Revision as of 04:54, 25 September 2004 edit216.126.133.55 (talk) →Funeral photos← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:09, 10 October 2024 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,873 edits +CTOPS notice |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talkheader|search=y}} |
|
''An event in this article is a ] (may be in HTML comment). '' |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
----- |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=00:30, 4 October 2008 |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Josip Broz Tito/GA1 |
|
|
|action1result=not listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=242688190 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|
|topic=History |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-04-05|otd1oldid=5385970 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-04-05|otd2oldid=16335137 |
|
|
|otd3date=2006-04-05|otd3oldid=45850514 |
|
|
|otd4date=2009-04-07|otd4oldid=282286448 |
|
|
|otd5date=2015-01-14|otd5oldid=642283538 |
|
|
|otd6date=2018-01-14|otd6oldid=820369107 |
|
|
|otd7date=2021-01-14|otd7oldid=1000193830 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|listas=Tito, Josip Broz|vital=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|living=n|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=High|Zagreb=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Montenegro|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=High|Belgrade=yes|Belgrade-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovenia|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{contentious topics/talk notice|e-e}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong image == |
|
== Native name in SC Cyrillic == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Sorry ] the image of Tito is incorrect. It shows a Russian ] ]. Please correct this. Best regard. -- ] 13:48 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
== Lack of content 1945-1980 == |
|
|
|
::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 ] (]) 07:02, 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) |
|
The entry at present doesn't say anything of consequence about Tito's role in the formation of Yugoslavia and from then to 1980. It just chops off after the "early life" section. Misplaced Pages should cover someone as important as this in much greater detail. I'm not qualified to do it, can someone else? ] 11:11 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:There are a few things to unpack here. I removed the Cyrillic not on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language nor was is about the “Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language” which was a topic brought up by @] in this . I removed based on the simple fact the Cyrillic script was never used in Hrvatsko Zagorje where Tito is from nor in Slovenia where he was raised. It was used neither before nor during his life and implying he wrote his name in Cyrillic in his native language is absurd. Why not add it to Tuđman's infobox? Or the Herzegovian Ante Pavelić? Both of whom were more Serbo-Croatian than the Slovenian-raised and descended Tito ever was. Pavelić was from a Serbian majority village, surely Serbian was spoken there. |
|
|
: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= (])}}}}. –] (]) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Further reading== |
|
Hmm. The history after WWII is basically condensed into the timeline, which is inserted pretty ad hoc. This needs work. --] 23:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Maclean, Fitzroy (1980). Tito: A Pictorial Biography. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-044671-7. is pure hagiography. it likely does list the bare bones facts and has lots of photos, but even though its from a western mainstream publisher, its entirely pro tito, so not a balanced account. i question whether it should be in further reading, and i would question its use as a source for this article. i havent checked to see if it was used. (user: mercurywoodrose) ] (]) 17:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox arrangement == |
|
: I added a fair bit, though of course it could still be expanded. |
|
|
: I think we also have way a disproportional amount of pictures of him with foreign leaders. |
|
|
: --] 10:40, 12 May 2004 (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) |
|
== Funeral photos == |
|
|
|
:Agree, it provides context. ] (]) 09:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I brought up the issue with ] regarding historical countries/subnational entities over at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking|MOS:GEOLINK for former countries/entities}} and hope to have community consensus formed there to resolve this disagreement. –] (]) 20:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
i am writing from Bosnia and herzegovina and i would be very grateful if you could show some photos from Tito's funerel. It is almnoust impossible to find those pics on the web. |
|
|
|
: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. ] (]) 12:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
]== Anonymous edit == |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Or can we try {{para|birth_place|], ], Austria-Hungary}}? ] (]) 13:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
examined edit by anonymous IP. safe. - ] 10:21, 16 Dec 2003 (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) |
|
i have a pictures of his funeral but how can i put it up |
|
|
|
|
|
ther is no uplad file in the side bar, there is no sidebar , i dont see it |
|
|
|
|
|
== Grenades vs. shells == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone please fix this sentence? I don't know anything about Tito's life or history beyond what I've learned here, but I do know that grenades are hand-thrown (or at best, rifle-propelled) weapons and that a howitzer shell can not possibly be mistaken for a grenade. Which was it, please? ] 03:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::BTW, that is a misconception; there is also the contemporary RPG (launched from either a rifle or a special one-person launcher or perhaps sometimes one and other times the other) and is propelled by a built-in rocket engine, hence Rocket Propelled Grenade. (These figured crucially in the Mogadishu ] battle, bringing down the choppers with tactics developed against the Russians in Afghanistan.) --]] 15:26, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC) |
|
|
:In Bukovina he was seriously injured by a grenade from a howitzer. |
|
|
::That clear, even tho anonymous, statement is helpful but does not fix the problem: everyone who looks at the article text is going to have the same reaction, bcz the apparatus implied by it is so obscure. Either this was an improvised use of a howitzer, or an unusual item produced by a specific nation, or a fragmenting mortar shell whose native name invites mistranslation. This has not been shown to be verifiable yet, and further, it will remain confusing (giving the impression, sadly true, that we don't know what we're talking about) until we can explain in the article what it means and why it sounds confusing. (This is very much like, in its effect, ], who was assassinated with the pick end of an ], not with "an ice pick" as the common mistranslation has it, and our article used to; it may be, or not, rooted in the same kind of error.) --]] 15:26, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It means a shell, yes. The local word for both is the same (at least colloquially), which is probably the reason for the wrong English term, it's a bad translation. --] 22:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The name Broz == |
|
|
The article leaves me with the impression that my vague recollection is accurate, that he was born "Josip Broz" and that "Tito" was a nom de guerre, alias, or code-name that facilitated his revolutionary work. Much like the grenade issue above, this lack of clarity undercuts the credibility of the article. I'm adding an entry for |
|
|
:], birth name of Yugoslaw partisan leader and president Joseph Tito |
|
|
at ] and assuming i've gotten it right, despite the lack of the confirmation i expected here. --]] 15:26, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Due to an which i have now reverted, this page represented, from 2004 Apr 8 until Apr 20, a colleagues' comment as being mine. What i suggested appears, restored, in the preceding comment. I did not suggest that there be an entry reading like this one that i have struck through: |
|
|
::<s>], birth name of Yugoslaw partisan leader and president ] ]</s> |
|
|
:--]] 16:08, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Who made the silly decision to call this article ] rather than ] or ]? He is universally known as Tito, regardless of what his legal name might have been. We don't call Lenin ] or Stalin ]. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I am going to redirect it. ] 10:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: At least in former Yu, his real name was well known. Are there guidelines for naming articles about persons with well-known nicknames? (Possibilities might be "Josip Broz Tito" or "Josip Broz - Tito", for example.) If yes, these should be followed. Josip Tito is not a good idea. ] 19:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I moved it back because inclusion of the nickname Tito is indeed the Right Thing to do as far as the Misplaced Pages naming conventions are concerned. --] 22:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As i stated earlier in this section, i made an entry at ] for Tito. A colleague (''not'' the one who appropriately edited me at ]) editted my discussion of that (without a signature or other indication that modification had occurred, as it happens), making it read |
|
|
:], birth name of Yugoslaw partisan leader and president ] ] |
|
|
The suggestion that the name "Tito" may stand alone is not particularly harmful, but it is unneeded clutter in a ] entry that links to a full bio, which in this case seems to make the point adequately; ] needs only enough information for people with a name in mind to be, once they've found a link to the bio they want, pretty sure of that fact. Telling them the ways they can (and preferably the ways they can't) use the name properly is the job of the bio article. |
|
|
<br> The apparent suggestion that the entry have two more links that redirect to the same bio is a violation of WP style, and a ] for why that style almost always calls for avoiding redundant links: the three links in one line would practically ''demand'' that the reader explore the differing implications of the three related names by following them each in turn. Fuggeddabowdit. --]] 16:08, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC) |
|
|
== 1930s == |
|
|
A new IP edit is awash in vagueness, and on reflection i have moved it here to be worked on, rather than just discussing it here: i think it is so hedged that it detracts more than it contributes. (However, i'd like to see a more precise account of this included.) Removed from ]: |
|
|
:During the 1930's Tito worked from the Communist Party and spent some time in Spain. While in Spain he was instrumental is suppressing socialists whose views were opposed to those of the Stalinist Communist Party. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Does "from" have the meaning of "through", "within", or the like? If not, then what? |
|
|
* Was he in Spain for a whirlwind tour (and if so, when?), or from Jan 1931 until the fall of the Republic? |
|
|
* Is this innuendo that he was an executioner, or an informant for executioners? Or did he make dandy speeches about the dustbin of history that embarrassed non-Stalinists into leaving Spain to go home and marry artists? |
|
|
|
|
|
Please forgive this tone of mine (which comes forth from frustration, despite my distaste for Stalinism), especially if your inarticulateness reflects struggling in a foreign language. If you're a Stalist troll, parodying your opponents within the left, then congratulations; if not, please get your facts together (or be explicit about what things you can't find out), and then speak up clearly. |
|
|
--]] 17:59, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
=="] ]" == |
|
|
] wants to add the phrase "] ]" to the first 'graph, and believes it can not be considered PoV. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think my objection to it it is just a matter of that phrase being contaminated by his other phrase, "brutal reign of ]", that ] has (IMO wisely) at least deferred re-proposing. |
|
|
|
|
|
My first reaction is that the phrase has a lot stronger POV than the sum of its two words, and the idea of situating it (or even one and then the other, in separate phrases) in the lead 'graph is PoV in pre-empting the opportunity to bring them in in a more nuanced fashion later in the article, where there's more room for qualifications and the like. |
|
|
|
|
|
The pairing of those two words, even if they are each accurate, expresses the PoV that they are crucially relevant to each other. If we were writing about Stalin, i, and i think most editors, would be sympathetic: his bolshevik ideology and his realization of the idea "L'etat, c'est moi" seem an awful lot like two inseparable sides of a coin -- or perhaps his paranoia was the weld that joined them against attempts to drive them apart. |
|
|
|
|
|
In contrast, i see Tito having a tension with Stalin and the Soviet system that in many ways put him outside the Soviet bloc; i see a foreign policy independent enough to involve him deeply in the so-called "unaligned movement"; i see an internal situation of ethnic divisions that probably called for a strong hand to balance the factions (in a significantly pluralistic fashion?), for reasons other than paranoia and megalomania. So i see sort of a communist, and a perhaps fairly dictatorial strongman, with nothing like the firm connection between them that i imagine between Stalin's ideology and his stranglehold on state and society. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, yes, i find your wordings so far too PoV, but i'm optomistic that you may be capable of working with your colleagues to find ways to bring those two concepts in, in ways you couldn't conceive at first and may even surprise you before we're done. I expect this talk page to be a more fruitful place to pursue that than whole-cloth edits of the article. --]] 05:43, 2004 May 11 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: It is indeed entirely biased to replace "was President between" with "whose brutal reign of terror lasted betwen", at least I don't see much need to elaborate that... but again, the article is missing a huge chunk of content while he was the head of Yugoslavia in which one could elaborate things that make him a president and things that make him a terrorist, without making any such off-the-cuff remarks that are really not encyclopedic. --] 09:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I see ]'s edit with "communist president" as no obvious problem, and likely an enhancement; i'm no expert on ], tho i think i can often be pretty sure about the absence of nuance. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I presume the party mentioned in the article was, like the "Social Unity-party of Germany" in the ], the local communist-party-in-all-but-name; perhaps someone able ''state'' nuances in this context can state this situation with more nuance than i just did. I expect that would enhance the article, by making the connection between "communist" and the later, more nuanced but apparently still incomplete 'graph. --]] 07:59, 2004 May 12 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Actually the Communist Party was indeed called that way in Yugoslavia. But anyway. --] 09:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Ah, thanks! I see now i was referring to the Croatian SDP, and i gather that was an early, minor affiliation. --]] 13:24, 2004 May 12 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Think about this sentence: ''Josip Broz Tito was elected to be a communist dictator''. Do you see any sense in it? If yes, then you might agree with GP (read GeneralPatton), if no, you might be correct. In fact Tito was elected to be a president of post (2nd WW) war Yugoslavia. He was just a president as are all presidents all around. The same thing happened in the United States where ] was elected as 34th president. Both ] and ] fought against Nazi-Germany, and they both showed a lot of succes, so natural way was that they also might won the race for presidency. Yes, the sytem in USA is different since they have presidency which can last twice for 4 years. Tito's one (as a 1st president) lasted for life - what is wrong with this? In fact nothing. We can go into many of his mistakes and such (foreign debts, Goli otok, ... ...), but we must also consider his role in prewar situation in this so hot territory. The same we might designate ] to be a 'whatever' dictator - and further on - Tito and Selassie were 'good friends' as it is well known. Every leader/ruler/'?' makes mistakes, so this role takes and needs a lot of responsibility as Mr. ] said in many accasions aka songs. Recently one Slovene officer wrote a book about attempts upon Tito's life. It was said he summed up to about 76 attempts. Tito's role was in fact pretty hard - think about what happend after 1990 in Yugoslavia, where ''botherhood and unity'' was (as it showed) really just on the paper. Best regards. ] 13:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Tito was never elected as a president, because in former Yugoslavia, elections were only inside the Communist party, and Communist party came to Rule with force. Aside from his foriegn political succeses, he was a dictator who ruled with the brute force: killing, prosecuting and inprisoning. I think this is the most importat fact about Tito, and it should not be hidden behind his possitive roles in antifascistic movement and "suppressing nationalims" (which was only thanks to his dictatorship). Anyway, I mean the complete article should be rewritten, and the word dictator should be put. --] 07:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: There are facts that are true there, but overall this is wrong. The CP came to power after the partisans led by it won the war -- had the HSS done anything comparably useful during the war, maybe they would have had some success like they had before the war, but there was realistically no other option than the CP at the time and it's not really that a lack of the scare tactics at the first and only post-war general election would have made a lot of difference on the result. Further, his regime used all those violent methods, but in general that simply can't be "the most important fact" (I take that to mean "something we should endlessly pontificate over") because otherwise ex-.yu wouldn't have been a fully functional country with by and large a consensus that he was ultimately doing the right thing even when he was doing the wrong thing. The dictatorship stuff is clearly mentioned in my version exactly where it is supposed to be and I don't see much reason to alter it in any more negative fashion. --] 08:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted ]'s 2nd edit of ], in hopes they will bring the arguments implicit in that edit to ] in an effort to find consensus before editing it again. IMO the recent, apparently successful, efforts at finding consensus here (which may not be apparent to an editor completely new to the article) deserve such care. --]] 08:08, 2004 May 28 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I changed the text before seeing this discussion, sorry for that. I should admit that ] has right about the 1st elections in after war Yu. Anyway, CP was very brute to his opponets after the war, and Tito's responsibility there is certain. The fact is that in 1945 communists in Yu killed tens of thousends political opponents, including masaccre in Bleiburg. That's why comparing Tito with Eisenhower has no sense.My opinion about the topic is following: the non-tendetious article about Josip Broz should not try to disguise negative (I mean anti-democratic and human-rights-violating) aspects of his rule. When you mention all political succeses he made, you should mention the negative facts too. Tito was a controversial person, and I think everyone would agree about that. So, my suggestion would be not to avoid giving an information of: a) Tito's responsibility for after-war mass-killings 1945.b) the founding of extremly crude penal camp at Croatian island Goli otok 1948 - 1989 (where the defendants of Informbiro-politics ended as well) c) 35 year long violent suppressing of national and religious rights of citizens of Yugoslavia d) the thousends of Stalin-like political "processes" after the Croatian Spring 1971., I would also suggest the erasing or reformulating the sentence "It was Tito's call for unity, and related methods, that held together the people of Yugoslavia." because these were really suppresive methods, together with Western interests who financed the regime.--] 15:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Agreed, there are a few sentences there that were from an older version and that were unencyclopedic. I amended that particular one to say not just "call for unity" (which sounds more like shallow demagoguery :) but "and related methods" which was supposed to imply that his policy was implemented with the use of force wherever there was resistance. On second look, I should have rephrased that sentence completely, it's way too subtle. I'll have a look at the whole article again and see if I can fix up all such subtleties that border whitewashing. --] 15:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
==Children== |
|
|
Whether true or not, it is very oftenly speculated that he was changing women every few days, which resulted in huge number of children. Various politicians, including Milosevic were rumored to be successful because they were Tito's children. This deserves a mention. ] 05:53, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Like I said in the commit log, there's those seventeen documented cases of wives and/or women bearing his children, and that's plenty, by anyone's standard! Vague speculation and rumours aren't particularly useful in an encyclopedia. --] 17:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: But noting that there are some speculations and rumour are. Remember final scenes from "Tito i ja"? People who don't know about the rumours can't understand them. ] 17:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Feel free to try, but I doubt it's easy to ] :) --] |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh people, come on, please do some research before implying that something is a fact. The whole claim comes from a book by Filip Radulovic, called "The Loves of Josip Broz" ("Ljubavi Josipa Broza"). He is said to claim that the book was research with Tito's consent, but I have seen no proof of this. It is barely mentioned on the internet outside titoville.com, and where it is, it is always "if we can believe this book...". I have seen no site but titoville.com endorse it as true. What makes me further suspicios is this , in which Radulovic claims that ] is blackmailing him for USD 5 million because he has discovered that she has an affair and a son with a Montenegrin man. Maybe that article should include ''A researcher has found that Albright has a Montenegrin lover, who is also the father of her son''. ] 12:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: *chuckle* Perhaps it is just spin, but where's smoke there's usually fire. Something should be written about Tito's reputation as something of a womanizer. I tried to phrase it in a fashion that doesn't expound on the various (unconfirmed?) escapades but instead proceeds to mention his legitimate grandchildren -- indicatively, in both of the two main ex-yu republics. --] 12:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tito's propaganda over Macedonia == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before 1944 the area that later comprised of the former Yugoslavia's southern republic was not called Macedonia but was called Vardarska Banovina (Province -of the river- Vardar). It was in 1944 that Joseph Broz Marshal Tito, the Communist dictator ruling Yugoslavia at that time, created Yugoslavia's southern republic and called it "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". However, "Macedonia" was already the name of one of Greece's northern provinces. In ancient times, the land that Macedonia covered included this northern province of Greece, a small part of Bulgaria, a small part of Albania, and a small part of the region that Tito named the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. It is pertinent to note that Tito’s Socialist Republic of Macedonia consisted of not only a small part of ancient Macedonia but also a far larger part from Slavic Yugoslavia. There is no doubt that creating this Republic in the southern region in Yugoslavia and including "Macedonia" in its name was deliberate with the main intention of laying claim to the region of ancient Macedonia of the northern province of Greece. Particularly, what Tito and his Communist allies wanted was the city of Thessaloniki with its lucrative warm water port. |
|
|
|
|
|
After 1944 a deliberate and systematic campaign was initiated for Yugoslavia's southern republic to take over the history of ancient Macedonia. “Scholars” from the “People’s Republic of Macedonia” were commissioned to re-write their history books to include the ancient Macedonian History according to the wishes of the League of Communists of communist Yugoslavia, accompanied by perverted maps showing their "Macedonia" going all the way down to the northern half of Mount Olympus. Also, “linguists” led by Blagoj Konev, a.k.a. Blaže Koneski, were appointed to create the alphabet for and refine the "newly discovered" Macedonian language, which, of course, was made to sound as if it were the “natural development” of the ancient Macedonian language. Through their control of mass media and education, the government of “People’s Republic of Macedonia” then introduced this language and claimed that it is the language that was spoken by the ancient Macedonians. However, this language is grammatically nearly identical to Bulgarian and, due to continuous government interventions, its vocabulary tends to include more Serbo-Croatian words that have replaced the Bulgarian words. They clearly overlooked the unquestionable fact that the inhabitants of ancient Macedonia were Greeks and spoke the Greek language. Numerous excavations in all of the ancient Macedonia area have consistently unearthed relics clearly with Greek writings, and depictions of rulers clearly designated with Greek names. |
|
|
--] 01:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
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)