Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 10 December 2009

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.

Template:Banrevert

Josip Broz Tito was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 4, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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: Politics and Government 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 politics and government work group. 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 Top‑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 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. Slovenia Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 36 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 High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War II 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 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 II task force

Template:WP1.0 Template:0.7 set nom

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 5, 2004, April 5, 2005, April 5, 2006, and April 7, 2009.

An event in this article is a April 5 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Concerning Misplaced Pages's Article Josip Broz Tito

Note: Can the editors of Misplaced Pages please not delete or archive my statements on the talk page, as it was done in the past. Please be polite and assume good faith and no personal attacks.

Misplaced Pages states all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. The above-mentioned article is not. Important factual information is missing, thus making it biased and lacking in objectivity. This then results in an overall in-balance.

Josip Broz was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader and was the main decision maker in military and political matters. He was President for Life of Yugoslavia and played crucial if not the main role in historical events of that country. He was considered to be by many, one of the prominent Eastern European Balkan Dictators of the Cold War Era. Here are six examples of 20th century European Balkan history that are missing (all of this can be referenced):

1. Josip Broz Tito’s failure in adressing ethnic tensions of the former Yugoslavia;

2. Failure in the economic management of the former of Yugoslavia ;

3. Cult of Personality (He is mentioned in Misplaced Pages's Cult of Personality article)

4.Bleiburg massacre & Foibe massacres .

5. A more detailed account of UDBA’s & OZNA Yugoslavia's notorious police KGB style organizations, which he helped establish; and

6. His immensely luxurious life style as a dictator .

Actually the article is very similar to a Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s. Ironically the article on Tito does not even mention the fact that he was a Dictator. Most of Josip Broz’s images, monuments, town names and street names are now being removed. This started after the fall of the Berlin Wall and after the break up of Yugoslavia.

Summary

The Josip Broz Tito article represents old views from the cold war era and by default Misplaced Pages is pushing a political agenda. This information is now part of the Josip Broz Tito article, thus making the article biased and lacking a NPOV. As mention above, there are parts of history from that era and region that are missing. Administrators should give attention to these issues? Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your silly attempts at hiding your political agenda by throwing that term back at me are not working. I don't have to say much. Your absurd "list" says it all:

1. You will not add text "blaming" this person for events that took place years after his death. The same events he obviously worked all his life to prevent.
2. You will not add text listing the negative periods of Yugoslav economy and blaming them squarely on this person, while ignoring economic booms and development.
3. Misplaced Pages is not a source. The man was widely regarded as a WWII hero and liberator. You will not transform a politician's popularity into a "cult of personality".
4. You can simply forget about your foibe right now. No evidence suggests any personal culpability of this person.
5. He did not control the secret police personally, Aleksandar Ranković did. Ranković even kept Tito's residence bugged. Tito was often in conflict with him and eventually forced Ranković into retirement and stripped his secret police of its powers. Nice try.
6. Terms like "dictator" are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. You know this, get over it. All property was owned by the state as part of the Yugoslav president's alotted rights. We should also begin writing about the "immensely luxurious lifestyle" of every US president - those guys live in a palaces and estates, they get summer homes, they have huge jets and helicopters, they hunt, they play golf... those bastards! :P

Now kindly stop cluttering this talkpage with silly quotes and annoying people with your views. This person is not Stalin. Any POV pushing in the article along these lines without ROCK-hard sources will be immediately reverted. --DIREKTOR 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

LoL... you're not going to do this again. Your cherry-picked links do not have any relevance to this matter, again. They do not show Tito is culpable for the foibe, and they do not show that he somehow personally owned all that property your article describes. You know this. Don't let me spoil your fun, but your post will be removed per WP:NOTFORUM ("The Truth will be censored" :). Find some other place to vent your frustration, clutter some forum with your silly POV. --DIREKTOR 09:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. its "Concerning Misplaced Pages's Josip Broz Tito article", not "Concerning Misplaced Pages's article Josip Broz Tito" but nice try again. --DIREKTOR 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Director it's a talk page for heaven sake, not the main article. Why are you getting so upset, it's history, nobody is going to get hurt? You see it's all connected, Tito was the leader & leaders have to be accountable, that's the way it's done properly . Are you going to police the talk page now? Sir Floyd (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not upset, why would you think that? Please keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous. Yes I'm sure "its all connected", keep your esuli conspiracy theories to yourself.

To answer your question: yes, I am going to "police" the talkpage. It obviously needs "policing" against being turned into your playground. Your massive irrelevant posts only deal with you defaming a historical figure you personally dislike because of your political position. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. I suggest you go back to itWiki. Your sentence structure betrays you, and you're certainly not a native English speaker. --DIREKTOR 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to log out now but what 's with the insult "clutter some (other) forum with your silly POV " Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are POV-pushing, and have been doing so for weeks now. And yes, it is silly, and yes, it is cluttering the page with piles of useless text - I had to be archive the page because of you. If you think that's an "insult" make sure you report me (again). Cheerio --DIREKTOR 10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is funny, because those are my exact thoughts about you. Defaming an historical figure, please, he is a politician. Where I come from politicians are constantly scrutinised. Tito was a leader & leaders have to be accountable. When an Encyclopedic article is written from a NPOV, there must be a balanced point of view and that article is not balanced. Sorry, but to me it's just old Communist rhetoric. Maybe coming from a different cultural background is causing the friction. You see from were I'm standing, you are POV-pushing on a far great scale. That part about the comment "native English speaker" who cares, I don't. Maybe Misplaced Pages is just not set up for these type of intercultural interactions. Silly POV, cluttering the page with piles of useless text, more insults Mr Director? I take your point of view, less clutter. Sure that's fine with me. Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. My point is not that you're cluttering the page, my point is that your stuff is clutter, i.e. that all you gave are pieces of text extracted from various places solely because they have something negative to say about this person. Give me one single university publication stating plain and simple that Tito was responsible for the foibe or Bleiburg and I'll concede that point. One. You don't need "character witnesses" you need - one source.

Please note "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." --DIREKTOR 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to answer Floyd's concerns seriously:

1. is a non-starter. Ethnic cohesion and disputes are complex things. They are not something that can be fixed by one person. In fact, there was no warfare between Yugoslav peoples while Tito was in power, so if anything, we can talk about his success, not failure to fix ethnic issues.
2. Again, economic management is a complex thing, depending on many factors. Tito wasn't directly running the economy, nor did he decide economic policy on his own. The correct article for those issues is Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
3. There was certainly a dose of a cult of personality established around Tito, especially in his older years and after his death. It suited various Yugoslav politicians as a PR cover for their sordid deals and failures. After Tito's death, it became a criminal offence to slander Tito's "person and work". This should probably get a section of its own, but it needs to be presented neutrally and factually (as does everything else).
4. Post-war summary executions were perpetrated by forces under Tito's command. It's therefore appropriate to mention them in this article. However, in absence of any sources about Tito's personal involvement, this should be (and already is) discussed in other appropriate articles.
5. A more detailed account of UDBA & OZNA should obviously be in those articles. Yugoslavia had intelligence and security services, as did and still do other countries. E.g. the Harry S. Truman simply mentions that CIA was created under Truman, but doesn't discuss it at all. Another problem is that EVERYTHING in the Socialist Yugoslavia was created while Tito was in power. The article obviously can't mention each state service and agency that was established under Tito.
6. His lifestyle was no more luxurious than that of other heads of state. All the residences and gardens and furniture were state property, as evidenced by the fact that none of them were inherited by his family when he died.

Zocky | picture popups 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As I tried to explain to the man on his talkpage , the only point that perhaps has some merit is the one about the cult of personality (though I by no means see it filling a full section). In response, he accused me of "offending him" by writing "communist propaganda" on his talkpage, and asked me never to address him there (yes, in response to this post :P). It would appear we're not dealing with a neutral person. His main ambition on this talkpage seems to be the inclusion of accusatory text that would depict Josip Broz Tito as responsible for the foibe killings. I consider it absolutely inappropriate to mention the events in this particular article without a proper source - he was the commander-in-chief, ffs, everything was under his command. Its like blaming Roosevelt for the US massacres of SS soldiers.

Floyd's bias is most evident in his attempts to actually accuse this person of responsibility for the Yugoslav wars. I can't imagine anything more contrived. I suppose if Yugoslavia had not been formed at all there wouldn't be any Yugoslav wars - the founders of Yugoslavia are therefore responsible for the Srebrenica massacres, right? LoLz... If I recall, anti-war protesters in 1992 Sarajevo carried his pictures... before they started getting shot at. --DIREKTOR 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well what can I say, you guys just spin it so well? Misplaced Pages’s editors and admin seem to be happy with you guys pushing political agendas. With this being the case, their is not much that can be done. Zocky, thanks for your response, it was well mannered & you made some interesting points their.

• Sir Floyd is taking a wikibreak. (His professional work & real life have to take priority) . Sir Floyd (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever Floyd... I'm sorry Zocky and myself do not meet your high standards for Misplaced Pages users. You take your Wikibreak and we'll try to stop being communists, ok? --DIREKTOR 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Only successful Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony?

"Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he was also the first (and the only successful) Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony."

What about Romania under Ceasescu? Josh (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceauşescu's "break" with the Soviets is... debatable. He was independent, but the country remained firmly in the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact. Moscow never seriously opposed him, and he never broke with it completely. Yugoslavia was inches from full-scale war with the Eastern Bloc and was openly hostile to the Soviet Union for much of its history. --DIREKTOR 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Albania under Enver Hoxha? Sir Floyd (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(What's with the wikilinks?) Enver Hoxha was cut off from the Eastern Bloc and opted for a pro-Chinese stance as a consequence of not having a border with the Soviets (which was due to Yugoslavia's neutrality).

(Of course, we are talking about the later period when Albania broke with the Soviets and aligned with China, not the period up to the mid-1950s when it was a Soviet ally, or the 1945-1948 when PR Albania was a de facto Yugoslav satellite. Just making it clear, since some have displayed an inability to keep up with the "complexities" of this discussion. :) --DIREKTOR 08:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

In light of recent events in Slovenia (& Croatia) I feel certain Wiki-Articles have to be re-evaluated, this being one of them.The Government of the Republic of Slovenia created "Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia" in 2005. Early this October they issued their report to the Government of Slovenia. Significant factual statements have come to light, concerning the Yugoslav Partisan, Communist Repression and Atrocities in former Yugoslavia and their Commander Josip Broz Tito. The period in question is post WW2, 1945-46. Note:' In Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal he stated that Tito asked the "Croatian Home Guard" to surrender or face the consequences of not surrendering. After the war ended POWs who did not surrender were slaughter on mass, estimates are about 100 000 victims in total.

• Zdravko Dizdar : Croatian Historian (Institute for History in Zagreb): Partisan/Communist Repression & Atrocities in Croatia/1944th to 1946th - Document: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia
• BBC-History: Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941-1945

Recent Events Reported In the Media:

• Croatia's-Javno: Mass Grave Massacre Ordered By Josip Broz Tito
• Slovenian Press Agency: Columnist Says Silence on Post-War Killings Needs to End
• Slovenia Times Post-war Killings Enter the Bloody History
• Croatia's-Moje Vjest: On the Island Daksa Exhumed 48 Victims of Communism

World Media:

• New York Times Evolution in Europe-Piles of Bones in Yugoslavia Point to Partisan

Massacres.

• BBC News Italy-Croatia WWII Massacre Spat
• Mail Online-Word News: Gassed to Death: 300 victims of Yugoslavia's Communist Regime Found in Mass Grave

The article needs to have NPOV tag on. These issues deserve some feedback, preferably from someone who is impartial and educated in these matters. Would fellow Editors please look into this as we are dealing here very sensitive issues. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Croatian Government: Deputy PM and with Representatives of the Croatian society of Political Prisoners-Victims of Communism
• Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia
• Mitja Ribicic - Internal Security of Former Yugoslavia: BBC 4
• Janez Stanovnik - Slovenia Politician & Economist/Former Yugoslav Partizan Commander

Are these sources clear engough to show the Stalinist nature of Tito's regime (whilst the Wiki-article is a dated cold war propaganda piece). The Editors of the article in question have refused in the past to make any concession to give the article a more contemporary view (references were provided):

A media report on Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia work: Croatian Newspaper Jutarnji writes on the 01/10/2009 "100,000 Victims in 581 Mass Graves" Newspaper Jutarnji

"In Slovenia three basic books came out needed for the study of communist crimes in the immediate post-war period. It specifies graves where liquidation and execution of prisoners of war were carried out in its territory.

"In this collection, in Slovenia, there were discovered and detected 581 mass graves in which, the author estimates about 100 000 victims in total. According to the research of Slovenian and Croatian historians, Partisans in Slovenia liquidated most of the Ustasa and home guard units. The Croats accounted for between 50 to 80 thousands casualties."

Involved are:

• Jože Dežman: Slovenian Historian-Director of the National Museum of Contemporary History-Ljubljana (Slovenian) National Museum of Contemporary History- Slovenia
• Mitja Ferenc: Slovenian Historian-University of Ljubljana

Sir Floyd (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Again with all this. These transparent attempts at using the horror of these massacres to garner support are frankly low and unbecoming of any Wikipedian. The main question here is, with all this information on the Bleiburg massacre, why is all this not at the Bleiburg massacre article talkpage?? What does all this have to do with Josip Broz Tito? All you have above is some Googled article title that states "Mass Grave Massacre Ordered By Josip Broz Tito". The problem is, when you actually read the article, all that the (rather sensationalist) title is based on is the fact that Josip Broz Tito was the commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav armed forces at the time, a fact that is very well known. I can't believe this is happening again.

Every time some column is published here you are with twenty links to the same thing. To surmise, the Yugoslav Partisans belonging to ethnic Slovene units were accused of killing the people found in some mass grave. A Slovene WWII veteran states that it wasn't the Slovenes' fault since the commander-in-chief of all Yugoslav forces was Josip Broz Tito in Belgrade. Oh yes, proof positive, the prime minister ordered the killings...

All that you have here is a couple of articles that say "Josip Broz Tito was the commander of all Yugoslav military forces", we know all this. What you'd like is that the article should now include a section stating "Tito ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of people". Command responsibility does not extend to persons unaware of the criminal events taking place. This is just another in a loong line of attempts by this account to push his nationalist POV. He is on a sustained political agenda to effectively ruin the hard-established neutrality of this article (which brought it its first GA nomination). --DIREKTOR 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Director, 100 000 POWs were slaughtered, are you aware of enormity of this and what was needed to execute these operations (& we are not even mentioning the morality of it all)? In Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal it is stated that Tito ask the "Croatian Home Guard" to surrender or face the consequences of not surrendering. After the war ended POWs who did not surrender were slaughtered on mass. This was reported in a Scientific Journal.

The POWs bodies have been counted (it took them 4 years to do it) on the request of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and it was done by professionals, so its factual and scientific. The Bleiburg massacre is only part of the story. We are talking about an overall elimination of of large number of POWs in the former Yugoslavia.

This is not sensationalising, they just happen to be the facts. I need to use them to state the basic truth (believe me there other facts that are a lot worse) The idea that Tito was not involved in all this is simplistic. The size of the operations were huge, no army would ever execute these operations without the orders from it's commander (according to Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal he did issue the orders). Your arguments lack resolution. Further more what nationalist POV am I pushing here? Maybe the POV of the POWs of the "Croatian Home Guard". There is lot of buck passing here on your behalf. These are major historical events in which he participated. Sir Floyd (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel sick to my stomach. It is unbelievable that you would try to use these misleading figures to garner support for your nationalist agenda. The Bleiburg massacre victim count is notoriously very hard to establish, and it is almost impossible to determine who actually killed the victims from the graves (the Nazis or the Allies). "100,000" is the absolute highest estimate of all, with various historians listing very different numbers (as can be seen on the Bleiburg massacre article). According to most mainstream authors, such as demographer Vladimir Žerjavić, the total number of people in the retreating columns was "no greater than 50,000, and far fewer than that number were captured or killed". This is a quick explanation so that people aren't suckered in by your nonsense. However, I will not debate the victim count with you, as it is absolutely irrelevant to this article - as is plainly obvious to anyone. If it was 200 and there was a source linking Tito to it, I'd agree with you.

As for your "argument", I can only repeat that you still do not have a single source of any kind that states anything like "Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito ordered these killings", let alone a published professional source to that effect (despite what I imagine was a very thorough search on your part). The text from your link, in spite of its undeniably sensationalist title, merely confirms and states what I kept telling you: the person was indeed the commander-in-chief of all Yugoslav military forces - but that by no means makes him responsible for events he had no way of knowing about (unless he actually ordered them, for which you will need a rock-solid source).

This silly nonsense dispute always amounts to the same thing:

1) You keep talking about the massacres

2) I keep telling you that describing the massacres for everyone here is completely irrelevant to this article and this person

When you've got a source confirming that this person was either a) aware of the events, or b) that he ordered them, then we can talk about inserting the information in the article. Until then, this can be viewed as nothing other than an attempt at defamation and nationalist POV-pushing - for which you've become famous, I might add. --DIREKTOR 17:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly this is not silly and you are inventing scapegoat theories. where is your source for the "the Nazis or the Allies" participating in this? I shall go to the Allies war archives to research this if need be. You have to take a more mature approach to this and deal with the truth and not avoid facts. Lets stay focused here. 100 000 bodies have been counted-fact. (October 2009 A media report on Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia work: Croatian Newspaper Jutarnji reports on the 01/10/2009 "100,000 Victims in 581 Mass Graves") I shall send an email to the commission myself and ask them to forward to me the report. This all means it was a very large military operation. The Bleiburg massacre was part of the overall operations (please stay focused here). Have you done any military study or been in the military (I have)? He did issue the orders, I shall restate, it is in Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal. Tito came good with his statement, he delivered what he promised. It is not absolutely irrelevant that under his command 100 000 POWs, where slaughtered (these are facts, sorry if you think that it's otherwise).

I ask you what exact POV am I pushing here-human rights? I think you are the POV pusher here. POV of the old Communist propaganda of the now defunct Communist Party of the former Yugoslavia. Its all mixed up with hero worship. None of this is allowed at Misplaced Pages. Having said that, its fine to have your opinion however that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Sir Floyd (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pls enter your information in the Bleiburg massacre article and stop bugging people and claiming "censorship" when your wacky conspiracy theories are not included. I'm getting tired of repeating the same things over and over again. And no, you've still not provided a single source claiming Josip Broz Tito ordered the Bleiburg massacre. Even if Dizdar did claim such a thing, which mind you he does not, he's still 1) a local Croatian source, and 2) lacking any verifiable primary source (WP:V). Btw, that whole text you've managed to dig-up after all these months is not only useless here, it is also rife with unprofessional wording and pro-Croatian bias - it can be shown in five minutes that this "anniversary paper" is a completely unreliable source (even if it could be used here, which it cannot).

One more thing, I will no longer respond to this irrational POV-pushing. My attempts at reason have been ignored one too many times. I will address only the presentation of a published source that is in accordance with Wiki policy (in that it provides actual verifiable primary sources). And only if this source actually has anything at all to do with Josip Broz Tito. --DIREKTOR 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is going now were. You not addressing the above stated facts properly so the debate can not continue in a proper fashion. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not addressing the "facts"? Fine here's an excerpt from your source:

Josip Broz Tito, vrhovni zapovjednik NOV i PO Jugoslavije i predsjednik Nacionalnog komiteta oslobođenja Jugoslavije, uputio je 30. VIII. 1944. "Posljednji poziv" svim "zavedenim slugama okupatora", i to "svim hrvatskim domobranima, slovenskim domobrancima i zavedenim četnicima, da napuste okupatora i pređu na stanu Narodno-oslobodilačke vojske" do 15. rujna 1944, uz prijetnju da svi oni koji to ne učine "bit će izvedeni pred ratni sud, suđeni kao izdajnici naroda i kažnjeni najstrožom kaznom" te naglašavanje da o tom pitanju "Saveznici ne će da se miješaju u naša unutrašnja pitanja" te da ih nitko "ne će spriječiti da kaznimo izdajnike naroda i slugu okupatora". (Vidi: N. BARIĆ, 2003, 496. / faksimil letka/). No, pozivi su se ponavljali još u nekoliko navrata. Tako je već 15. IX. 1944. Tito u svezi s istekom roka iz navedenog poziva izdao zapovijed postrojbama NOV i POJ da sve one koji se nisu uspjeli dobrovoljno predati, to ipak učine, prihvate i one koji dobrovoljno ostaju u partizanima uvrste u svoje redove, s tim da svi podoficiri i oficiri zadržavaju svoje činove, a oni koji to ne žele "staviti u zarobljeničke logore", dok za sve one koji se uhvate na neprijateljskoj strani s oružjem u ruci "staviti pred vojni sud i po hitnom postupku suditi i najstrožije kazniti".

translated:

Josip Broz Tito, supreme commander of the NOV and PO of Yugoslavia and President of the National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia issued on 30 August 1944 the "final appeal" to all "deluded servants of the occupation", i.e. "all Croatian Domobrani, Slovene Domobranci, and deluded Chetniks, to abandon the occupation forces and cross over to the side of the People's Liberation Army" up to 15 September 1944, with the warning that those who do not do so "will be brought before a wartime tribunal, tried as traitors of the people, and punished with the utmost severity" while emphasizing that "our Allies will not interfere in our internal affairs", and that "noone will prevent us from punishing the traitors of the people and the servants of the occupation". However, these appeals were repeated on several occasions. Thus already on 15 September 1944 as the deadline for the appeal arrived, Tito issued an order to all units of the NOV i POJ that all those who did not manage to cross over willingly, be still allowed to do so, and that all those who willingly choose to stay with the Partisans be integrated into the formations, adding that all NCOs and officers be allowed to keep their ranks, and that those who still refuse be "placed in prisoner camps", while all those caught on the enemy's side with weapons "be placed before a military tribunal, tried, and punished with the utmost severity".

Are you even aware that every single one of those men in those collaborationist formations should have been tried and executed for treason? By standing Yugoslav law (both of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and DF Yugoslavia) all men and women guilty of high treason during wartime can only be pusihed with execution. This is the law, I emphasize again, so not to bring these people before a court and (if found guilty) executing them would be against the law - completely illegal. Their summary executions that took place were not legal either, yes, and they were a tragedy, but the point is that Tito did not sanction any kind of summary killing. Certainly not from all the silly links you've showed us.

The author continues to state

On the basis of this order began the founding of the prisoner of war camps and the placement of prisoners in them. After these appeals came the general amnesties of the Presidency of the AVNOJ (from 21 September 1944) and Tito's warnings.

From WHAT is anyone here supposed to surmise that Tito ordered the killing of collaborationist troops at Bleiburg?? --DIREKTOR 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read (the above), but this is not about the "Bleiburg massacre". This is on a much larger scale. I've stated this many times. I have the same Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal (Is this the same source?) I shall give it a good read, study & comparison. It is also in Croatian & my Croatian is rusty at best. I recommend that we take time out. I'm running on Aussie time and have to log off really soon because I have lots to do tommorrow, work wise. Direktor, I'm not a bad person and I would rather debate sources than whats going on at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Sir Floyd (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So suddenly its "not about Bleiburg"?? All I can read up there is you talking about the mass graves in Slovenia. I don't know what kind of person you are, and simply saying you're "not bad" does not mean much. The point, and the reason I'm getting frustrated with you here is that you keep ignoring the fact that this is the Josip Broz Tito article, and that you need to connect these atrocities with him somehow. The problem is, since professional historians did not come up with anything, I doubt you are about to. If he did "order their killing" it would be a complete change in his policy. His activities concerning collaborationist military prisoners were nothing but appeals, prisoner camps, trials, and general amnesties of treason charges. While you're reading the Dizdar paper, keep in mind what I've told you about the hard-line faction led by Aleksanadr Ranković and his complete control over the OZNA. You can forget right here and now about pinning whatever the secret service does to "Tito's crimes".

The one and only problem here is the following: I keep asking you for a source, because frankly I know full well there isn't one. You keep getting frustrated that there isn't one and listing dozens of links to stuff that's unrelated to the issue. I then get frustrated in turn that I have to write up answers to that nonsense and point out for the millionth time that this is about Tito, not Bleiburg. --DIREKTOR 13:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Director, I'm not adding any more to this talkpage for now. It's best that we take time out. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He never made a mistake? There is nothing to criticize?

I'm sorry, but this article reads like a propaganda piece not like an article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.136.173 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Foibe

I added a link to the Foibe killings article, as the facts stated in that article happened under Tito's governament. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a statement giving as a reason "And I have removed it" may be considered a vandalism. Tito was indeed a dictator, as during his governament there was only one party allowed (the communist one), he seized power throw a coup d'etat after WW II thanks to the help from sovietic russia (you have to consider that the legitimate governament was the one of the kingdom of Yugoslavia), he held power by controlling the army and he was the president of Yugoslavia without regoular elections for 35 years. And i don't understand the reasons why you deleted the link to the "Foibe massacres". --AndreaFox (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 has reverted you because such POV labels are not allowed on enWikipedia. Even Stalin is not called a "dictator". --DIREKTOR 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

However, in the Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini it is clearly stated many times that their form of governament was a "dictatorship" and they are called "authoritarian leader". If "autoritharian leader" is en.wiki's NPOV choice for "dictator", then I'll go with it. But it must be specified that Tito was an "authoritarian leader", like it has been done with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and many others. You spoke about not allowing POV labels on en.wiki, then why have you silently deleted the link to the "Foibe massacres", which happened during titoist Yugoslavia? --AndreaFox (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AndreaFox, you are here not to advance the encyclopedia, but merely to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for your own peculiar POV. You will notice that we have rather higher standards than that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, User:AndreaFox, you've so far clearly demonstrated you are here to push some kind of POV with biased wording. The article will not use the term "dictator", nor will you manage to insert the term with some silly word games. What you think of this person is irrelevant. He was the president and executed the powers of his office. He was elected completely in accordance with Yugoslav law. --DIREKTOR 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't insult me. We can try to resolve the question by speaking. You don't have to insult me saying things like "you are here not to advance the encyclopedia, but merely to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for your own peculiar POV", "you've so far clearly demonstrated you are here to push some kind of POV with biased wording" or "your silly word games" (are you saying that i am stupid by using the world "silly"?). Your statements about me not only are irrilevant (as[REDACTED] is about articles not about the demonization of our interlocutors) but are untrue as it's more than two years i'm writing on this encyclopedia and that's the first time i write on this article. However I may suspect (if that's not the cae, i apologise to you) that you don't accept a neutral term like "authoritarian leader" (used on other articles) and that you are deleting the link to "Foibe killings" (constantly ignoring my invitation to confront on the matter, which can be considered a vandalism) because of your personal view on the characters, as i can see from the page above (i see that a lot of users tried to change the page in the way i do, but you stopped them accusing them of not better specified POVs, ignoring the sources they provided), from your personal pages (where you clearly supposrt titoist yugoslavia) and from the fact that Dikerktor says "he was the president and executed the powers of his office. He was elected completely in accordance with Yugoslav law" (Mussolini was appointed chief of governament in a legal way too. Hitler was elected completely in accordance with German law. Maybe they are not authoritarian leaders?). I will insert sources (even if i considered them unuseful, as my additions to the text are actually very limited and universally accepted outside ex-yugoslavia), hoping you will not delete them. --AndreaFox (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The foibe will not be mentioned in this article, as there is absolutely no evidence proving they were planned at all, let alone planned by the Yugoslav Prime Minister. (This si where your POV is most obvious.)

2) The term "dictator" will not be included in the article, as that is unencyclopedic, POV wording. Your word games are not going to somehow "fool" everyone into saying "hey 'dictator' isn't allowed, maybe 'dictator-ship' is?". --DIREKTOR 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have not read what i have written to write such things. I never wrote the foibe were planned by tito, i simply put a link to the "foibe massacres" as they happened, wheter tito knew they were happening or not, during his time as president of yugoslavia and they deserve therefore to be linked in the article. Say what you want but as a significant part of historians say that they happened because of tito (these historians are indicated in "foibe massacres"), at least we must link the article about the foibe and then the reader could think what he want about them. I didn't write "dictator" or "dictatorship" too, but "authoritarian leader", which is used in other articles. Remember that this article isn't yours: you don't have the right to say what "will not be mentioned". If it is sourced and if it matters about tito, then it deserves to be said. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment: I find nothing wrong with "... governing with dictatorial powers". It's a neutral, factual description of a form of government. DIRECTOR, if you think it's overly judgmental, you'd need to be able to propose an alternative wording that would be capable of conveying the same factual content. Otherwise, your rejection of the word would boil down to making a whole set of factual states of affairs essentially undescribable in Misplaced Pages. – As for the Foibe killings link, an isolated article link placed outside the text is not useful. I have no opinion on whether or not to mention the event, but it needs to be integrated in text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

New

I have introduced a new section, introducing a lot of sources. As i noticed some users tend to delete sections that can be perceived as critical towards tito - saying that these sections are POV -, then i heavily sourced the new section, recurring manly to books and studies by historians and academics, and i tried as i can to use a neutral language. If you disagree with my addings, then feel free to discuss about it with me here. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your hatemail. You have no concept of what an encyclopedia is. One important word in your ear before you pursue your one-person hate campaign any further: Remember that this is enwiki, where standards are much much higher than on other Misplaced Pages projects. Elsewhere, due to lack of supervision, you can get away with many things. Unfortunately for you will find this project is a different kettle of fish entirely. My advice: If you have any non-POV edits, then by all means bring them forward, backed by proper non-partisan sources. If not, ie if all you want to do here is to denounce Tito, then enwiki's burly security officers will no doubt show you to the exit fairly promptly. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of talking aggressive to me, trying subtly to frighten and bully me, remember[REDACTED] policies about vandalism: you can't delete a sourced passage, you can't delete sources and you can't delete without discussing first. I'll tell you again: these are vandalic acts. Please, discuss with me, don't limitate your comments to things like "You have no concept of what an encyclopedia is". If you think the passage is an hatemail (nothing falser as I cited books from historians and as i cited their word in order to be the more neutral) then we can discuss how to change the language to make it more neutral, if you think it isn't. But you can't delete the passage. If you keep deleting it and if you keep refusing discussing seriously about it(not limitationg your comments to insults) then it will be me that will be forced to report your and the other user acts on these page. Hope i don't have to. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider apologizing too, because of your remarks about the presumed superiority of en.wiki contributers to any other contributers. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If hate text such as yours has no place in an article, it must be deleted. End of story. What you wrote was put there specifically and solely in an attempt to prejudice the reader against the subject of the article, and that is why I removed it. I have no comments to make to you beyond this. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep refusing confrontation ("I have no comments to make "). And you keep presuming bad faith ("What you wrote was put there specifically and solely in an attempt to prejudice the reader"). And you keep deleting without discussing. Calling "POV" or "hate text" the work of historians and acadhemics don't make their works less recognized or less influential, nor it makes your statements about them being "POV" or "hate text" true. So the only text which is NPOV doesn't come from hystorians or scholars, but from yourself? You keep committing vandalism after vandalism. In order to prevent an edit war, i have been forced to report the situation to two admins in order to have some neutral point of view on it. If you have accepted to discuss the matter, i wouldn't have act so. --AndreaFox (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Splendid. There is nothing to discuss, as I have already pointed out. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Inserting myself at personal risk: It seems to me that most of AndreaFox's changes are fairly limited in scope and are not sufficiently POV to warrant removal (particularly in violation of WP:3RR. Reading the article, there appears to be little to no mention of any controversy associated with his reign or the fact that he did appear to have the powers of a dictator. Just because someone calls themself a President doesn't mean they can't be a dictator, see WP:DUCK. One of the top hits on Google for this guy is "Josip Broz Tito, Dictator of the Month, April 2006". The article is already swamped with detail far beyond what is warranted (do we really need a full history of the Yugoslavian front in WWII?), while important things (like the controversies AndreaFox added with minimal elaboration) are played down or missing. You aren't maintaining neutral point of view, you're keeping the article as a static, overly rosy positive POV. —ShadowRanger  19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for POV check, and noted the conflict of interest issues. When both User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER admit to being personal admirers of the man on their user page and the article takes pains to avoid controversial, sourced subjects (despite being well out of the time when WP:BLP applies), I see COI problems. —ShadowRanger  19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Shadow, this is an old, old issue and it has been discussed at great length and the same conclusion was always reached - the article is not POV. Hence the brief responses of the editors involved in this article for a long time. I apologize for the long post, but since you seem interested in this matter I'd like to bring you fully up to speed with its history.

Allow me, therefore, to elaborate further. As is almost exclusively so in Balkans-related issues, the root is a misconception or a biased point of view intrinsic to an ethnic group. In this case it is a certain demographic within Italy, a group of people who believe firmly they were forced to leave their homes because the latter became part of a socialist Yugoslav state (the self-styled "exiles"). The blame for for those events of late WWII they almost exclusively throw on the back of the contemporary Yugoslav Prime Minister, Josip Broz Tito, I.e. "the communist dictator Josip Broz Tito threw us out of our homes" and such. An author close to this demographic has even been published (I emphasize by private publishing houses) with such claims. However, the fact is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that these events were even planned by somone, let alone that they were planned by Josip Broz Tito. Thus, there are no primary sources that validate that POV, hence the conclusion of each installment of this "never-ending story".

And there you have it. Every now and again there appear users that keep bringing this same stuff up. These are either 1) users from the "exiles" demographic or close to them, who push this POV relentlessly and usually get banned in the end, or 2) users from Italy who assume a position that seems half-way between the two opposing views (as they see it). In other words, the latter users honestly think they are being neutral. Unfortunately, the middle-ground in Italy is tilted toward an anti-Yugoslav POV, since the anti-Yugoslav "propaganda" (to put it thus) is heaviest there. Thus it can only be expected that users of these two "kinds" pop-up in this and similar articles from time to time, but the users trying to keep this article's neutrality from being destroyed by Italian conspiracy theories have less and less patience each time.

Another matter is the community of banned Italian users who are constantly active in POV-pushing. (In fact I've just removed yet another nonsense edit by the banned User:PIO/Luigi 28.) This group constantly appear as IPs or sockpuppets, they harass me and other users by WP:OUTING and the like, and yes they recruit other, non-blocked users on itWiki, on their blogs and forums, and they keep "sending" misinformed people with good intentions and bad presuppositions about the "evil communists who praise their dictator on enWiki". Agaian, sorry for the long post. :)

Finally, I'd like to ask what kind of a "conflict of interest" am I supposedly in? Am I being payed by the Yugoslav government? :) That tag is imho completely baseless. --DIREKTOR 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ShadowRanger, welcome to the Balkans. Here we spend our entire time attempting to hold the line, impose wiki policies, make our articles kind of as good as elsewhere on the project. Yet we are under siege from POV monsters, both registered accounts and IPs, who seek to use wiki to promulgate 'the truth'. And of course, vast numbers of socks, that are all Hydra monsters. As soon as you chop off one head, another one grows. So, if you'd like to join us here, we'd be delighted to welcome you to the party. But hell, I've heard that the Armenian genocide articles are even worse, so you may prefer to hang out there. Your call. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally recommend Kosovo as the place to be right now. :) Once again, my post is HUGE, I know, apologies, but I'm still hoping its not WP:TLDR. --DIREKTOR 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I've already involved myself in an intractable dispute in which no party will ever be satisfied (commenting on an incredibly silly debate over the definition of Judaism given in the lede). Clearly I'm masochistic. Next up, intervening in the Israel/Palestine conflict! Okay, maybe not. Even my masochism has limits. That said, while other editors may be taking the Balkan-style warfare to Misplaced Pages, this article does have problems, and AndreaFox does seem to be making useful changes. She's providing sources, she's fine with moderating her language, so I don't see where the objection comes from. —ShadowRanger  22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand a point in the question: you're not the ones who can decide if "there are no primary sources that validate that POV" or not. I cited works and books from academic of the universities of standford and hawaii among others and well known historians. You couldn't have deleted these sources. Instead, you could have insert sources from academics and historians that disagree with the ones i cited. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

LoL, AndreaFox, if there are no primary sources then there are no primary sources. You do not need a degree and doctorate to notice that no primary source validating such statements has been presented. And yes, we are supposed to look for them and we have every right to demand them. --DIREKTOR 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What i meaned is that you can look for them, but you can't pretend to impose your point of view presenting it like it is a wikipedian policy. In http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito at least five users agreed my sources were NPOV and in accordance with[REDACTED] policies, because in accordance with wikipedian policies a primary source could be both an academic work and a book from an historian. I'm starting to think that it is unuseful to speak with you, as you don't seem to be able to talk without making sarcastic or aggresive statements against users who disagree with you. I'll wait for the result of the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito: let the community choose what it is in accordance with its policies and what it isn't. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused about DIREKTOR's constant talk about primary sources on this talk page. This is Misplaced Pages, we mostly do not deal with primary sources, but instead use reliable secondary sources. The edit that AndreaFox2 contributed with is amply sourced with reliable peer-reviewed academic secondary sources. So the text should be reinserted and further deletion of it without any justification (as there has been none so far) should be considered vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, Misplaced Pages articles do not condemn, or judge, the subjects. Have a look at the articles on Hitler, or Stalin, or Mussolini. I will continue to delete the text in question. If you really think that is vandalism, then you know the avanues to explore, I suppose, but I feel you will be disappointed. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then remove the judgment if there is any. Noting that he presided over what appears to be at least a few instances of mass murder is not judgment except insofar as most people disapprove of mass murder. (yes, that tag is a joke) If the edits call him evil, then no, no reliable source can confirm that (it's an epistemological and religious question) and it should be removed immediately. But facts are facts, and mass murder is a big fact that should be given a level of attention proportionate to that. —ShadowRanger  22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There may be objections to how AndreaFox2 has worded the section (and the proper way would then be to state these objections here working together with the editor in establishing consensus for a better solution), but the events themselves have more than enough notability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem, the International Court of Misplaced Pages (Panel of Judges: American Teenagers) can declare one of the 20th century's 50 most prominent figures a mass murderer. You twats know fuck all about anything. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The events are notable indeed, just not for this article. To make a comparison, it would be like introducing text on the Franklin D. Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower articles about how American soldiers killed SS POWs during WWII. It is extreme POV to validate wild accusations of personal responsibility by a biased source.

As for my insistence on primary sources, I believe I am fully supported by policy in demanding verifiable sources be presented for such frankly outrageous claims, and I fully intend to continue insisting on them. It may not mean anything in an of itself, but this person is a Legion of Honour recipient, a Knight of the Bath personally knighted by Elisabeth II, a World War II hero, not only in his own country but recognized internationally as well, and here you would have a him proclaimed a mass murderer guilty of genocide without primary sources? --DIREKTOR 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is all very impressive, but getting all these awards does not mean that one should overlook what is clearly deemed notable by most scholars dealing with Tito. And I would urge you to read up on Misplaced Pages:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've inspected all the works dealing with this person? Impressive in its own right. Be that as it may, could you explain what are we supposed to conclude from the fact that some of the authors mention these events in a detailed study of this person's life? I did not say that mentioning this anywhere is POV, I said mentioning this in an encyclopedia with strict standards of neutrality and encyclopedic wording is most certainly POV. Udue weight beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only for the purpose of promoting a conspiracy theory to boot. --DIREKTOR 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are talking about this new paragraph, right? It strikes me as giving too much weight to negative judgements, and too much weight to opinions of individual authors, to go in the lead alone. Critical evaluations of Tito's role must of course have a place in the article, but a full paragraph like this in the lead destroys the balance. However, a statement mentioning the authoritarian and single-party nature of his government seems legitimate for the lead, in my personal view. It could easily be integrated with the previous paragraph, which describes his founding role for the Second Yugoslavia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. As I tried to say earlier I am not perfectly happy with the new section either, so changes to the wording and the placement of it in the article should be discussed. My main objection was that it was repeatedly deleted without discussion and for no legitimate reason, when it clearly contains verifiable facts by reliable sources. To mention the negative sides of Tito's reign alongside the positive ones are certainly not undue weight, as long as those requirements are met.--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree it should not be in the lead. Maybe it could be put in a section called “Legacy” or something and then it can be discussed how writers and academics view his rule. However I think noting that it was a single party state and he was an authoritarian leader are acceptable for the lead. - dwc lr (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that a consensus is building and that the paragraphs complete removal is completely unjustified. This is a very encouraging development. - dwc lr (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello dwc, can't say I'm surprised to see you. I have noticed you are developing quite an interest in Yugoslav history by WP:STALKING me (or "checking my personality", as you put it ). I won't put up with such deliberate "retaliatory" strategies.

I'm frightfully busy at present, FPaS' proposal has merit, and I'll be back with my take as soon as I can (tomorrow at the latest). --DIREKTOR 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I discovered this interesting (but far too common it appears) situation at WP:ANI. I like to help out where I can, as you know I’m a stickler for NPOV. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While a devotion to neutrality is something we apparently have in common, I'm also a "stickler" for harassment. --DIREKTOR 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read your own link, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles…. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases." If DWC LR is following your edits for the purposes of checking on WP:ANI and looking for repeated, related violations of Misplaced Pages policy related to it (as opposed to calling you names and making comments unrelated to your editing work as it relates to the guidelines), it's not harassment in the guidelines sense. I check people's edit histories all the time looking for the same sorts of problems. Though I usually post my comments on problems across multiple pages to the users talk page just to centralize the concerns, that's personal style and a distaste for tracking dozens of articles. It's not inappropriate, it's being a good editor. —ShadowRanger  17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the proposals made till now by all the users (except DIREKTOR, but in my opinion he is simply avoiding collaboration one more time) I propose to reinsert the following "Tito established an authoritarian and single-party regime, which is considered nowadays controversial because of its repressive nature " in the lead and to insert a new section in the article (we could call it "Legacy" like it was proposed) inserting the following "Among others authors and scholars , Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, accuses Tito of being responsible of “massive democide” of more than 500000 people , “mainly “collaborators”, "anti-communists”, rival guerrillas, Ustashi and critics” and “after the war” of “even more people, now also including the rich, landlords, bourgeoisie, clerics, and in the later 1940s, even pro-Soviet communists” . Rudolph Joseph Rummel considers him responsible for an Ethnic cleansing process against “Italian POWs and civilians” , “Moslems and Albanians” and against Germans, arguing he tried “to expel all ethnic Germans in the country” along with ethnic Italians . He considers him responsible of the “Bleiburg and related massacres” and he writes that “forced labor and imprisonment for opponents or undesirables was a characteristic of the Tito regime” too. Some authors and scholars consider Tito responsible for the Foibe killings too.". What do you think? Do you agree? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the nature of the regime should be discussed in the lead as is the case from articles such as the Iberian dictators General Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar for example. The whole paragraph is currently in the article under the heading “Criticism”. - dwc lr (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed only now :). I agree with you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I reverted the vandalism by Alasdair, who is now blocked for his disruptive behaviour, but I agree with all those who say that it does not belong in the lead in full length. Like FPaS and dwc have both pointed out, a sentence about the nature of Tito's dictatorial regime (yes DIREKTOR, a one-party state without elections is a dictatorship) should probably go into the lead.Jeppiz (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

At least as important as including this information is trimming the rest of the article. I'm all for context, but that's what wikilinks are for, not multiple paragraphs of exposition. As is, *any* information unique to Tito (positive or negative) is getting swamped by information on the politics of Yugoslavia, the events of various wars, etc. It's a major weight problem. —ShadowRanger  18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Perhaps the entire section should be renamed to "Rudolph Joseph Rummel's criticism of Tito" ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several other opinions there as well. As I said, though, it could be rewritten and the same goes for the whole article. Regardless of feelings for or against Tito, and I don't have either, I notice that the language is pretty bad throughout the article and that it is written more like an essay than like an article in an encyclopedia.Jeppiz (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

90% of section is based on citing a single source (Rummel), which makes it heavy POV. this was pure vandalism on ShadowRangerRIT's part. He also reinserted some random papers from the Internet that were obviously cherry-picked to support a particular wording in the section, and that hardly qualify as reliable source by the WP's policy, as well as one which I removed because it doesn't support at all Tito's personal involvement in Foibe massacres, as it is cited against (it merely states "Tito's partisans"). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, 90% of this article reads like Tito's fan page so I don't think the major POV problem here is the one critical paragraph. I do agree that several of the Rummel sources could be removed and that more sources could be added. How would you want to expand the criticism sections and which sources do you propose?Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try and distinguish disagreement from vandalism. Also, please say which sources are objectionable; if I check them out and agree I'll gladly remove them, but adding the section tag makes the diff unreadable (I can't easily figure out what was changed). Also, I would like to keep the spacing and punctuation fixes, so I'd prefer to remove the objectionable material again manually without damaging the other edits. —ShadowRanger  20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I should note that the section tag is completely unjustifiable and just makes the whole edit checking harder. One source means one reference for the section, not that the author of the section decided to mention only one prominent academic. —ShadowRanger  20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A heads up on your edits. The first two are clearly justifiable (though I can't help but wonder if the erols reference was itself borrowing from possibly better source material). The third is one of those icky sources that are academic, but not peer-reviewed. I'm fine with deleting it, but understand that you are creating a precedent for this article; a high bar for sources will mean the whole article will likely need to be trimmed since much of it is unsourced or poorly sourced (not a bad thing in my opinion; the historical sidenotes are already out of hand). —ShadowRanger  20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is {{one source}} being removed? Can we agree that 90% of section is based on 1 source? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking sources now. Will report back in a second. —ShadowRanger  20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't I who removed it, but I count several sources, none of which makes up even close to 90% of the paragraph. More than half of the paragraph is based on a single source, and I would agree that that is too much and that other sources need to be added and that a substantial amount of the many Rummel sources could be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Having pruned down the references (the original submitter apparently being unaware of named references and thereby polluting the ref section with duplicates), I will acknowledge that a few more independent references would be good; the most cited ref, and one other less cited one, are Rummel specific. But the books cited appear unrelated, and this doesn't qualify for one source unless it can be demonstrated that they are all parroting Rummel. —ShadowRanger  21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And hey, seconds after I wrote this, DWC comes in with a few additional independent references. —ShadowRanger  21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is still 90% in content based on direct citations from Rummel which is why {{one source}} must stay. Other sources are pretty much irrelevant and seem to be added for trivial statements (the fact SFRJ had one-party regime - it's a common fact that doesn't need to be cited at all). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the tag, although you put yourself in less credible situation by repeating "90%", "90%", "90%" all the time. I guess that what you're trying to say it that much of it is based on one source. 90% actually means 90%, and that is not the case here. Having said that, you're right in calling for more sources and I too think that the tag should stay untill more sources are added. I have a harder time understanding why you deleted the wikilink to Rummel, please use edit summaries to explain your edits, thanksJeppiz (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is already wikilinked in the sentence before, can't you see. Fully linking the tripartite name twice looked quite strange. No it's 90%, it's 80%...what difference does it mean, last night when I first added it it was the only relevant source (and the rest of the sources are for irrelevant introductory factoids that hardly deserve to be cited at all, thus merely faking the impression of "multiple sources" when there is in fact only 1 source for all the relevant material). That section should focus exclusively on the issue of Tito's personal involvement in the disputed events (Foibe, Bleiburg etc.), whose role tends to be overstated by various historians in the service of nationalist ideologies (because Tito as a person was the embodiment of multiethnic Yugoslavia, and by attacking him they're both attacking the attached institution and depriving the events of context - it was common folk without orders that committed the atrocities, not soldiers in the service of regime). Yeah, partisans out of revenge shot dead couple of thousands psychotic Nazi-collaborators who put millions to death in concentration camps few years before the liberation - but is that Tito's personal order/fault/responsibility? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Following up on DWC's suggestions about the lead, I had a look at the pages of the dictators of Spain Francisco Franco and Portugal António de Oliveira Salazar and I agree that a similar lead could be used here. Based on how those articles are written, I would propose the following paragraph to start the lead Josip Broz Tito (Cyrillic script: Јосип Броз Тито, (7 or 25 May 1892 – 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav resistance leader, and dictator of Yugoslavia from 1945 to his death in 1980. He was Secretary-General (later President) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav resistance movement, the Yugoslav Partisans (1941–45). After the war, he was the Prime Minister (1945–63) and later President (1953–80) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and led an authoritarian communist government. That is just a suggestion, very closely modelled on the Salazar article, but I invite comments on it.Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion that inserts POV wording. There is no way the label of "dictator" will be pushed in here. Furthermore, while FPaS' proposal deal with teh authors claiming "authoritarian rule", the insertion of the foibe accusations in this article is without a shadow of a doubt extreme POV, undue weight. A claim of responsibility is a completely unverifiable claim that has absolutely NO basis in reality or any concrete evidence. Guesswork at best, political propaganda at worst. --DIREKTOR 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Misplaced Pages frowns on the usage of dictator in article content. That's why it was excluded from the Augusto Pinochet article (for example). GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, a person who rules a one-party state without free elections is often called a dictator. Do you object to the label for Franco and Salazar as well, or do you find any reason why we should treat Tito differently? As for your assertion that "no way the label of 'dictator' will be pushed in here", I'd like to remind you that you don't WP:OWN this article. It is precisely that behaviour of yours, and the discussion about it at WP:ANI that has brought most of us here. However, if there is a Misplaced Pages policy against it, that's another case. In that case, the word should be removed from several articles of current and former dictators described as dictators.Jeppiz (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least the nature of the government "authoritarian communist" should be included. - dwc lr (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe, the Adolf Hitler article uses a descriptive 'authoritarian leader'. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I believe then that authoritarian is the descriptor used for dictators here. Franco’s says he “established a right-wing authoritarian regime”, Salazars “founded and led the Estado Novo ("New State"), the authoritarian, right-wing government” though both of them are also called “dictators” outright however. - dwc lr (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(I will not be responding to User:DWC LR's malicious stalking here. His involvement is simply a strategy to have his way elsewhere.)

@GoodDay. Feel free to represent the specific sources that hold that point of view, the lead, however, should remain devoid of any such labels (per FPaS's proposal). --DIREKTOR 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It was during the dispute at Augusto Pinochet, that I discovered using dictator was considered non-NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• “Could Tito, an authoritarian leader” - Group psychotherapy and political reality: a two-way mirror‎ - Page 193
• ”The second Yugoslavia was characterized by its authoritarian leader, Josip Broz Tito” - Bosnia-Herzegovina: the end of a legacy‎ - Page 36
• ”An authoritarian leader, Tito, dispensed enormous power” - Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law – page 17. No objections to this being included I hope then. - dwc lr (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sourced and definitely belong in the lead, as it is in the case of other authoritarian rules. Several users have argued for why it should be in the lead, it's sources, and no argument has been made against including it in the lead except DIREKTOR's WP:IDONTLIKEIT above.Jeppiz (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I’m not sure what DIREKTOR is talking about when he says it shouldn’t be in the lead per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise proposal. FaPS said the paragraph now in the “Criticism” section should not go in the lead. But he also said, “However, a statement mentioning the authoritarian and single-party nature of his government seems legitimate for the lead, in my personal view.” - dwc lr (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The current lead of this article is the product of a previous user consensus and is based on the lead used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Now of course, it seems new experts on encyclopedic wording were brought in. Delightful. --DIREKTOR 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with using authoritarian leader as a descriptive in the lead. However, Tito's office was 'President of Yugoslavia' (even though he wasn't elected to it). GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent vandalism POV-pushing by DIREKTOR

It comes as no surprise as DIREKTOR is repeating Alasdair's vandalism rather extreme POV-pushing by removing both the criticism sections and the POV tag. The section is extensively sourced and no plausible reason was give for removing it or removing the POV tag. This constant vandalism edit-warring and POV-pushing by Alasdair and DIREKTOR is becoming a real nuissance.Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point about the POV problems (for one, saying that calling someone a dictator isn't worthy of an encyclopedia is troubling; if historians and other sources call him a dictator, then say that such people have labeled him a dictator). But you're woefully incorrect with these vandalism charges. I've seen both yourself and AndreaFox2 calling these edits vandalism and you need to stop. Our vandalism policy tries to make a clear distinction between what is and isn't vandalism. Any edit made in good faith, whether it be POV, or removes sourced information, or is made without explanation, is not vandalism. Here is a list of examples of what can be seen as vandalism. Nothing that DIREKTOR or Alasdair have done matches any examples, or even comes close. Here is a list of examples of possibly problematic edits that are not vandalism, which may be closer to what has been done in this article, but again it is not vandalism. Incorrectly accusing another editor of being a vandal will only hurt your position in a dispute, and is considered uncivil at the very least. -- Atama頭 22:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Alasdair has engaged in vandalism, the edit he was blocked for was clearly vandalism (though there are more specific terms for it too). DIREKTOR's behavior is mostly related to WP:WAR and WP:OWN, which I agree isn't vandalism. Of course, he has a tendency to label edits he disagrees with as vandalism too. Something about the Balkans brings this out in people… —ShadowRanger  22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama, I think you make a very fair point and I was mistaken in saying vandalism. DIREKTOR is certainly being disruptive, POV-pushing, edit warring and trying to WP:OWN the article, but he and Alasdair, from what I've seen of them, probably see themselves as staunch defenders of the WP:TRUTH. As such, his intention is not to vandalise and I have struck it out in my post.Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You correctly states that "Any edit made in good faith" couldn't be consider vandalism, however DIREKTOR clearly demonstrates that he presumed other users'bad faith and he makes me (and others) think that he is deleting well-sourced sections only because he wants to impose his personal interpretation of Tito. This is called vandalism. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pruned "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" section

Per my previous comments on excessive amounts of detail unrelated to Tito, I've taken a first stab at trimming this section to just those elements that can be argued to relate directly to Tito. Given there is a main article link, I think the parts I trimmed aren't justifiable. If I accidentally impaired readability (a back reference no longer has anything to refer to) please fix up, but try and avoid readding the whole history of the civil war and Nazi resistance in Yugoslavia. —ShadowRanger  21:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I consider this just a first step. I'd welcome any help in pruning the other sections in the same manner, so this article is about him, not the entire history of Yugoslavia, 1930-1980. —ShadowRanger  21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is now officially getting out of hand. --DIREKTOR 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what I deleted? Please tell me how the excessive detail on the war itself is relevant to an article on Tito. —ShadowRanger  21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore the changes immediately, but I'd like input from others. Does anyone (aside from DIREKTOR) honestly believe that an article on Tito is improved by paragraphs of information where Tito's name is never even mentioned, just describing the war itself? —ShadowRanger  21:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s just best to stick to information relevant to the man himself (as this is just his biography after all). There is a link to the main article if people want to read more about that particular theatre of war generally. Are things like “The terms of the armistice were extremely severe” an editors own opinion or has this view been published in a source? - dwc lr (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So you agree with my edits? I was actually rather conservative; anything that mentioned Tito was kept, even though a lot of it was off on a tangent. If you agree, I'd appreciate you restoring the edits I made; I don't want to do it myself as I'm close to violating the spirit, if not the letter of WP:3RR, and I figure relatively large deletions like that should have support from multiple editors. —ShadowRanger  21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it we simply don’t need a complete history of "Yugoslav People's Liberation War". Just Tito’s part in it. - dwc lr (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —ShadowRanger  22:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged involvement in crimes

First of all, "democide" is not a word. It was actually invented by Rummel, and supposedly means "genocide, politicide ('a gradual but systematic attempt to exterminate an independent political entity'), and mass murder". Lets make that clear, for a start, and lets not use fake words in an encyclopedia article.

Secondly, having read the relevant part of Rummel's work, it becomes clear that the author actually did not accuse Josip Broz Tito personally of organizing or ordering these events (indeed that is something even his staunchest political adversaries around here are known to admit). This whole matter is due to the fact that, instead of "Yugoslav government" or "Yugoslav authorities" or simply "Yugoslavia", the author calls the country "Tito's Regime". That's it. All that really means is that Tito was the Yugoslav Prime Minister at the time. This does not constitute an actual accusation of genocide (or "democide") on the part of the author. It in no way implies personal responsibility. The author does not even claim Tito is responsible, and I think it would be a sad day for Misplaced Pages if somebody managed to twist this so completely.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of our venerable "impartial" mediators, this Misplaced Pages article has transformed "The communist partisans and successor Tito regime committed massive democide" into "Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, accuses Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”". Unbelievable. Its like reading a tabloid newspaper article.

I'd really, really like to hear how our impartial mediators explain that "Tito Regime" actually means "Prime Minister Tito personally", but that I am far too POV to understand that. --DIREKTOR 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, the article on democide seems to indicate that he uses the word to avoid overloading the word genocide with too many meanings. The alternative would be to use genocide, which is a perfectly fine word and would cover the situation accurately. But I'm guessing you'd prefer we avoid describing it as genocide too, right? As for how Tito is responsible, it's an interesting quirk about people who seize absolute power; they get absolute responsibility too (apologies if that came too close to the Spiderman tag line; I swear it was an accident). With no checks on your power, you don't have anyone else to blame. —ShadowRanger  00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see Shadow here is the judge and jury. So even if this author did not actually "accuse Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”", you are still going to say that he did because you personally believe that "people who seize absolute power have absolute responsibility" (regardless of whether they were thousands of miles away and had no idea what ragged bands of civilians and soldiery were doing). My mistake then, I forgot Spiderman's Law.

I am going to remove the section until this matter can be thoroughly discussed. This is blatant misrepresentation of sources, and there is no way it is going to fly. I'll repeat: this Misplaced Pages article has transformed "The communist partisans and successor Tito regime committed massive democide" into "Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, accuses Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”". The author talks about the regime, the state, you talk about the person.

You will not succeed in bullying people into this. --DIREKTOR 11:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As a head of state in an authoritarian regime it is obvious that the responsibility would land on Tito whether he was involved or not, and as such it is perfectly notable and relevant to include this information in this article. Of course the wording should reflect this, and as such should be discussed here, but would you please stop wholesale deletion of this section, otherwise it will be necessary to report you for edit-warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 5 December

2009 (UTC)

You can also put it conversely: The wholesale inclusion of a poorly-referenced section containing disputed statements apparently misrepresenting the only credible source (mentioned in 7 out of 8 lines, writing Tito where it has Tito's regime and partisans, as if Tito personally signed death lists), and added by a person of doubtful motives is what should be discussed first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Saddhiyama: you must stop your distruptive behavior on this article. Please confront with the others, don't try to impose your personal (and till now not-sourced) point of view. I am astonished by the question you arose about the world "democide": it isn't a "fake word", it is a "neologism" which was created many years ago and which is used nowadays (http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&source=hp&q=democide&meta=&aq=f&oq=). And as for the question about Rummel "not accusing Josip Broz Tito personally", you committed vandalism by eliminating every reference to his works in the article, as you clearly admitted that you deleted them "having read part of Rummel's work", not even having read all of his work, in which he clearly accused Tito of "organizing or ordering these events". And it is very untrue that "indeed that is something even his staunchest political adversaries around here are known to admit": you must source this and all of your claims. I'm waiting for the time you will source your claims: while waiting i'll reintroduce the section. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly explained in my edit summary, the removal of the section was a temporary measure, until the serious issues with it can be resolved. You may feel free to report me for anything you like, but I am no more guilty of violating WP:3RR than the other users involved in the edit-war, and I shall not be singled out as the only person that has edit-warred. I have brought forth serious concerns on the talkpage (which were largely ignored), while our impartial mediators continued to edit-war thus it "will be necessary" for the other side to be blocked as well. I am no newbie, and I do not appreciate these threats and ploys. Vandalism? Don't make me laugh.

RE: "As a head of state in an authoritarian regime it is obvious that the responsibility would land on Tito whether he was involved or not."

Thank you for you personal opinion, but I do not agree that it is "obvious". You have no idea whatsoever as to what these events were that we are talking about here, so I can see how to you it may seem so. If the author did not accuse this person of personal responsibility, but instead talks about the entire regime/state, then it would be a sad day for Misplaced Pages if someone should succeed in twisting his words and making it seem as though he did. The bottom line is that we are not here to decide on such issues, and that your opinion(s) is irrelevant. I'll say again, using this source in this article and making it out for something it is not is obvious and blatant misrepresentation of sources. --DIREKTOR 12:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is irrilevant that you "clearly explained it": you can't assume as "a temporary measure" "the removal of the section", as you and Ivan are the only one questioning the section (and you have been even suspected of being a POV pusher, so you are not the right person to assume a "temporary measure"). You could (and you can) put a POV tag in the section, you can't keep deleting it till the discussion is over. We didn't agree that it is an "obvious misrepresentation of sources" too, but you felt free to act like you wanted, without dicussing the matter. I'm astonished by the question you are pointing out as it is clearly a pov misrepresentation. Do you really think (for instance) that authors writing about nazi Germany should always point out that Hitler was the head of state to make his responsibilities clear?! In http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM: "Tito regime committed massive democide; The Tito regime itself killed in cold blood some 500,000 people; the most consistent figures (near 1,700,000 killed) is in line with an official post-war total of the Tito government; For the period following the legal establishment of the Tito government (lines 57 to 164) there is a large number of democide estimates; Forced labor and imprisonment for opponents or undesirables was a characteristic of the Tito regime; the Tito government tried to expel all ethnic Germans in the country; Italian POWs and civilians were often killed as Tito's forces crossed the border into and occupied part of Italy; Now we can look at those estimates of the total killed by the Tito regime, ...". I think it isn't necessary to point it out more clearly but as you seem to act like you aren't able to understand such statements, i'll explained them more clearly: a Government (or regime) "is a political entity which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations" and an authoritarian government "is characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state and is a political system controlled by nonelected rulers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Government). By writing about Tito's government, authors are writing about its members (Tito was a member of its government) and about its leader (Tito).

You can't really sustain your point by referring to an uncommon interpretation of common language: if you want to continue to support the idea you are supporting, you need not to interpretate sources but to cite sources in which Tito is presented as not being responsible of those atrocities and as not being an authoritarian leader.--AndreaFox2 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Janez Stanovnik, who I believe is a former Yugoslav Partisan Commander and former President of Socialist Republic of Slovenia said after the finding of mass grave in Sloveina. "the atrocities were obviously committed within the framework of the so called Army of State Security, which was part of the Yugoslav army and was subordinated to the Supreme Command", (led by Tito)……Asked whether this meant that Tito was responsible for the summary executions, Stanovnik said "there is no army in the world where such mass killing could take place without the knowledge of the supreme leadership"”. - dwc lr (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DWC LR obviously has no concept of what he's talking about. Stanovnik is being accused of presiding over the killings (among others), so he is naturally not very neutral, but is strongly inclined to lie in order to shift the blame off of himself and FR Slovenia in general, preserving the reputation of modern Slovenia as well. In either case his "testimony" bares no legal credence and represents his personal opinion.

Please calm down, User:AndreaFox2.

Can we simply concentrate for a moment on the simple and obvious fact that the author is talking about the "regime", the "government", the "apparatus of state", if you like? I'm not going to try and "interpret" that in any way, it simply says what it says, so we are absolutely not going to pretend here it says something else like: "Tito committed massive democide" or "Tito ordered massive democide", we're going to stick to the facts, I think.

This misunderstanding is caused by the author's unfortunate and unprofessional choice of words. Rummel likes to call the government "Tito Regime", fine, in an encyclopedia that translates to "Yugoslav government" (as you've stated yourself). I will certainly not be fooled into going on a wild goose chase to prove a negative, when the positive is as yet not confirmed. Learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is. --DIREKTOR 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate that people were killed by bands of guerillas at the end of WWII (i.e. by the "partisans and successor regime"), there is debate as to whether Tito, who was in the habit of issuing standard orders warning against such behavior, had anything to do with wanton acts of violence. This point is paramount.

I can see that there is still hope that I will be dealt with on WP:AN/I and that no proper response is required until we can be sure it is necessary. Arrogant and malicious. --DIREKTOR 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm calm. The one who seem not to be calm is you when you say "I will certainly not be fooled into going on a wild goose chase to prove a negative, when the positive is as yet not confirmed. Learn what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is" and "Arrogant and malicious". I have ask you to cite sources in which Tito is presented as not being responsible of those atrocities and as not being an authoritarian leader. Answering "I will certainly not be fooled into going on a wild goose chase to prove a negative" is refusing confrontation one more time. You seem to think this article is some sort of trial (i'm referring to your previous post, where you talk about "legal credence"), which makes me suspect that you haven't understand wikipedia's purpose: we aren't here to judge tito nor we are here to apply rules tipical of a trial to his article. We are here to add informations and to support them with sources of academics and historians. Is Rummel an academic? Yes. Are all the other people cited in the sources historians or academics? Yes. Are the sources verificable? Yes. There are sources that deny these sources? No. So the sources are valuable. So the passage can remain. We can discuss about its wording, but you are not making other proposals than deleting the passage. "we're going to stick to the facts": you are right, but you are not presenting sourced facts, but only your opinion and a peculiar world game about "tito's government" and "tito". Please ask my answer. --AndreaFox (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox, if there was a source that states this person ordered the killings, then I would be naturally obliged to seek out a source that denies that (if I wanted to remove such a statement). On the other hand, if there are no sources stating such a thing, then naturally there is no need for me to disprove it. What you are using here is a classic rhetorical ploy called an argumentum ad ignorantiam, a "logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false". Let me say this again, since no presented sources claim personal responsibility, then there is no need to disprove such a claim.

Stanovnik has a vested interest in riding himself and his associates of any blame. His statement is frankly a very flawed argument for a great many reasons besides. Firstly, he comments on the fact that the killings were likely known to the high command afterward, criticizing their alleged cover-up. He does not imply that the command was aware what was happening at Bleiburg during the chaos that reigned at the time of the killings. A cover-up is indeed something Tito might have been guilty of, but an actual order? This is far from it. Secondly, he does not actually claim knowledge of the high command's involvement, but merely expresses his opinion that they "must've been" involved. Its an opinion.

Is Rummel an academic? Yes, certainly. Are all the other people cited in the sources historians or academics? Yes, I suppose they are. Are the sources verifiable? Yes, they are. Does Rummel accuse Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”? No, he does not. Why does the article say he does? I have no idea. The author merely states that "democide" took place while he was prime minister (during his "regime"). The problem is, we already know killings took place, there's no debate there, but we also know there are no sources claiming Tito ordered them (i.e. that he is "responsible"). --DIREKTOR 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Does Rummel accuse Tito of being responsible of “massive democide”? No, he does not. He merely states that "democide" took place while he was prime minister (during his "regime")": why you are the only one not to perceive the non-sense of this adfirmation? Can't you realise that if i say "Hitler's government killed jews" or "Hitles ordered jews to be killed" it's always the same? --AndreaFox (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Presenting a case such as that one for which we know the accusations are factual is hardly a good example for an unknown such as this. Nevertheless, you are right, even in Hitler's case we are obligated to find sources/evidence of personal guilt before writing that the person is personally guilty. --DIREKTOR 17:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources sources sources

There seems to be general disregard for what sources say here. DIREKTOR and Ivan have made the very relevant point that sources saying "Tito's regime" should not be spun into "Tito himself". The task here is to present sources, not to interpret them. When we have sources saying "Tito's regime", the passage should also say "Tito's regime". Another valid claim is the overrepresentation of Rummel in the criticism section, and this should also be addressed. On the other side of the coin, simply removing all criticism based on the points above is not justified. It would be interesting to know how DIREKTOR and Ivan would want the criticism section to look. In other words, instead of pointing out the errors (which you have done, I largely agree with you), try to also outline how that section should be expanded, what it should focus on and what sources you think it should use.Jeppiz (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The overrepresentation of Rummel is due to the fact that the section has been created only one-two days ago and have been deleted so much times that has been impossible to built it up. I'm sure we can found other sources about the same topics. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Top-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• B-Class Croatia articles
• Top-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• B-Class Slovenia articles
• Low-importance Slovenia articles
• All WikiProject Slovenia pages
• B-Class Cold War articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• B-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2009)