Misplaced Pages

Talk:Josip Broz Tito: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:54, 5 March 2023 editVipz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,102 editsm Again disruption: Template:Reflist-talk.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:09, 10 October 2024 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,812 edits +CTOPS notice 
(95 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|search=y|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} {{talkheader|search=y}}
{{Not a forum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{British English}}
{{Article history {{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
Line 17: Line 18:
|otd7date=2021-01-14|otd7oldid=1000193830 |otd7date=2021-01-14|otd7oldid=1000193830
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|listas=Tito, Josip Broz|vital=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|living=n|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=n|class=B|listas=Tito, Josip Broz|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Mid}} {{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|class=C {{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=High|Zagreb=yes}}
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =no
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Mid}}
|b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> =yes
{{WikiProject Montenegro|importance=High}}
|b3 <!--Structure --> =yes
{{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=Mid}}
|b4 <!--Grammar & style --> =yes
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=High|Belgrade=yes|Belgrade-importance=High}}
|b5 <!--Supporting materials --> =yes
{{WikiProject Slovenia|importance=Mid}}
|b6 <!--Accessibility --> =yes
|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Cold War|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y|Balkan=y|WWI=y|WWII=y|Cold-War=y|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=High|Belgrade=yes}}
{{WikiProject Slovenia|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
|Biography=y|Balkan=y|WWI=y|WWII=y|Cold-War=y}}
{{WP1.0|class=C|category=category}}
}} }}
{{contentious topics/talk notice|e-e}}
{{Annual readership|expanded=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 55: Line 45:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=C}}


== Native name in SC Cyrillic ==
== "...throughout his life, Tito was poor at spelling" - citation needed! ==
Early life, Pre-World War I: "As a result of his limited schooling, throughout his life, Tito was poor at spelling". CITATION NEEDED!
:Good grief, the citation after that material covers that material. Not every sentence has to have a separate citation.


A couple of days ago, the subject's name in Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic was ] by editor @] from the infobox on the basis that Serbo-Croatian was in fact ''not'' the subject's native language. This relies on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian ''is not'' a single language, or in this case, as if it ''was not'' acknowledged as such during the subject's lifetime. Languages spoken by Tito are documented in a paragraph in {{slink|Josip Broz Tito|Family and personal life|nopage=y}}. Tito claimed Serbo-Croatian as his native language. Specifics about his accent or native ] dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language are other topics that need not be discussed here. SC Cyrillic writing of Josip Broz Tito's name should be returned to the infobox. –] (]) 15:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
WHERE does it say that throughout his life Tito was poor at spelling, in that citation? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:His native name is the same as his name in English, so this parameter would have been unnecessary but for the fact that in his native language two scripts are used, and when his name is written down in the non-Latin script it is no longer the same, script-wise. Therefore, using this parameter to record the native name in the aspect in which it differs from English is consistent with the purpose of the parameter. I agree with Vipz. —] 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I wait an answer. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
: Why don’t you read the pages of the book? ] (]) 22:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
::Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
::Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
::Is wikipedia true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks ] (]) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::I see it now, the infobox is using this: native_name = {{nobold|Јосип Броз Тито}
::The native_name is not and can not be on Cyrillic. ] (]) 07:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


:I also agree with Vipz for the reasons stated above. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. ] (]) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
YOU have read it? I am not an editor on Misplaced Pages, YOU are. YOU have read it or not?! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There are a few things to unpack here. I removed the Cyrillic not on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language nor was is about the “Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language” which was a topic brought up by @] in this . I removed based on the simple fact the Cyrillic script was never used in Hrvatsko Zagorje where Tito is from nor in Slovenia where he was raised. It was used neither before nor during his life and implying he wrote his name in Cyrillic in his native language is absurd. Why not add it to Tuđman's infobox? Or the Herzegovian Ante Pavelić? Both of whom were more Serbo-Croatian than the Slovenian-raised and descended Tito ever was. Pavelić was from a Serbian majority village, surely Serbian was spoken there.
:Yes, I’ve read it, it is mentioned on page 5, and I added it to the article. ] (]) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
:Secondly, extending Cyrillic to Croat-majority Croatia is a pars pro toto logical fallacy. Even language unitarists did not try to impose Cyrillic on Croatia. Croatia in Yugoslavia had its own variety of Serbo-Croatian called “hrvatskosrpski” or Croatoserb which was exclusively written in the latin alphabet and ijekavica. This wasn't some fringe linguistic nationalism, this was state policy done by unitarists themselves. After 1967 the scholarly consensus in Croatia was that Croatian was a separate language precluding any potential use of Cyrillic in the future, nevermind the fact that it wasn't even used anywhere among Croats prior to 1967.
:To write Tito's native name in Cyrillic because some parts of the Serbo-Croatian sprachraum (not his birth place!) use Cyrillic is akin to writing Beijing-born Xi Jinping's native name in Portuguese because one specific part of China, that is Macau, uses Portuguese. ] (]) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic script is far more pertinent to Josip Broz Tito than any other leaders you mention. Tito is notable not for being born/raised in Zagorje, Croatia or Slovenia, but for leading a country whose primary language had two official, fully equal scripts, ] and ]. Were Tito to have presided over only one republic in federal Yugoslavia that did not use Cyrillic, perhaps this would not be the case, but he presided over the whole country straight from the headquarters in Belgrade, SR Serbia. –] (]) 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Pavelić presided over a country with a similar percentage of Serbs to Tito's Yugoslavia. Your point over where he presided from and his notability is irrelevant. The infobox asks for his name in his '''native''' language. Not the language of the country or place he ruled from. Tito was raised in an environment that used and still uses the latin alphabet '''exclusively'''.
::: is Tito's own personal diary. Written in the latin alphabet. This should be conclusive proof that his native writing was indeed the latin alphabet. ] (]) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::This is irrelevant. ]'s native language was Georgian, but we also present his name in Russian Cyrillic in the "native name" field. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. ] (]) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::False equivalence. Stalin was born in the Russian Empire where the dominant and official language was Russian, and the infobox also includes Georgian in the native name field. Tito was born in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia where the official language was never written in Cyrillic. The Cyrillic name should most definitely not be returned in the “name in native language” field. P.S. There already is a Cyrillic rendering of his name in the first sentence of the lede. I am not opposed to including it in the article, but it simply does not belong in field “name in native language”. That's not how you write his native language. ] (]) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
:Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
:Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
:Is wikipedia true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks ] (]) 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:@] the relevant criterion here for inclusion is the answer to the question - is an average English reader going to commonly encounter the topic's name in this format / script, would it help them to have it noted here? As there is a body of work written in Serbian Cyrillic about him, it's fair to say it's possible that they'll encounter it, so we should keep it. There is a much larger volume in Latin scripts (both English and Croatian), so the real nuance here is whether this is worthy of inline ] placement or should it perhaps be in an annotation so it doesn't clutter the initial sentence. ] is applicable here, but it's a matter of editorial discretion whether this label and text is clutter or not. --] (]) 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::I checked the article history and I see the Cyrillic spelling has been in the lead for several years now. It should stay unless we can identify complaints from an average English reader to this effect. Note average English reader, not the average Tito supporter or detractor. --] (]) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I am not the supporter or detractor but the observer of the Cyrillic spelling used on English Misplaced Pages.
:::There can't possibly be two major World figures with presented native name on Serbian Cyrillic, both born in Croatia, unless there is some interest in this presentation.
:::I am with @] on this one. ] (]) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Again, there's a body of scholarly work about both of these people written in Serbian Cyrillic, because both of them are indeed {{tq|closely associated with a non-English language}} (per Manual of Style), and there has been a lot of interest in them among authors who used this language and alphabet. The distinction between Latin and Cyrillic scripts here may mean something you ''you'' and cause ''you'' to think of a (nefarious?) {{tq|interest in this presentation}}, but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader, to whom it's presented in parentheses or in notes. --] (]) 07:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::And, to reference applicable policies, ] applies here. Arguments should be based on that, not on assertions of some sort of a conspiracy. --] (]) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also to remind everyone, the actual rendering of the infobox "native_name" parameter does not annotate the value as such to the readers, so readers aren't even informed that this string of foreign letters is a "native name". This argument sounds like it's for meant for editors who see that parameter name, but those are a small minority of readers, and ]. --] (]) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Then we should change the parameter. I would not object to the use of another parameter that does not denote the Cyrillic as his native name. ] (]) 11:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] Maybe review the template {{tl|Infobox officeholder}} formatting for options. Note that formatting like <nowiki><small></nowiki> probably needs to be reconciled with ], which explains how normal infobox text is already smaller, so if you change this subheader, measure the outcome for readability first. --] (]) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], interesting read. Particularly "but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader".
:::::Any yet, the " due weight" suggests using Cyrillic, but at the same time it means little to the average English reader?
:::::To remind everyone, the Serbian Cyrillic wikipedia exists for Tito. It does not contain any representation of his name on Latin characters, but it does contain a Latin translation of the same page where this is a significant information in the same infobox we are discussing here:
:::::Порекло хрватско
:::::translates on same Latin page to:
:::::Poreklo hrvatsko
:::::I would strongly suggest to include this information on English wikipedia below nationality. This would be the same as on Serbian Cyrillic wikipedia and I think it would be right and acceptable choice.
:::::@] and @], would you support this? ] (]) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::And of course, @] might also support this, while standardization of the native name parameter is resolved. ] (]) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::@]: I'm not opposed to removing lead sentence clutter by putting native name stuff into annotations. As for the infobox, annotating or even outright removing inscriptions of the person's name in a closely associated language — this is not conventional practice.
::The native name parameter needs a standardization at a Misplaced Pages-wide level. I'm not aware of a biography that presently denotes native name languages in the infobox (cf. ], ], ], ], ], etc.), none inform readers what these strings of foreign letters represent. Another issue is the need of using {{t|nobold}}; if the standard practice is having native name text in biography infoboxes non-bold, then the template should not bold it in the first place.
::Were it to become a new practice, it could be denoted for Josip Broz Tito as {{xtn|{{native name list|tag1=sh-Cyrl|name1=Јосип Броз Тито|paren1=omit|postfix1=&nbsp;(])}}}}. –] (]) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


==Further reading==
And if an English historian wrote it, should we believe him? I've looked it up, I found he knows Russian, but does he know Croatian? And even better than a Croat (Tito)? Did he studied Tito's letters in detail and come to the conclusion that he was not writing correctly? Or how? Even Misplaced Pages mentions how the American "experts" from the NSA made fools of themselves by concluding that Tito didn't speak Croatian like a Croat, but like a Polish or a Russian, only to find out later that it was the very dialect spoken in Tito's native region. It is simply not plausible that a man who spoke Croatian, the other languages of the Yugoslav republics, German, Hungarian, Russian, Czech and a little Polish, would not spell his own native tongue correctly. It's not credible. And it is not clear how this English historian came to such a conclusion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Maclean, Fitzroy (1980). Tito: A Pictorial Biography. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-044671-7. is pure hagiography. it likely does list the bare bones facts and has lots of photos, but even though its from a western mainstream publisher, its entirely pro tito, so not a balanced account. i question whether it should be in further reading, and i would question its use as a source for this article. i havent checked to see if it was used. (user: mercurywoodrose) ] (]) 17:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:We need reliable sources for what goes in articles. This has a reliable source. Unless you have a contrasting reliable source, this discussion is over from my perspective. Cheers, ] (]) 22:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


== Infobox arrangement ==
"We need reliable sources for what goes in articles."
My point exactly!
:Please read ]. If you think Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Swain or his publisher ] are not reliable, then post at ] and get a community opinion. If you accept they are reliable then ]. ] (]) 23:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
::I'll add that what Swain says is "Tito’s schooling was meagre, attending school for just four years; those who worked closely with him noted in later life that he could never spell correctly." ] (]) 00:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


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

:Agree, it provides context. ] (]) 09:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The vision of the Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Swain is a simplistic one. Three aspects need to be considered:
:I brought up the issue with ] regarding historical countries/subnational entities over at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking|MOS:GEOLINK for former countries/entities}} and hope to have community consensus formed there to resolve this disagreement. –] (]) 20:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

:By that logic, wouldn’t Kumrovec, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary make more sense and provide context as well given people are even less likely to know where Kumrovec is or that it is part of Croatia? Also SR Slovenia and Yugoslavia are no longer states but seem to be advocated listing.
1) Tito came from a mixed family (Croatian father, Slovenian mother);
:To be clear, I agree with including SR Slovenia and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia sub-states to give context to readers. Seems helpful not harmful to the infobox. ] (]) 12:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, I'm actually fine with {{para|birth_place|], ], Austria-Hungary}}. The subdivision doubles this parameter's length, though. ] (]) 13:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
2) Different languages spoken in the same region, even before the formation of Yugoslavia as a state;
::Or can we try {{para|birth_place|], ], Austria-Hungary}}? ] (]) 13:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Was about to recommend the option to just shorten it since Austria-Hungary is short form as well. Sounds good. We’ll see what Vipz finds with Geolink. Cheers. ] (]) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
3) The foreign languages that Tito spoke.

In this article: https://www.bbc.com/serbian/cyr/balkan-52798109, the historian Markovic summarizes the situation (far too complex for an English historian) like that:

"As for the weaker knowledge of the Serbo-Croatian language, Markovic reminds that, formally speaking, Tito's mother tongue was Slovenian.

After all, the language spoken in Kumrovec during his childhood was not literary Croatian. And later, his languages ​​got mixed up, which still happens often to guest workers today". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)</small>


At this point we have a reliable published source (Swain) versus speculation by an IP editor. It doesn't seem like much of a contest. ] (]) 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


You got it all wrong. At this point, we have an English source (Swain) versus a Serbian historian (Markovic), who know better the realities of the land.

:Quite right Doremo. IP, you are wasting your (and my) time here. You haven't read Swain, yet you think you know better than he does. In the preceding sentences he points out that at age eight, Tito's Slovene was better than his Croatian. I don't know what your problem is with this, and frankly I don't care. As you appear uninterested in engaging with Misplaced Pages's policies on reliable sources, this is the last I will be commenting on this thread. ] (]) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


Predrag J. Markovic, doctor in historical sciences from the Belgrade Institute of Contemporary History.

"As a result of his limited schooling, throughout his life Tito was poor at spelling" is one thing. "Tito's Slovene was better than his Croatian" it's quite another. Don't make him look more uneducated than he really was.
:Just signing this so the bot archives it. There is nothing to do here. ] (]) 02:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

== Again disruption ==

Again disruption versus three sources restored by me and already discused in past. The source regarding Churchill's opinion about Josip Broz was in lead of article during last six years an I simple moved it at appropriate position: where meeting Churchill-Broz has citation. Other two sources are from an encyclopedia and from Broz Tito's biography by ], who is important historian and he has article in wikipedia. To remove reliable sources inserted by me is blatant disruption against wikipedia rules. ] (]) 05:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
: I’ll respond to this later today. ] (]) 00:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's get into this:
*Firstly, the "great Balkan tentacle" quote is not placed in time (ie Sebestyen doesn't say when Churchill said this, was it before 12 August 1944 or after that date?) At the end of the war, Churchill referred to Tito in this way when ordering the British commander in Italy to seize Trieste, "this Muscovite tentacle, of which Tito is the crook." This is quoted in Churchill's ''Road to Victory, 1941-1945''. But that was well after this. By including this quote here, you are clearly trying to add undue weight to Churchill's supposed negative view of Tito at the point that he met Tito. Churchill obviously dealt with all sorts of people he didn't always speak well of. The quote isn't supported by the Vladimir Petrović source from ''Annales'', so by placing the quote where you did, you have incorrectly attributed the quote to him as well as Sebestyen. Perhaps because his book is so broad, Sebestyen himself gets facts wrong, as he says on the same page that 30,000 Slovene Home Guard and Ustasha troops were being held by the British as prisoners of war in Austria. This is contradicted by Tomasevich (2001, p. 774) who states that they were not accepted by the British as prisoners of war. This isn't some minor factoid, this is critical to whether their return to Yugoslavia was lawful or not under the laws of war. An error of this nature is concerning. Regardless, even if he is accepted as reliable on this matter, he does not say when Churchill made this statement about Tito, so it cannot be used in the way you have used it (to set the scene for the 12 August 1944 meeting).
*Secondly, infoplease is a ], and its use is subject to the ] because it is an "argument to authority". WP uses secondary sources for a reason. It is also logically flawed. For example, a planned economy and nationalisation of industry do not necessarily mean that Tito was leading in a dictatorial manner, which is what your edit says.
*Finally, in general Ridley is fine and the quote is accurate, I have used him in this article myself for pre-WWII biographical information. The words you have used appear on page 462 of the English version published in 1994 by Constable. But you have been very selective in the quote (again clearly in a bid to add undue negative weight). Ridley goes on to say the constitution "granted all the citizens of Yugoslavia the fundamental freedoms of speech and the press, and exemption from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment...".
So, taken together, your edits a) incorrectly attribute material to a source that does not support the material, b) attempt to add undue negative weight in two areas, and c) involve the use of a tertiary source which has obvious logical flaws. Happy to discuss any of the above, but bring policy, not your opinion. ] (]) 19:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Three sources.
*1 Regarding first source, you are confusing and contradictory in your hypothetical logic but I propose to move this source in section "Evaluation".
*2 Regarding second source, I don't understand what you want by me because I reported content of source and you can collaborate with me changing words.
*3 Regarding third source, you can add words about Yugoslav constitution which was imitation of Soviet Union's constitution.
Furthermore user Vipz removed two reliable sources in ] without intervention in related talk because his favourite sport is disruption against sources, which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito: I propose to move that sources from "Brigade" to here in article of "Broz Tito", who ordered ].

If you consider my proposals and you want collaborate with me, we can find an agreement, but if you want only sources of propaganda without sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito, I will request a mediator starting a dispute.--] (]) 17:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

:tito was a leader and we have to stop calling him a dictator it is biased ] (]) 15:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read what I have written. I'm not interested in you giving me permission to add things. That isn't how this works. You need to explain, using Misplaced Pages policy, why this material is appropriate to be added to the article. ie why you have incorrectly attributed the quote to Petrović, why Sebestyen is reliable on this issue, why inclusion doesn't give it undue weight, why you put the quote where you did, and how you would word it if it was moved to an Evaluation section. Also why we would use a tertiary source that clearly contains important errors of fact. Also what additional words you would consider might be included to place Ridley's quote in context. If you don't want to explain the above, I don't do mediation, so you will need to use an RfC. I suggest you read the guidance on writing a neutrally worded RfC, as I think you might struggle with that given your clearly negative views about Tito. ] (]) 11:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably we can find an agreement but considering single source by single source. I propose to put in first sentence of section "Evaluation" these words:
Historians criticize his dictatorship as bloody and brutal, comparing him to the brutality of Stalin,<ref name="victor">{{cite book |last=Sebestyen |first=Victor |date=2014 |title=1946: The Making of the Modern World |publisher=Macmillan |page=148 |isbn=978-0230758001}}<br />"Tito was as brutal as his one-time mentor Stalin, with whom he was later to fall out but with whom he shared a taste for bloody revenge against enemies, real or imagined. Churchill called Tito 'the great Balkan tentacle' but that did not prevent him making a similar deal as the one he had made with the Soviets."</ref>
{{Reflist-talk|refs=victor}}

This is only first step.--] (]) 13:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
:Historians? You mean one historian, Sebestyen. This will need in-text attribution, and will need to be balanced with the views of other historians. We will need to look at what the wider academic sources say about Tito in this respect and formulate words that reflect the academic consensus as well as any significant varying points of view. We certainly aren't going to add what you have suggested as a representative summary of Tito in reliable secondary sources. For example, how many historians compare his brutality to Stalin? How many criticise his rule as brutal and bloody? During what period)s) of his rule? Etc. ] (]) 03:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
::Many historians but I can not put twelwe names and surnames with related sources in first sentence of section "Evaluation". Four historians are sufficient in that position: they are Sebestyen, Rummel, Pirjevec and McGoldrick, who now is present in first sentence of focussed section. Source is this: ], Italian edition 2015 "Tito e i suoi compagni", Einaudi editore, Torino; chapter "La vittoria", section "Anno 1945: il massacro" page 204 The merciless showdown against the "counter-revolutionaries" which cost the lives of an unknown number of people, between seventy and one hundred thousand, was long a taboo in Yugoslavia and found no echo in the West. Instead, merciless showdown was praised by Stalin, an event that made Josip Broz's collaborators proud. During a meeting with a Polish delegation, the "owner" of the Kremlin criticized the Warsaw authorities for their laxity versus the opposition forces, citing Tito as an example: he is a smart boy because he has eliminated all his opponents. Other source of Rummel is this http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM and source of Sloven government according to important Sloven historians https://web.archive.org/web/20111004145243/http://www.mp.gov.si/fileadmin/mp.gov.si/pageuploads/2005/PDF/publikacije/Crimes_committed_by_Totalitarian_Regimes.pdf "Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes". Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Retrieved 26 December 2019. p. 156. Source is this '''Most of the mass killings were carried out from May to July 1945; among the victims were mostly the “returned” (or “home-captured”) Home guards and prisoners from other Yugoslav provinces. In the following months, up to January 1946 when the Constitution of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was passed and OZNA had to hand the camps over to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior, those killings were followed by mass killing of Germans, Italians and Slovenes suspected of collaborationism and anti-communism. Individual secret killings were carried out at later dates as well. The decision to “annihilate” opponents must had been adopted in the closest circles of Yugoslav state leadership, and the order was certainly issued by the Supreme Commander of the Yugoslav Army Josip Broz - Tito, although it is not known when or in what form.'''--] (]) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
You have mentioned four historians, Let's break that down:
*Pirjevec is a credible Slovene/Italian academic, so his views on Tito should certainly be reflected in the article. No doubt there is an element of Slovene national distress over the killing of Slovenes by the Yugoslav army and OZNA in the immediate aftermath of the war, and it would be reasonable to expect him to reflect some of that in his work, but his view is important, if potentially biased. But what does he say about Tito? That quote can't be used to support the statement by Sebestyen that Tito was "as brutal as Stalin". He doesn't even use the word "brutal" he says it was a "merciless showdown". A "showdown" is a "final test or confrontation intended to settle a dispute" according to the Oxford dictionary. He doesn't compare Tito with Stalin at all, what he says is that Stalin praised Tito for eliminating his opponents. If he is talking about the killings of collaborationists at the end of the war, Tomasevich (using Vladimir Žerjavić's numbers) says this is about 70,000. 100,000 seems far too high a top figure. But even accepting that, he just doesn't say in that quote what you are attempting to cite him to support. Where is the comparison with Tito? Where is the observations about his rule being brutal and bloody? How much of his rule? All of it? While relevant to this article, and he should be used in it, Pirjevec does not support the quote you have used from Sebestyen. ] (]) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*Rummel's methodology used to generate democide figures for communist regimes has been heavily criticised, and as have the figures themselves. An example includes a journal article by Tomislav Dulić (himself a respected academic at the Uppsala University in Sweden who specialises in Holocaust and genocide studies (specifically about the ''Tito's Slaughterhouse'' chapter (9)), in which he states that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito's Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. Dulić also criticises Rummel's data methodology used for his estimates. Given the weight of criticism of Rummel's data work generally, and specifically with regards to Yugoslavia, I doubt he can be used for much here. ] (]) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*The Slovenian government inquiry needs to be taken with a grain of salt. All inquiries conducted by politicians have an end in mind, and we are far better off using secondary academic sources. What about Tomasevich, Pavlovich etc? Dulić himself? Also, what works by McGoldrick are you referring to? ] (]) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:All the objections reported by you are invalid because you cannot criticize a source when another source denies it: the neutral version must report all sources that contradict each other, but we must report what historians have stated in their books and historians normally contradict each other, but not you decide the historian who is right, nor can you decide in which position of the text the sources should be stay. I think to request third opinion but I'm not sure if the third opinion is the right choice because other users have intervened as can be seen in the history of the changes in the article, but they do not intervene in this talk probably because they have short time for contribute on wikipedia.--] (]) 19:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::my 2c: the third opinion could be helpful because it might bring users to the topic who aren't normally engaged. Sometimes a look from the outside might open paths which aren't seen by those who are too immersed or too specialized. ] (]) 07:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks {{u|Lectonar}}, but I don't think there is a substantive question for a 3O to consider. Fb is trying to use sources to support things they don't actually say. ] is a core content policy of Misplaced Pages, but Fb seems to think it doesn't apply to them. What is a 3O going to decide, that verifiability doesn't apply to Fb's edits? They can't do that. Fb needs to accept that verifiability is an absolute requirement on WP, and they cannot use a source to say something the source itself does not support. If we can't even get that clear, this is pointless. ] (]) 11:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::::In the end, yes, that's what they would probably say...but then it will have been said by someone not too engaged. We are on content dispute grounds anyway, as AndyThegrump has pointed out in the ANI tread about User:VIPZ, and it has at least brought FB to the talk-page here. ] (]) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::It's incredible how many ] violations are being tolerated with this user. Even here, they're avoiding to counterargument reliability and undue weight objections posed by Peacemaker67 by making '']'', probably unaware how ] works on Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 00:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:In fact it is a content dispute that has been dragging on during at least ten years with over twenty users involved, who putting in and removing sources from each other among themselves on article: the last section here down is discussion about other source! I propose to put the tag of "disputed article" in top of text for advice other users, who can intervene in this talk page. Obviously I consider also "third opinion" as suggestion by admin Lectonar and "request for comment" too.--] (]) 17:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::I completely disagree. This is not a content dispute. It is a dispute about whether sources have to actually support what is in the article cited to them. You appear to think they don’t. That is not about content, it is about verifiability. You said “historians” support those words, but have been unable to show any historians other than Sebestyen who support such language. No 3O or RfC is going to conclude that you can ignore verifiability. It is s core content policy of WP. ] (]) 22:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:::i second that notion ] (]) 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:Do not add confusion and contradiction in your discussion as you have already done but you keep focus on historians reporting the mass killings ordered by dictator Broz after the end of war: focussed crimes are considered ] and ]; in first linked article you read the source n. 31 which is the one I showed you above: it clearly accuses the dictator Broz. In second linked article you read about Yugoslavia too because under Broz's dictatorship mass killings were ordered by Broz. You know historians cited by me and you know their reports regarding mass killings: very well and you can report these sources in article and you can put where you want in text. I do not pretend to put sources in positions fixed by me in text but simply I demonstre to you that important historians affirm and report about mass killings with various numbers of victims according to various historians and we report in article these various numbers.--] (]) 23:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
::Sources inserted by you are reliable sources and we can find a kind of way to correct format for article.--] (]) 10:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::Who? are they reliable historians no because you made them up ] (]) 16:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

== Unreliable sources ==

I would like to comment on a matter of unreliable sources in the article Josip Broz Tito, ]. As a matter of fact, the sources (Footnotes: 251 & 252) "Nova Srpska politička misao" (New Serbian political thought) and "svedok.rs" (witness.rs) are not reliable because they are far-right-oriented sources which contradict many historical facts and fabricate the facts that suit their way of thinking. ] (]) 16:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:Can you identify which material you feel is inaccurate/contradictory in the cited sources? The sources appear to accurately quote or closely paraphrase material in Matunović's and Dinić's books, and the books exist. Or are you instead objecting to Matunović and Dinić? ] (]) 17:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
::Of course, Matunović's and Dinić's books exist, but there is nobody to remove them and I don't feel competent to question the reason for that. I believe that one of the reasons is that books are goods which bring money.
::The main point is that the entire article is based on "hearsay" facts. Not a single statement refers to any credible source and I'll single out two of them: <br>(1) Mr Vlahović, referring to information from the War Archives in Vienna, "believes" that the real Josip Broz was indeed born in 1892 in Kumrovac, and died in April 1915. as a soldier of the 25th regiment of the 42nd home defence division of the Habsburg army. in the battle in the Carpathians. ''If he cites information from the War Archive, then he should also cite the archival material from which he got that information!'' <br>
::(2) "Raif Dizdarević, Tito's longtime confidant and one of the last heads of state under the rotating presidency system of the former Yugoslavia, (was trustworthy, but he was never close to Tito to the extent that he could enter his private rooms actually, he lived whole his life in Sarajevo) claimed that Tito held a copy of Josip Broz's 1915 death certificate, which was found in '''a black suitcase''' after his death." Note to the second sentence:
::Dizdaravić wrote: "In his study in the White Palace, Tito kept some documents in '''a small safe deposit box'''. Among them was a copy of Broz's death certificate. It was issued by the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of the Army in 1915, and it was a list of soldiers who died or disappeared - including Broz".<br>
:: Common sense tells me that no one in their right mind would keep any incriminating documents in their suitcase! Why would he keep them? If he really had them he must've known that they could destroy him if they were discovered! It doesn't take much intelligence to see how reliable the source is!<br>
:: As far as I remember, in the BBC series "The Death of Yugoslavia" Raif Dizdarević did not mention any of the things stated in this source! Just in case, I'll try to watch it again.
:: Anyway, these are just two examples because every quote in the article has the same form. ] (]) 21:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:::The material you mention / object to is not in the WP article. The WP article appears to use the source accurately to confirm authentic material. ] (]) 02:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::::Well, I would kindly ask you to read it again; I took material from the WP footnote 251 where the author Vladimir Jokanović refers to Aleksandar Matunović, but the mentioned article was written by Vladimir Jokanović and titled: "Tito's life remains an enigma" and was published in the far-right wing newspaper "Nova Srpska Politička Misao" (Journal of social theory and political research). ] (]) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC) ] (]) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::The only information in footnote 251 is "Vladimir Jokanović (3 May 2010). "Titov život ostaje enigma". NSPM." The material you mention / object to is not in the footnote. ] (]) 12:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::But it is in the article named "Titov život ostaje enigma". ] (]) 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::You are objecting to content somewhere else on the internet, not to content on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Although the veracity of the content is questionable, I am not objecting to the content itself but to the source which carries the content, namely the newspaper "Nova Srpska Politička Misao"! That source is unreliable! ] (]) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::To quote ''Political Science in Central-East Europe: Diversity and Convergence'' (2010, p. 261), "In 2001 the editorial board decided to modify the journal's profile by emphasising its website content, designed for engagement in current political affairs... Although after 2001, the journal continued to come out in hard copy format and covered several topics of interest for political scientists..., it essentially turned into a vehicle for the promotion of the political ideology of the national conservatism and support for political parties that embrace this ideology." I would say that anything published by NSPM (especially on its website, but also in its hard copy journal) since 2001 is potentially unreliable, probably unreliable if on the website, and only reliable if in hard copy on an individual basis. The editor of NSPM (while he is an academic) has also been a politician up until recently. ] (]) 11:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::This is confusing; you said: ''"I would say that anything published by NSPM (especially on its website, but also in its hard copy journal) since 2001 is potentially unreliable, probably unreliable if on the website"'', but NSPM still remained on the website footnote 251. What is the way to remove it? ] (]) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::] is the text from NSPM correct or not? ] ] 11:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::] If the content matches the book it is based on, this is not the fault of the NSPM, nor the reason to proclaim it as unreliable. ] ] 11:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:However, the user has not removed the sources in article and he is discussing here: instead the sources inserted by me have been removed without first discussing above in this talk page.--] (]) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::Your content and sources have been objected to immediately, whereas the sources and content discussed in this section have been inside the article for quite some time. -] (]) 23:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:You are wrong because the rightly added sources should not be removed after two minutes nor after two months nor after two years without valid reasons demonstrated in talk page: you must learn from the user who started this section.--] (]) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

== "... communist revolutionary, statesman, and later a dictator" ==

@]: there's no doubt numerous RS can be found to support the perception Tito was a ']', that is not the issue here. I'm not sure whether there is a manual of style related to this, but you can notice numerous articles of traditional 'dictators' do not stack this perception/characterization together with general facts in the very first sentence, but rather opt to properly elaborate on it down the lede: e.g. ], ], ], ] and ]. No one reading past the first sentence is going to miss this. -] (]) 12:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:09, 10 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josip Broz Tito article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Josip Broz Tito. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Josip Broz Tito at the Reference desk.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineeJosip Broz Tito was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 5, 2004, April 5, 2005, April 5, 2006, April 7, 2009, January 14, 2015, January 14, 2018, and January 14, 2021.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconSocialism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYugoslavia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconJosip Broz Tito is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance
WikiProject iconJosip Broz Tito is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCroatia: Zagreb High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Zagreb task force.
WikiProject iconKosovo Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconJosip Broz Tito is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMontenegro High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNorth Macedonia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSerbia: Belgrade High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject iconSlovenia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

WikiProject iconCold War Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War I / World War II / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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


Native name in SC Cyrillic

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

His native name is the same as his name in English, so this parameter would have been unnecessary but for the fact that in his native language two scripts are used, and when his name is written down in the non-Latin script it is no longer the same, script-wise. Therefore, using this parameter to record the native name in the aspect in which it differs from English is consistent with the purpose of the parameter. I agree with Vipz. —Alalch E. 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
Is wikipedia true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks Platipusica (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I see it now, the infobox is using this: native_name = {{nobold|Јосип Броз Тито}
The native_name is not and can not be on Cyrillic. Platipusica (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I also agree with Vipz for the reasons stated above. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. Doremo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
There are a few things to unpack here. I removed the Cyrillic not on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language nor was is about the “Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language” which was a topic brought up by @Vipz in this diff. I removed based on the simple fact the Cyrillic script was never used in Hrvatsko Zagorje where Tito is from nor in Slovenia where he was raised. It was used neither before nor during his life and implying he wrote his name in Cyrillic in his native language is absurd. Why not add it to Tuđman's infobox? Or the Herzegovian Ante Pavelić? Both of whom were more Serbo-Croatian than the Slovenian-raised and descended Tito ever was. Pavelić was from a Serbian majority village, surely Serbian was spoken there.
Secondly, extending Cyrillic to Croat-majority Croatia is a pars pro toto logical fallacy. Even language unitarists did not try to impose Cyrillic on Croatia. Croatia in Yugoslavia had its own variety of Serbo-Croatian called “hrvatskosrpski” or Croatoserb which was exclusively written in the latin alphabet and ijekavica. This wasn't some fringe linguistic nationalism, this was state policy done by unitarists themselves. After 1967 the scholarly consensus in Croatia was that Croatian was a separate language precluding any potential use of Cyrillic in the future, nevermind the fact that it wasn't even used anywhere among Croats prior to 1967.
To write Tito's native name in Cyrillic because some parts of the Serbo-Croatian sprachraum (not his birth place!) use Cyrillic is akin to writing Beijing-born Xi Jinping's native name in Portuguese because one specific part of China, that is Macau, uses Portuguese. Andro611 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic script is far more pertinent to Josip Broz Tito than any other leaders you mention. Tito is notable not for being born/raised in Zagorje, Croatia or Slovenia, but for leading a country whose primary language had two official, fully equal scripts, Latin and Cyrillic. Were Tito to have presided over only one republic in federal Yugoslavia that did not use Cyrillic, perhaps this would not be the case, but he presided over the whole country straight from the headquarters in Belgrade, SR Serbia. –Vipz (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Pavelić presided over a country with a similar percentage of Serbs to Tito's Yugoslavia. Your point over where he presided from and his notability is irrelevant. The infobox asks for his name in his native language. Not the language of the country or place he ruled from. Tito was raised in an environment that used and still uses the latin alphabet exclusively.
This is Tito's own personal diary. Written in the latin alphabet. This should be conclusive proof that his native writing was indeed the latin alphabet. Andro611 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Stalin's native language was Georgian, but we also present his name in Russian Cyrillic in the "native name" field. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. Doremo (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
False equivalence. Stalin was born in the Russian Empire where the dominant and official language was Russian, and the infobox also includes Georgian in the native name field. Tito was born in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia where the official language was never written in Cyrillic. The Cyrillic name should most definitely not be returned in the “name in native language” field. P.S. There already is a Cyrillic rendering of his name in the first sentence of the lede. I am not opposed to including it in the article, but it simply does not belong in field “name in native language”. That's not how you write his native language. Andro611 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.
Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.
Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.
Is wikipedia true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks 120.16.158.148 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vipz the relevant criterion here for inclusion is the answer to the question - is an average English reader going to commonly encounter the topic's name in this format / script, would it help them to have it noted here? As there is a body of work written in Serbian Cyrillic about him, it's fair to say it's possible that they'll encounter it, so we should keep it. There is a much larger volume in Latin scripts (both English and Croatian), so the real nuance here is whether this is worthy of inline WP:LEAD placement or should it perhaps be in an annotation so it doesn't clutter the initial sentence. MOS:LEADLANG is applicable here, but it's a matter of editorial discretion whether this label and text is clutter or not. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I checked the article history and I see the Cyrillic spelling has been in the lead for several years now. It should stay unless we can identify complaints from an average English reader to this effect. Note average English reader, not the average Tito supporter or detractor. --Joy (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not the supporter or detractor but the observer of the Cyrillic spelling used on English Misplaced Pages.
There can't possibly be two major World figures with presented native name on Serbian Cyrillic, both born in Croatia, unless there is some interest in this presentation.
I am with @Andro611 on this one. Platipusica (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, there's a body of scholarly work about both of these people written in Serbian Cyrillic, because both of them are indeed closely associated with a non-English language (per Manual of Style), and there has been a lot of interest in them among authors who used this language and alphabet. The distinction between Latin and Cyrillic scripts here may mean something you you and cause you to think of a (nefarious?) interest in this presentation, but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader, to whom it's presented in parentheses or in notes. --Joy (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
And, to reference applicable policies, WP:Due weight applies here. Arguments should be based on that, not on assertions of some sort of a conspiracy. --Joy (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Also to remind everyone, the actual rendering of the infobox "native_name" parameter does not annotate the value as such to the readers, so readers aren't even informed that this string of foreign letters is a "native name". This argument sounds like it's for meant for editors who see that parameter name, but those are a small minority of readers, and Misplaced Pages is writtten for the readers first. --Joy (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Then we should change the parameter. I would not object to the use of another parameter that does not denote the Cyrillic as his native name. Andro611 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Andro611 Maybe review the template {{Infobox officeholder}} formatting for options. Note that formatting like <small> probably needs to be reconciled with MOS:SMALL, which explains how normal infobox text is already smaller, so if you change this subheader, measure the outcome for readability first. --Joy (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Joy, interesting read. Particularly "but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader".
Any yet, the " due weight" suggests using Cyrillic, but at the same time it means little to the average English reader?
To remind everyone, the Serbian Cyrillic wikipedia exists for Tito. It does not contain any representation of his name on Latin characters, but it does contain a Latin translation of the same page where this is a significant information in the same infobox we are discussing here:
Порекло хрватско
translates on same Latin page to:
Poreklo hrvatsko
I would strongly suggest to include this information on English wikipedia below nationality. This would be the same as on Serbian Cyrillic wikipedia and I think it would be right and acceptable choice.
@Vipz and @Andro611, would you support this? Platipusica (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And of course, @Joy might also support this, while standardization of the native name parameter is resolved. Platipusica (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Joy: I'm not opposed to removing lead sentence clutter by putting native name stuff into annotations. As for the infobox, annotating or even outright removing inscriptions of the person's name in a closely associated language — this is not conventional practice.
The native name parameter needs a standardization at a Misplaced Pages-wide level. I'm not aware of a biography that presently denotes native name languages in the infobox (cf. Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, Xi Jinping, etc.), none inform readers what these strings of foreign letters represent. Another issue is the need of using {{nobold}}; if the standard practice is having native name text in biography infoboxes non-bold, then the template should not bold it in the first place.
Were it to become a new practice, it could be denoted for Josip Broz Tito as Јосип Броз Тито (Cyrillic). –Vipz (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Further reading

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

Infobox arrangement

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

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