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Again this.. Fellas, I have no objections if you post an NPOV tag on some concrete, source-based grounds. On the other hand, a declaration of "I think this is too positive (based on what I heard)" is not a valid basis to tag an article. The point of tagging is to suggest ways in which an article may be improved.

The Macedonian issue is one of the many rotten fruits that comes from Tito's rule. It has still a great impact on the countries on the Balkan peninsula. Also history has show one thing - even if a dictator comes with peace on the top of a country (Hitler for example was elected democratically but we all saw how that turned out), he doesn't stay there for long without war. The mere fact that Tito and Stalin were for some period of time "pals" (before the obsession for power didn't get between them) speaks for itself. Let's not forget about Goli otok, who was operational from 1946 to 1956. Tito was elected for a prime minister in 1953. I am not saying that the article has to be subjective but there are plenty of historical documents that prove that Tito was not such a saint as this Wiki article describes him to be. One more thing - if Tito successfully united the Yugoslavian states why did so many problems appear right after his death and led to its dissolvement? Those problems were things that were bubbling under the surface for tens of years and if they were NOT present then the death of a single person be it a leader or not should NOT have had such a great impact.Rbaleksandar (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please post specific objections and/or edit proposals (or just do the edits) with regard to NPOV, and support them with reliable sources. Else the tag will not stand for long.

Furthermore, please note that the "Historical criticism" section is not to be expanded, but rather dismantled into the main text of the article (per previous GA style recommendations). Please post any additional "criticisms" into another section. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Riight.. I thought as much. Removing tag, at least until some constructive source-based rationale is provided. -- Director (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This article does NOT have a neutral point of view.

The following terms are used in describing Tito and his policies: effective, statesman, benevolent, successful, popular, unifying, peaceful, highly favourable, distinguished, economic boom, brotherhood. And that's just in the introduction!

Then in the body of the article, we find anecdotes of his courage, leadership, and successes. We read that "Tito sought to improve life" and we find a long section on the awards he received.

Fine. If those things are true, say them.

Can we also mention the large numbers of political or ethnic killings under his command? that Tito imprisoned those who criticized him? that many people risked their lives to flee his country?

I'm not pretending that Tito did only bad things. So don't pretend that he did only good.

108.232.2.70 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Naturally so, and noone could possibly object to such an article improvement (though I don't know how many people "risked their lives" to leave Yugoslavia when the country had a reasonably open border throughout most of its existence.. tourism you know). But please don't write "work orders" for other users. If you have something to introduce, go ahead. -- Director (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

obviously this text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! Why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism?Passando (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator"

Sourcing the sentence Tito was seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" with one single source is equally smart and improper. It makes use of a single source (possibly reflecting a fringe position) to push a POV. I am going to modify the text but clearly the sentence should stay as it is only if it can be sourced properly or alternatively completely removed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to make changes to the Article, please first present them here, because we have a huge mess created by Tzowu, as you can see. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one who is doing a mess, and for such a sentence in the lead section you should have more than one dubious source, Silvio1973 is right. Tzowu (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

obviously this text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! Why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism?Passando (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

other titoist opinion in section -Legacy-The court, however, explicitly made it clear 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 sources claim exactly opposite!Passando (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

again in section -Legacy-Tito has also been named as responsible for systematic eradication of the ethnic German (Danube Swabian) population in Vojvodina by expulsions and mass executions but this is a crime and not legacy!Passando (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to read simple:Josip Broz Tito for to start a total rewriting of this article! Accusations of historians are several very much and not 2 or 3!Passando (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is obvious, the whole text is biased. Just look at the words that are used in the lead: "effective, statesman, benevolent, successful, popular, unifying, peaceful, highly favourable, distinguished, economic boom, brotherhood", and when someone tries to change it and make it more neutral a faithful follower shows up to protect His Majesty. Tzowu (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tuxiver, you need more than one (doubtful) source to sustain in the lead the affirmation that Tito was seen by most as a "benevolent dictator". This is obvious. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How is a book written by Susan Shapiro and Ronald M. Shapiro dubious or doubtful? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement is directly supported by at least two separate, high-quality, scholarly sources; one with the exact wording as is used (and many more can of course easily be found [21]). Silvio's disregard for sources is an old issue that I won't go into again. He has repeatedly seen absolutely no problem in attempting to advance his personal views, over and over and over again, above referenced scholarly positions. Based on nothing but a lot of his pointless talk. It can go on forever, its best to just cite WP:V and ignore this sort of trolling.

(Passando is, needless to say, a sock without a shadow of a doubt. "Titosim" is an economic ideology, not political support for Tito. The term is only used as such in Italy among right-wing loonies.) -- Director (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Director, @ Tuxiver, you need more than a lonely source to sustain your arguments. Please mind here no-one is removing your edit, but merely this has been tagged and a discussion called for. I am confident this discussion can be closed in a matter of hours but please aknowledge a discussion has been logged and untill the matter not solved do not remove the tag. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@All, I have proposed a slightly different formulation as a first attempt to find a compromise. No-one here discuss the reputation of Shapiro as a source; the discussion, indeed, is that the aforementioned source is used to support a general statement. I hope you all see the difference between the two things. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tuxiver, it looks you revert all edits but not yours. As it looks you are not interested in discussing, I will file a 3RR if you keep reverting. An administrator will decide who is forcing a POV. You can write that some sources consider Tito as a "benevolent dictator" but cannot pretend citing one source that this is believed by most. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is not acceptable Comment

Editors are reminded that edit warring is not acceptable on this article or any other. Please see WP:EW. You will note that 3RR is a "bright line" for blocking but blocks may come earlier based upon administrative discretion. I hope you will work out your issues on the talk page and cease disrupting this article. Thank you. JodyB_talk 18:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

EW is unacceptable. Indeed, I do not understand why Tuxiver and Director keep reverting my sourced edits. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, clearly the only way to proceed is to post a 3O or a RfC. Laborious but in this precise instance unavoidable. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Fully protected for a week, discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

3O posted on removed sourced edit by User Tuxiver

I have right now posted a 3O request concerning this contested section. User Tuxiver continues to threat me of EW but does not really explain why my sourced edit is not acceptable. I hope this 3O will convince him to join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

3O response: When inserted material is contested and removed it stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include. The source you provide is not currently online or you formatted the link wrong, in any case we cant see if it supports the material you want toinclude. I think it would make sense if you could quote the source here so that we can see what it actually says. Secondly the material you are inserting seems to be both problematic in the sense that it is clearly controversial and that it is someone's opinion that is presented as a fact about what Tito did and believed. If it should be included it probably requires in line attribution to who ever wrote the article that you are citing. But given the controversial nature of the statement it would be better to find a better source, preferably academically published, to write about what Titos views was on the continued integration of the Yugoslavian nation. So, I agree with Tuxiver that the material is problematic and should probably not be included in the form suggested by Silvio1973, and that edit warring to keep it in is a bad idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source now works. And I am in favour of discussing a different way to insert the material in question. For this I need Tuxiver to join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I have said that the source does not work. Now when I see the source, I see it has been taken out of context and misquoted. Again, you are vandalizing this article. We had a discussion for days. Saying that I do not participate in the discussion is a lie. Everyone can see my posts on the talk page. Now you are introducing a misquoted source that is not from a book, which is a example of vandalism and a violation of a consensus and practice on this article that the lead should be sourced from books. I will say again and again and again that you are vandalizing this article. Please stop. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, the source says verbatim what I wrote. I have however reverted to your edit to show my good faith. Can we discuss now? Also because if my source is out of context, your current version is not sourced at all so I do not see where is the improvement with your version. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It does, but you didnt format it as a quote, so including it like that would have been plagiarism. Secondly the source is a summary of a book by Richard West that makes a revisionist argument that contradicts the established view that Tito maintained peace, saying that rather he personally benefited from maintaining division. That argument can perhaps be included, but it cannot be stated as fact. You would have to rewrite it in a way so that it is clear that this is Wests argument, and that it is not universally accepted. You will also have to cite West himself and not a secondhand summary of his book.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You got the 3O you wanted. Will you now please stop? Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, you need to start to engage in meaningful dialogue, as well. Tellingsomeone to stop is not dialogue and it is not respectful. You also falsely accused Silvio of vandalism. Step up your game, provide some better sources and strive to form consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, you posted an entire unsourced section but pretended my text is controversial. Also pesterised my talk page without any reason. I have no problem in reformatting my edit, indeed I would be happy doing so. But you just revert to your edit and accuse anyone else of vandalism.Silvio1973 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been disrespectful. It was not my intention. The article about Winston Churchill has in the lead only one source, the article about FDR has 4, the article about de Gaulle has 5 and the article about Tito has 19. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Or is it a pattern? Where have I "posted an entire unsourced section"?

Manus, do you really think that a consensus can be achieved with Silvio1973 on the other side? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not required in the lead, this is because the lead should only summarize the rest of the article and all information included in the article should already be sourced in the body of the article. SO yes, you are right, the amount of sources in the lead is excessive and it suggests that there is a problem with the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, please stop this play. I have rephrased my edit. If you are not happy you can change it and we can discuss, but try to do more than just reverting (and please stop pestering my talk page). Yes, the section just before my insertion is unsourced. Your apologies are accepted. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't ignore what manus wrote. Read again what he wrote. He was very clear. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:1

Of course Tuxiver has reverted without discussing. So typical. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You should probably start discussing before adding this material. Your new phrasing is just as bad as the previous one, it stats Wests opinion as fact and implies that all other scholars are mistaken.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus I Agree, I should have discussed before. Indeed I have exactly the same problem with the section of the lead affirming Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies and a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad. One source is used to imply that the most of scholars say the same. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Manus wrote and I quote: "When inserted material is contested and removed it stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include. " That is his first sentence in this talk page. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of West, does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the body in a discussion about Tito's view on the ethnic divisions. And it has to be explicitly attributed to West.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen.. Silvio doesn't care about BRD. His addition absolutely must go in, stated as fact, without qualification, in the first sentence probably - because he agrees with it. Its got some half-baked link behind it, donchaknow: its "sourced", therefore its absolutely accurate, regardless of whether its revisionist tosh or not. Its "so typical" of Balkans barbarians to disagree with this perfectly logical position, and demand that he discuss it before engaging in another of his edit wars.

On the other hand, when something he doesn't agree with is supported by several scholarly sources (see above thread), then we must be civilized and accommodating, we must "compromise" with him and his own personal appraisals of the accuracy and reliability of a half-dozen scholarly publications (listed complete with direct quotes). As if those aren't worth considerably less than the bytes they occupy on Wikimedia servers...

Folks, I've been here over and over again. This is silvio's mo. I've pointed him to WP:V and other policies over and over again - he just doesn't care. If he's ever to contribute on this project, the need to follow the most basic guidelines must be impressed upon him somehow. Otherwise there's no point even talking to him: he just won't accept your position. He'll simply conclude that he must add several more coats of sycophantic slime to his often-barely-intelligible posts. -- Director (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is West's opininion and deserves to be in the article, although perhaps not in the lead. Director, you should really learn to discuss the edits and not the editors. If you were less confrontional no doubt I would listen more to your arguments as I do listen to those of other users. Concerning this article I am not the only one user affirming it is POV.

@Tuxiver, I hope we can discuss about this. Being blocked both of us a second time would be not good idea. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You know I thought it was the height of arrogance for someone to presume one's opinions should count as counterweights to scholarly publications, but you've managed to go beyond that. Not only do you think your irrelevant opinions are something we must "discuss" and bother around with - you also think they're shared by the entirety of the Western world. They're the "Opinions of the West" xD. Now I guess we know why you're so important: you're the respresentative of the West... against "Easterners", I can only presume? :)

I'll repeat once again: your opinions are worth considerably less than the bytes they occupy on our servers. They concern no one but yourself. Goodbye. -- Director (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Director, once again: comment about the edits and not the editors. It would make everything much smoother. BTW, funny to read that you still divide the world in "Easterners" and "Westerners"... Are you aware that since Tito's departure a few things happened on this planet? :) Silvio1973 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be surprised you're making fun of me for something you actually did ("it is West's opininion [sic]") and I parodied, but frankly - you do that often, and the only thing that shocks me is this time I can understand you while you're embarrassing yourself. -- Director (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard West is the author Silvio is wanting to include... Oh man, this is good stuff a la Seinfeld :D FkpCascais (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes.. yes it is [22] :D Al sta ti stvarno pratis moje komentare, il sta?

But there's a reason I misunderstood his meaning: its completely in line with what he usually comments (as in the "ex-Yugoslav barbarians" being opposed to the "peaceful countries of the West")... -- Director (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahah :D No I follow many discussions regarding our region, this one I followed ever since the thread about the "benevolent dictator". I also know a bit of your concerns regarding Silvios view of barbaric Yugoslavs. No problems, keep on, regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Kani se čorava posla.. :) -- Director (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

This article is constantly manipulated by a titoist gang with which it is impossible to find an agreement: the ongoing dispute requires the intervention of administrators! We have not reason to discuss with titoists who edit on blatant commission! I have already alerted an administrator! I suggest to titoist gang don't insist because we honest users are in superior number!Passando (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Up there in the talk you can see the discussion. Calling someone by names will not do any good, you need to try to work on a consensus, not insult users. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando, I would suggest you heed Tuvixer's comments. If you have issues, be very specific and the editors will discuss it here. Do not come here calling names. JodyB_talk 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

dear JodyB I consider Tuvixer and PRODUCER obvious Director's sockpuppets and Passando's version only a provisional rewriting: in this discussion you can find all comments against titoist POV by 1.000 users and Tuvixer made edit war against Silvio1973Teo Pitta (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Teo JodyB is an administrator. Listen to him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

reported case of titoists in ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulated and mystified sources--Passando (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando, do not remove sourced material from the article again. You will not edit war. If you wish to create a criticisms section then bring your sources together and we will discuss them on this talk page. Second, stop accusing editors of being Titoists. It will not work. Come here with a respectful attitude and a scholarly approach and you will be welcomed. Take a moment to breathe and settle down. JodyB_talk 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have personally used a RfC instead of an ANI to report this concern. However, the issue is real. IMHO the article is non-neutral. Indeed, what is non-neutral is the lead rather than the article in its whole. And other users (see above in this Talk page and the related archives) have raised this concern. Some examples:

'His internal policies successfully maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation.' This sentence is not sourced. Indeed I provided a source stating exactly the opposite, but my edit has been reverted and qualified of revisionist. And possibly the scholar is revisionist. And so what?
'Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator'. Indeed one source claims that, but the way the lead is written suggests this opinion is shared by the most of the sources.
In the lead the first five lines report 14 sources. Too many. The sources are used to selectively report a POV description of Tito, instead they should be used in the rest of the article. The lead in the actual state is not the summary of the article, but rather an article on its own. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I confirm Passando's alarm because I know those books and no historian claims 'economic boom' and political success of Broz Tito but the citated historians, in article's introduction, criticized dictator very much: in actual version there are sources which are fakes! John R. Lampe, Sabrina Ramet and Michel Chossudovsky never reported economic expansion in any historical period but are strong critics versus Broz Tito's beast genocide of Yugoslav citizens: I was born and lived under titoist dictatorship then know my friends imprisoned and assassineted by OZNA and UDBA; there are 1.000 verifiable sources which confirm these historical facts, not fakes or propaganda's inventions! But in previous versions of article were links with yugoslav gulag of Goli otok, Sveti Grgur, etc. and in section [Criticism] were sources of repression and ethnic cleansing but user PRODUCER removed all in a single edit without administrator's sanction or control! Teo Pitta (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Since Teo Pitta asks for my opinion, I agree with him that pro-Tito bias and misuse of sources have long been a problem on these pages. However, these things run both ways : for example, I am currently busy trying to correct pro-Mihailovic bias on the French wikipedia. We should definitely not fall into an opposite extreme by presenting Tito as the worst guy ever.

It is perfectly possible to present in an unbiased manner, by a balanced use of the sources, all aspects of the problem. Tito's regime was indeed very bloody and repressive in the first years, yet it did become relatively "benevolent" (as far as communist regimes go) later on. I's not that contradictory, and this is what makes the subject interesting. Also, the "economic boom" must be relativized, but Yugoslavs were indeed better off than most inhabitants of the Eastern bloc, and Tito was indeed successful in maintaining a balance among nationalities for many years. It is perfectly possible to mention all this without turning the page into titoist propaganda. What I'd recommend is to use some good sources and stick as close as possible to what they say (I'd recommend personnally John R. Lampe's Yugoslavia as History, about the whole period. Stevan K. Pavlowitch's Hitler's new disorder is a fine book about the war years). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The number of users bothered by the bias of this article surpasses by far the number insisting in leaving this bias unchanged. Why nothing changes? Why all changes are reverted by those same users without any action taken against? This article seems written by Tito himself not to speak about the way the sources are used. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone think its kinda weird all these users, appearing in such a short timespan, happen to be from Italy? I mean this the most prominent Yugoslav historical figure so it really isn't strange, in terms of Wikipedia, to see users from former Yugoslavia discussing on the talkpage. But this bunch of guys appearing out of nowhere like this, with little or no edits outside this article? Come on. Its a POV-pushing "gang" (to use "Passando's" terminology). And since there are at least a dozen individual accounts blocked for Italian-nationalist POV-pushing in the Balkans articles, I'm betting we're seeing socks of blocked users as well. This is further indicated by the mention of User:PRODUCER, who's been retired for almost a year now, but did participate in opposing the aforementioned blocked accounts.
Apparently Silvio1973 can still (transparently) mobilize a decent bunch of SPAs and sockpuppeteers from itWiki.

To address the silly "points" brought up by Silvio1973 (which are virtually trolling in my opinion):

"1.": That's a WP:BLUE statement, entirely supported by general bibliography. Virtually any biography of Tito describes him as a stabilizing factor in Yugoslav politics, in terms of suppressing inter-ethnic antagonism. Support can be found in less than five minutes [23].
"2.": Silvio1973 would like us to change a sourced statement based on his lack of English skills. The statement is sourced in the specific wording, and further sources for Tito's popularity (in general support of the statement) are both listed there in the article and can be found at the drop of a hat. This has been demonstrated above to Silvio1973, but he continues trolling. He further seems to think the sentence implies something about "most" sources, rather than people, which I can only ascribe to a lack of English skills.
"3.": I agree with this point! The lede is just sourced far too well! We must put an end to the bias..
"Point numbered as 1. for no discernible reason": Silvio1973 does indeed often like to subject us to his musings and opinions here on Wikipedia - that I know already, so.. no new information here. I for one encourage him to get back to us as soon as he publishes his paper (suggesting I miei pensieri su Tito as a title? or Miei sentimenti per tito?). -- Director (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not mobilized anyone. I can see in this talk page a few users concerned about the way this article is written. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have. Do not insult the intelligence of the participants here. Not only are they canvassed from itWiki, they are obvious socks/SPAs of previously-indeffed sockpuppeteers. As evidenced by, if nothing else, the reference to producer.. they never were a very clever bunch. -- Director (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Director, what's wrong with you? You see enemies and conspiracies everywhere. Are you sure you are fine? I have not canvassed anyone and I had not heard about those users before. The issue is that this article is very controversial so whenever the discussion arises, many users contribute. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Many users" that are supposedly new on enWikipedia, but talk about editors that retired a year ago? Just who do you think you're kidding here? I sniffed out dozens of sockpuppeteers on this project, but this is kindergarten-level transparency. As for your borderline-insults regarding my mental health, I'll take them in stride with the borderline-fascist comments you like to post in that same tone. But, for future reference, do please bear in mind I have a zero-tolerance policy for such disgusting conduct: I happen to know what paranoid schizophrenia is, what it looks like, and what it does to real people. Next time such comments will be posted where you can explain your apparent concerns about my health to the community. -- Director (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... What I can answer to this new load of attacks? Take a break and breathe Director. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am turning to admins: user Director asserts Broz Tito most prominent Yugoslav historical figure and this dogma or assumption, in his mind, attests my reason! He wants apologetic static article and protects it at any cost, in blatant violation of wikipedia's rules. In my opinion, king Alexander I was most prominent Yugoslav historical figure, but I never did edit in Alexander I of Yugoslavia. User Director has this attitude since his first edit in article, insulting, calling names, assaulting 100 editors who notify huge POV in this talk [24]and always remove POV's tag like a sentinel who shoots on sight. He talks again about socks with this curriculum: [25] example he was also banned but his account was unblocked in same day Passando (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You have turned to administrators and they have said to you what you have to do and what you have to stop doing.

Most of the things you said about Director, you were actually saying about yourself. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)