| Revision as of 18:43, 9 April 2023 editVipz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,102 editsm →Vipz, vipz vipz...: typo.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:19, 10 April 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,792 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 13) (botNext edit → |
| Line 55: |
Line 55: |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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 == |
|
== 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)
As much as you would wish him to be, Druže Tito is no perfect saint. Misplaced Pages is not an altar. His crimes, controversies must be covered.
If you are ignorant on what happened to the Germans of Yugoslavia, I advise you to educate yourself on the subject instead. If you know it well but are trying to sideline it... shame on you. Synotia (moan) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
