Talk:Josip Broz Tito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeJosip Broz Tito was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

[edit]

This rank is anglo-saxon, but didn't exist in the Austro-Hungarian Army. What was the rank he was actually promoted to ? (Seems rather unlikely to be promoted to a - supposedly meant - senior NCO rank after short period on a NCO school) ... --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

probably Stabsfeldwebel, but West, Swain and Ridley all use the term. OTOH, Vinterhalter says sergeant, per note f. But when three-quarters say sergeant major, that is what we go with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
it seems quite a nonsense, unreliable info. Do you really think somebody can be promoted to such senior-rank after a brief stint with NCO school. Btw., anglo-saxon authors should pay some respect by giving the original rank denominations first, so that the reader can put it in some order. This way: "promoted to Stabsfeldwebel, roughly the equivalent of Sergeant Major". Alas, this "information" seems not serious at all. And this supersoldierly-man Broz, promoted like a Rocket, was, on the other hand, put in jail at Petrovaradin around the beginning of the war in 1914 ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, cut out the POV nonsense and bring some reliable sources like the ones used in the article. Otherwise, I suggest you do something else with your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The information that Tito was ever promoted to a so-called austro-hungarian "sergeant major" is not that credible, at the end of the day...I mistrust this anglo-american authors, you might call "reliable sources", claiming that ! --2001:A61:2A79:7A01:2473:F808:1A1C:1CE4 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You are wasting your time. I couldn't care less who you distrust, they are reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The time cannot be wasted. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead's POV sentence[edit]

It's confirmed in previous sections: sentence While some criticise his presidency as authoritarian and compare him to the brutality of Stalin, many see Tito as a benevolent dictator is POV for most of users who post an opinion in this page! I will introduce Rummel's sources and others in the body of article and later we can change lead's POV sentence.--Forza bruta (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User-admin Peacemaker doesn't understand what POV means: I restore valid material well sourced by Forza Bruta. --Passando (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Forza bruta's edits were a copyright violation, which are taken very seriously on WP. If you restore them, I will report you. The source is WP:TERTIARY and needs discussion in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User Peacemaker, you are administrator but can not make what you want for your confrontational behaviour against user Forza Bruta, who is correct and valid editor: in fact Forza Bruta changed words of enciclopedia and translated source of important English historian! User Peacemaker, I and other users discuss here since past years for neutrality of this article and you remove reliable sources! I can report user Peacemaker for disruption and persistent POV pusher who defends only falsified sources!--Teo Pitta (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYVIO and look up “close paraphrasing”. Competence is required on WP. As I have said, I am happy to discuss possible wording here on the talkpage using reliable secondary sources, but edit-warring copyvio or closely paraphrased material into the article will just result in a block. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
User-admin Peacemaker you are violating the wiki's rules and do not explain why: you removed two sources for no valid reason. You also don't want to collaborate: stop this destructive attitude and respect those users who improve the text with other sources. Regarding the encyclopedic source, you have been invited to change the words by user Forza Bruta in edit summary and regarding Jasper Ridley's source you do not provide a single word. I request to you the collaboration: you can put the sources with words chosen by you. The correct section's title is Presidency and dictatorship because Broz was a dictator. I remember to you: it's possible to put exactly source's words but in QUOTE form and I can restore encyclopedic source as QUOTE.--Passando (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I am violating nothing. It is not my job to fix someone else's copyvio. You claim that is the correct section title, but have not gained consensus here after discussion using reliable sources, you have just made a claim that is the case. It is just your opinion at this stage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
We must respect WP:COPYVIO issue, explained from editor Peacemaker67. As for information that "and ordered execution of Mihajlović and the inprisonement of Archbishop Stepinac fact I don't know why it would be mentioned in his "dictatorship". He is not blame for actions of some others persons from that period(whether they are guilty or not) and the court is from that state and people, not from Tito. Mikola22 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Again I propose this format of section and sources

[Historical debate]

[Criticism]

Democide

Broz is accused of democide by important historians. [1]

His presidency was been criticized as dictatorship which made dramatical bloody repression, supported by OZNA and UDBA, and several massacres of POW and civilians after second world war, such as Bleiburg, Tezno, Yazovka, Kocevski Rog, Macelj, Backa, Foibe massacres, etc.[1] [2][3][4][5]

In the years following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a number of historians have stated that human rights were suppressed in Yugoslavia under Tito,[2][4] particularly in the first decade up until the Tito-Stalin split. Broz Tito's autocracy organized huge system of concentration camps and prisons such as Borovnica concentration camp, Goli Otok, Sveti Grgur, etc. On 4 October 2011, the Slovenian Constitutional Court found a 2009 naming of a street in Ljubljana after Tito to be unconstitutional.[6] While several public areas in Slovenia (named during the Yugoslav period) do already bear Tito's name, on the issue of renaming an additional street the court ruled that:

The name "Tito" does not only symbolise the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia from fascist occupation in World War II, as claimed by the other party in the case, but also grave violations of human rights and basic freedoms, especially in the decade following World War II.[7]

Ethnic cleansing

Tito has also been named as responsible for ethnic cleansing.

He is accused for systematic eradication of the ethnic German (Danube Swabian) population in Vojvodina by expulsions and mass executions following the collapse of the German occupation of Yugoslavia at the end of World War II.[8] [2]

During his tenure as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, the Foibe massacres happened: the killings took place mainly in Istria during and shortly after World War II from 1943 to 1949, perpetrated mainly by Yugoslav Partisans.[9].

The estimated number of people killed is disputed and varies from hundreds to thousands.[10]

The report by the mixed Italian-Slovenian commission describes the circumstances of the 1945 killings as[11]:


It has been alleged that the killings were part of a purge aimed at eliminating potential enemies of communist Yugoslav rule, while others see the main motive for the killings as retribution for the years of Italian oppression and others point out Tito's political aim of adding the Istrian territories as far as Trieste and the city itself to the new Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia[12] [13]. In fact the ethnic map of the area could potentially be a decisive factor in a treaty of peace with Italy.

Nowadays, a large part of the Italian Left acknowledges the nature of the foibe killings, as attested by some declarations of Luigi Malabarba, Senator for the Communist Refoundation Party, during the parliamentary debate on the institution of the National Memorial Day: "In 1945 there was a ruthless policy of exterminating opponents. Here, one must again recall Stalinism to understand what Tito's well-organized troops did. (...) Yugoslav Communism had deeply assimilated a return to nationalism that was inherent to the idea of 'Socialism in One Country'. (...) The war, which had begun as anti-fascist, became anti-German and anti-Italian."[14]

Undue enrichment

Broz is accused of undue personal enrichment by fraudulent gains, which impoverished Yugoslav State's public property; [3]criticism heaped on Broz Tito's lustful lifestyle: from 1974 he had 32 official residences, one of the ten richest men in the Balkans, a communist who lived like a king. [4] Broz Tito constructed huge personality cult around him.

[Favourable]

Journalist and writer Shapiro asserts: ...All Yugoslavs had educational opportunities, jobs, food, and housing regardless of nationality. Tito, seen by most as a benevolent dictator, brought peaceful co-existence to the Balkan region, a region historically synonymous with factionalism.[15] Some historians report his successful diplomatic policies and reputation as popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad,[16] and he was viewed as a unifying symbol, he was very popular among the Yugoslav citizens. [17]

I am ready to accept all your counselsTeo Pitta--Teo Pitta (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources used here are not appropriate for a historical subject. A collection of oral histories? A political psychology text? Hit jobs by his political enemies and alleged victims? We need to be using biographies of Tito and academic historical texts about Yugoslavia under Tito, not this stuff, which is clearly chosen because it is largely negative. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
User Peacemaker, I can put a long list of reliable sources with numbers of alleged killed victims under Broz Tito's political power: Rummel's books and a lot of others historians. If you like Shapiro and this dictator, you see related source in subsection [Favourable] in totally extension and Shapiro is not a professional historian: in neutral format alleged historian Shapiro's sources stay in article's body and not in lead for rubbish propaganda! And if you persist in your POV blatant support to this benevolent dictator in your opinion with persistent disruption-elimination of valid sources, I will start a dispute: no problem.--Teo Pitta (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Teo, my counsel is this: you can put some sources in other sections but your format is correct and that source of the author Shapiro must be in the section Historical debate or Evaluation.--Forza bruta (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Go right ahead. In any dispute you will get shredded on a community drama board, because you are clearly POV pushing and not abiding by the Wikipedia pillar of writing from a neutral point of view, which is all I am insisting on (as well as no copyvios). Your sources are inappropriate, as I have pointed out. They are completely unacceptable for an article on a controversial figure like Tito, and have obviously been chosen to paint him in a negative light. You claim Shapiro is not a historian, but use non-historians yourself. A gobsmacking double standard if there ever was one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
User Peacemaker, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know the books, that denounce the crimes ordered by your benevolent dictator that you want to pass off as a guy criticized by three only historians cited in lead with manipulation-falsification: I know those books and they use words dictator and dictatorship but not authoritarian presidency. However, my proposal is very simple: in lead it is sufficient to explain that Broz was a dictator, then all the other sources must be moved, including sources which are often personal opinions of payed characters like probably mister Shapiro.--Teo Pitta (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Go and read some quality biographies of Tito, that look at his whole career in detail and draw conclusions, not some drive-by comments by non-historians. You are wasting your time here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User-admin Peacemaker, you are a bizarre dude because you pretend the discussion, but now you declare: we waste time. Surely we discuss for a consensus among users who edit in article and we discuss about proposals by editors. I endorse Teo Pitta's proposal: in lead we put just term dictator because Josip Broz was a dictator and we put other sources in section 'Evaluation'.--Passando (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We put in what the reliable sources say. Not the outcome of cherry-picking some weird conglomeration of non-history books that mention Tito in passing, but actual quality biographies and studies of the man that look at him in detail. As I've already said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Beloved Peacemaker, a mass of historians accuse Broz Tito for massacres in actual quality biographies and studies of the man that look at him in detail but the problem is your POV of your personal political vision! I propose to change quickly the focussed sentence because great number of historians criticize this dictator for his crimes and other users edit on article in neutral direction but you and user Tuvixer persist in rollback of neutral changes.--Passando (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence "While some criticise his presidency as authoritarian,[6][7] and compare him to the brutality of Stalin,[8] most see Tito as a benevolent dictator.[9]" is clearly a complete joke, especially by saying "most," which is clearly a weasel word. This is the English Wikipedia, so does it mean most of the English speaking world? Or does it mean most of the world? Or simply most of Yugoslavia at the time? Or most of Serbia today? This is nonsense, and should not be in the article at all. "Some" is also a weasel word, does it mean some historians, or some of the citizens at the time, or some of the citizens of Serbia today? Some of whom criticize him? Again, this is absurdly ambiguous and needs to be refined.Bill Williams (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with user Bill Williams: the sentence is absurd and L.O.L.=lot of lies! I propose this form: "While great number of historians accuse his dictatorship,[6][7] and compare him to the brutality of Stalin,[8] some other historians affirm how most see Tito as a benevolent dictator.[9]"--Passando (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I would support something like ""Although many historians criticize his dictatorship as authoritarian,[6][7] others see Tito as a benevolent dictator, and he was a popular figure in Yugoslavia.[9]" Bill Williams (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to see sufficient good quality evidence that supports the use of "many" (Andjelic is a general text on B-H, and McGoldrick is a general text on national identity, neither are detailed examinations of Tito, so "some" seems better based on the existing citations), but otherwise this looks fine in the short term, Bill. The reality is that, as I have said above, these assessments of Tito need to be based on the consensus of the long-form biographies of Tito like Auty, Barnett, Pavlowitch, Ridley, Swain and West (plus Maclean and Dedijer who are probably both quite biased), not on "drive-past" assessments by authors of general texts on far wider subjects. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that's true, I'll just make it "Although some historians criticize his dictatorship as authoritarian,[6][7] others see Tito as a benevolent dictator, and he was a popular figure in Yugoslavia" because that's still an improvement over the current sentence that states "some" but doesn't even say "historians." Bill Williams (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Lovely Bill, you have forgotten the source comparing Broz to Stalin: this source is important because brutality was used by both dictators! Furthermore see sources listed by previous editors in this talk, including archives, and you can read a long list of historians who stigmatize Broz after his dictatorship and massacres ordered by himself: in fact, numerous historians accuse Broz Tito for related brutalities!--Passando (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Stalin is one of hundreds of dictators throughout history, so I don't think the comparison has any relevance. Why not bring in a source comparing him to Mao? It is an unnecessary comparison considering the two became enemies. Bill Williams (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I see this has been restored. There clearly isn't a consensus here for its inclusion, so I've reverted. Start a RfC for a wider community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ web encyclopedia, in section -Tito's dictatorship-:During the 1970s the economy began to weaken under the weight of foreign debt, high inflation, and inefficient industry. Also, he was under increasing pressure from nationalist forces within Yugoslavia, especially Croatian secessionists who threatened to break up the federation. Following their repression, Tito tightened control of intellectual life. After his death in 1980, the ethnic tensions resurfaced, helping to bring about the eventual violent breakup of the federation in the early 1990s.
  2. ^ a b Cohen, Bertram D.; Ettin, Mark F.; Fidler, Jay W. (2002). Group Psychotherapy and Political Reality: A Two-Way Mirror. International Universities Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8236-2228-2. Cite error: The named reference "Cohen" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ Andjelic, Neven (2003). Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy. Frank Cass. p. 36. ISBN 0-7146-5485-X.
  4. ^ a b Tierney, Stephen (2000). Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 90-411-1400-9.
  5. ^ European Public Hearing on “Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes" page 156 <<Most of the mass killings were carried out from May to July 1945; among the victims were mostly the “returned” (or “home-captured”) Home guards and prisoners from other Yugoslav provinces. In the following months, up to January 1946 when the Constitution of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was passed and OZNA had to hand the camps over to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior, those killings were followed by mass killing of Germans, Italians and Slovenes suspected of collaborationism and anti-communism. Individual secret killings were carried out at later dates as well. The decision to “annihilate” opponents must had been adopted in the closest circles of Yugoslav state leadership, and the order was certainly issued by the Supreme Commander of the Yugoslav Army Josip Broz - Tito, although it is not known when or in what form.>>
  6. ^ "Naming Street After Tito Unconstitutional". Slovenia Times. 5 October 2011.
  7. ^ Text of the decision U-I-109/10 of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, issued on 3 October 2011, in Slovenian language
  8. ^ John R. Schindler: "Yugoslavia’s First Ethnic Cleansing: The Expulsion of the Danubian Germans, 1944–1946", pp 221–229, Steven Bela Vardy and T. Hunt Tooley, eds. Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe ISBN 0-88033-995-0.
  9. ^ "Foibe". Treccani.it. Retrieved 2009-04-27. For the use of other actors, at least a case of German use of the foibe is documented, but disputed. Fascist use of the foibe is still disputed
  10. ^ In Trieste, Investigation of Brutal Era Is Blocked NYT April 20, 1997
  11. ^ Slovene-Italian Relations 1880-1956 Report 2000
  12. ^ Paolo Sardos Albertini (2002-05-08). "Terrore" comunista e le foibe - Il Piccolo
  13. ^ Slovene-Italian Relations 1880-1956 Report 2000
  14. ^ Luigi Malabarba (2004-03-11). "Declaration of Vote" (PDF). Transcript of the 561st Session of the Italian Senate (in Italian). p. 15. Retrieved 2006-06-05.
  15. ^ Shapiro, Susan; Shapiro, Ronald (2004). The Curtain Rises: Oral Histories of the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, page 180. McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-1672-6.
    "...All Yugoslavs had educational opportunities, jobs, food, and housing regardless of nationality. Tito, seen by most as a benevolent dictator, brought peaceful co-existence to the Balkan region, a region historically synonymous with factionalism."
  16. ^ Melissa Katherine Bokovoy, Jill A. Irvine, Carol S. Lilly, State-society relations in Yugoslavia, 1945–1992; Palgrave Macmillan, 1997 p36 ISBN 0-312-12690-5
    "...Of course, Tito was a popular figure, both in Yugoslavia and outside it."
  17. ^ Martha L. Cottam, Beth Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, Thomas Preston, Introduction to political psychology, Psychology Press, 2009 p.243 ISBN 1-84872-881-6
    "...Tito himself became a unifying symbol. He was charismatic and very popular among the citizens of Yugoslavia."

Please remove "Not to be confused with" tag.[edit]

Why there is "Not to be confused with Jozef Tiso" tag here? I don't see how or why Josip Broz Tito would be confused with Jozef Tiso, it even sounds completely different. During the WW2 they were at completely opposing sides. Please remove the tag, it confuses the verified historical significance and difference between the two persons (just see the references on both articles).

Fair enough. I have wondered about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)