Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Josip Broz Tito was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
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
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
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:
I would like to comment on a matter of unreliable sources in the article Josip Broz Tito, Language and identity dispute. As a matter of fact, the sources (Footnotes: 251 & 252) "Nova Srpska politička misao" (New Serbian political thought) and "svedok.rs" (witness.rs) are not reliable because they are far-right-oriented sources which contradict many historical facts and fabricate the facts that suit their way of thinking. Darrad2009 (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you identify which material you feel is inaccurate/contradictory in the cited sources? The sources appear to accurately quote or closely paraphrase material in Matunović's and Dinić's books, and the books exist. Or are you instead objecting to Matunović and Dinić? Doremo (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Of course, Matunović's and Dinić's books exist, but there is nobody to remove them and I don't feel competent to question the reason for that. I believe that one of the reasons is that books are goods which bring money.
The main point is that the entire article is based on "hearsay" facts. Not a single statement refers to any credible source and I'll single out two of them: (1) Mr Vlahović, referring to information from the War Archives in Vienna, "believes" that the real Josip Broz was indeed born in 1892 in Kumrovac, and died in April 1915. as a soldier of the 25th regiment of the 42nd home defence division of the Habsburg army. in the battle in the Carpathians. If he cites information from the War Archive, then he should also cite the archival material from which he got that information!
(2) "Raif Dizdarević, Tito's longtime confidant and one of the last heads of state under the rotating presidency system of the former Yugoslavia, (was trustworthy, but he was never close to Tito to the extent that he could enter his private rooms actually, he lived whole his life in Sarajevo) claimed that Tito held a copy of Josip Broz's 1915 death certificate, which was found in a black suitcase after his death." Note to the second sentence:
Dizdaravić wrote: "In his study in the White Palace, Tito kept some documents in a small safe deposit box. Among them was a copy of Broz's death certificate. It was issued by the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of the Army in 1915, and it was a list of soldiers who died or disappeared - including Broz".
Common sense tells me that no one in their right mind would keep any incriminating documents in their suitcase! Why would he keep them? If he really had them he must've known that they could destroy him if they were discovered! It doesn't take much intelligence to see how reliable the source is!
As far as I remember, in the BBC series "The Death of Yugoslavia" Raif Dizdarević did not mention any of the things stated in this source! Just in case, I'll try to watch it again.
The material you mention / object to is not in the WP article. The WP article appears to use the source accurately to confirm authentic material. Doremo (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I would kindly ask you to read it again; I took material from the WP footnote 251 where the author Vladimir Jokanović refers to Aleksandar Matunović, but the mentioned article was written by Vladimir Jokanović and titled: "Tito's life remains an enigma" and was published in the far-right wing newspaper "Nova Srpska Politička Misao" (Journal of social theory and political research). Darrad2009 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Darrad2009 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
References
Aleksandar Matunović (1997). Enigma Broz – ko ste vi druže predsedniče?. Belgrade.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
The only information in footnote 251 is "Vladimir Jokanović (3 May 2010). "Titov život ostaje enigma". NSPM." The material you mention / object to is not in the footnote. Doremo (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Although the veracity of the content is questionable, I am not objecting to the content itself but to the source which carries the content, namely the newspaper "Nova Srpska Politička Misao"! That source is unreliable! Darrad2009 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
To quote Political Science in Central-East Europe: Diversity and Convergence (2010, p. 261), "In 2001 the editorial board decided to modify the journal's profile by emphasising its website content, designed for engagement in current political affairs... Although after 2001, the journal continued to come out in hard copy format and covered several topics of interest for political scientists..., it essentially turned into a vehicle for the promotion of the political ideology of the national conservatism and support for political parties that embrace this ideology." I would say that anything published by NSPM (especially on its website, but also in its hard copy journal) since 2001 is potentially unreliable, probably unreliable if on the website, and only reliable if in hard copy on an individual basis. The editor of NSPM (while he is an academic) has also been a politician up until recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
This is confusing; you said: "I would say that anything published by NSPM (especially on its website, but also in its hard copy journal) since 2001 is potentially unreliable, probably unreliable if on the website", but NSPM still remained on the website footnote 251. What is the way to remove it? Darrad2009 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
However, the user has not removed the sources in article and he is discussing here: instead the sources inserted by me have been removed without first discussing above in this talk page.--Forza bruta (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Your content and sources have been objected to immediately, whereas the sources and content discussed in this section have been inside the article for quite some time. -Vipz (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong because the rightly added sources should not be removed after two minutes nor after two months nor after two years without valid reasons demonstrated in talk page: you must learn from the user who started this section.--Forza bruta (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"... communist revolutionary, statesman, and later a dictator"
@Doremo: there's no doubt numerous RS can be found to support the perception Tito was a 'dictator', that is not the issue here. I'm not sure whether there is a manual of style related to this, but you can notice numerous articles of traditional 'dictators' do not stack this perception/characterization together with general facts in the very first sentence, but rather opt to properly elaborate on it down the lede: e.g. Fidel Castro, Chiang Kai-shek, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha. No one reading past the first sentence is going to miss this. -Vipz (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. The edit summary ("well it says ...") implied that the edit had been made because the source was not explicit enough. Doremo (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that. I'll also change (the laudatory) description statesman to (the neutral) politician, and recast the "benevolent" bit to reflect the sources. Doremo (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Now I have read it. I don’t personally believe putting “later a dictator” in the first sentence has any issues as a general description of his rule. But I am fine with describing it in other paragraphs too. However, I have also noticed that fascist dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini have been described as dictators in the first sentence. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@LeonChrisfield: there are many points-of-view among academics on a 'general description of his rule' and simplifying it to a 'later a dictator' is devoid of any context, is not WP:PROPORTIONAL and I'd say is WP:UNDUE. On top of that, also what I said about stacking perceptions with general facts. You can compare these articles to their equivalents on the professionally edited Encyclopædia Britannica, then reevaluate when and how proportionally balanced (to academic consensus) is it to describe each individual subject as just 'dictator'. –Vipz (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Vipz, vipz vipz...
@Vipz
You think I haven't read your user page? I know exactly what you're trying to do, I don't want to waste time on ant-fucking around the words "Some scholars".
As much as you would wish him to be, Druže Tito is no perfect saint. Misplaced Pages is not an altar. His crimes, controversies must be covered.
If you are ignorant on what happened to the Germans of Yugoslavia, I advise you to educate yourself on the subject instead. If you know it well but are trying to sideline it... shame on you. Synotia (moan) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I repeat what I told you on my talk page: in the case I am mistaken and you are interested in writing a section/article about human rights under his rule, I apologize for the blunt greeting and look forward to collaboration. --Synotia (moan) 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Synotia: when I told you to "establish consensus on the talk page" I did not mean "post another blatant provocation" like you did here, on your talk page and in all revert summaries. I told you what to do and it's up to you to do it properly. Don't expect me to 'collaborate' with you if by collaboration you mean 'ignore all the personal attacks, accusations, and provocative and inflammatory comments made along the way'. –Vipz (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I told you what to do and it's up to you to do it properly.
wtf? Who are you to talk to me like that? Moreover I don’t know what you’re talking about.
For the third time, I offer you apologies and to work on the article together to include Tito’s more controversial side.
if you don’t want to, that’s fine, but please don’t selectively obstruct me with baseless WP:POV allegations. Synotia (moan) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Captions need to be succinct. Usually, there should not be more than three lines of text in a caption. Captions are not entrefilets—insertions of additional "interesting" facts to serve as examples. They are not supposed to provide context for the prose, by providing extra specificity. Rather, the image provides illustration to the prose, the prose provides relevance and context for the image, and the caption is there as a mere necessity: only to bridge a possible gap between the prose and the image, to make it more certain that the reader will benefit from the illustrative function of the image. The image is not an illustration to the caption; it is not subordinated to the caption. Rather, the image is subordinated to the prose, and the caption is subordinated, very much so, to both the image and the prose. My suggestion is that you add what you think is missing in the prose, to the prose, and not insert a whole unsourced paragraph through a functionally false caption. —Alalch E.20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
