Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 5 March 2023

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

	Josip 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 Date Process Result October 4, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
	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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military This 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 This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia Top‑importance Josip 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia: Belgrade High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Slovenia Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 37 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War I / World War II / Cold War This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force World War I task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article

"...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.

WHERE does it say that throughout his life Tito was poor at spelling, in that citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I wait an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don’t you read the pages of the book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

YOU have read it? I am not an editor on Misplaced Pages, YOU are. YOU have read it or not?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve read it, it is mentioned on page 5, and I added it to the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2021 (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, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"We need reliable sources for what goes in articles." My point exactly!

Please read WP:RS. If you think Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Swain or his publisher I.B. Tauris are not reliable, then post at WP:RSN and get a community opinion. If you accept they are reliable then WP:DROPTHESTICK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The vision of the Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Swain is a simplistic one. Three aspects need to be considered:

1) Tito came from a mixed family (Croatian father, Slovenian mother);

2) Different languages spoken in the same region, even before the formation of Yugoslavia as a state;

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

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. Doremo (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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 Jasper Ridley, who is important historian and he has article in wikipedia. To remove reliable sources inserted by me is blatant disruption against wikipedia rules. Forza bruta (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ll respond to this later today. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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 tertiary source, and its use is subject to the tertiary source fallacy 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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 Italia Brigade (Yugoslavia) 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 foibe massacres.

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.--Forza bruta (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

tito was a leader and we have to stop calling him a dictator it is biased Victory to the UAW (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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,

References

1. Sebestyen, Victor (2014). 1946: The Making of the Modern World. Macmillan. p. 148. ISBN 978-0230758001.
   "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."

This is only first step.--Forza bruta (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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: Joze Pirjevec, 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.--Forza bruta (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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.--Forza bruta (talk) 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. Lectonar (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 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. Verifiability 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's incredible how many WP:NPA violations are being tolerated with this user. Even here, they're avoiding to counterargument reliability and undue weight objections posed by Peacemaker67 by making ad hominem, probably unaware how consensus works on Misplaced Pages. -Vipz (talk) 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.--Forza bruta (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

i second that notion Victory to the UAW (talk) 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 crimes against humanity under communist regimes and mass killings under communist regimes; 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.--Forza bruta (talk) 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.--Passando (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Who? are they reliable historians no because you made them up Victory to the UAW (talk) 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, Language and identity dispute. 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. Darrad2009 (talk) 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? Doremo (talk) 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:
(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!

(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".

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!

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. Darrad2009 (talk) 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. Doremo (talk) 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). Darrad2009 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Darrad2009 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Aleksandar Matunović (1997). Enigma Broz – ko ste vi druže predsedniče?. Belgrade.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

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. Doremo (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But it is in the article named "Titov život ostaje enigma". Darrad2009 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You are objecting to content somewhere else on the internet, not to content on Misplaced Pages. Doremo (talk) 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! Darrad2009 (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 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? Darrad2009 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 is the text from NSPM correct or not? Pixius talk 11:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darrad2009 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. Pixius talk 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.--Forza bruta (talk) 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. -Vipz (talk) 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.--Forza bruta (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

@Doremo: there's no doubt numerous RS can be found to support the perception Tito was a 'dictator', 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. Fidel Castro, Chiang Kai-shek, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha. No one reading past the first sentence is going to miss this. -Vipz (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. The edit summary ("well it says ...") implied that the edit had been made because the source was not explicit enough. Doremo (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doremo: do you intend to integrate those sources there (with/without rewording)? -Vipz (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. I'll also change (the laudatory) description statesman to (the neutral) politician, and recast the "benevolent" bit to reflect the sources. Doremo (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Mid-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Top-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Top-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• High-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• B-Class Serbia articles
• High-importance Serbia articles
• B-Class Belgrade articles
• Unknown-importance Belgrade articles
• WikiProject Serbia/Belgrade articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• B-Class Slovenia articles
• Mid-importance Slovenia articles
• All WikiProject Slovenia pages
• B-Class Cold War articles
• Top-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• C-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class Cold War articles