This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tuvixer (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 30 June 2015 (→IPA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josip Broz Tito article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Josip Broz Tito. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Josip Broz Tito at the Reference desk.

	Josip Broz Tito was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 4, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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. Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia Top‑importance Josip Broz Tito is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia: Belgrade High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Slovenia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 37 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War 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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force World War II task force Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josip Broz Tito article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

Template:0.7 set nominee

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, April 7, 2009, and January 14, 2015.

His internal policies successfully maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation

This sentence requires sourcing. Indeed some scholars consider that during the period Yugoslavia existed, ethnic hate increased because different (and opposed) ethnic groups were forced to stay together. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone might as well add some sources and statistics that will shed a light on how can an economic policy that results in such high inflation and unemployment rates, economic emigration, balance of payments deficits and debt be called successful. + Tzowu (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It states the period in which there was no high inflation and low unemployment rates. You can not compare the western modernized societies and their economies with the illiterate and primitive societies of Eastern Europe and Balkans. Considering the human material and comparing the economy before 1945 and after 1989 with the economy in that period it is obvious it has been more than successful.

Ethnic hate rose in the period after the death of Tito and especially after 1989 and during the war. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write that he was a bastekball player, an IP wrote it and I removed that, and stop acting as some moderator. Of course I'm not comparing SFRY to western countries, but to other socialist countries of eastern Europe. Compared to them Yugoslavian socialism was also an utter failure. GDP per capita was among the lowest ones, unemployment rates were the highest in Europe, around a million workers were employed abroad... and I'm referring to the 1970s, not 1989.

Anyway, let's start with those citations that confirm this, where are they? "Such successful diplomatic and economic policies allowed Tito to preside over the Yugoslav economic boom and expansion of the 1960s and 1970s." and "...seen by most as a benevolent dictator (Most?? Come on...), due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies". Tzowu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember writing that sentence eons ago, and as far as I can remember it was sourced within the context... Now the whole lede has been jumbled up and switched about and now it looks kind of awkward (and repetitive). If I recall it was placed within the context of the successful policy of workers' self-management.
Tomorrow I'll rewrite the thing, bring in some additional sources.

"Seen by most" is directly sourced. The overall success of Yugoslav economic policies is something for which you can be buried in sources.

And just as an aside to Silvio - it would be great if you kept your absurd, two-bit, cockamamie personal ideas about (ex-)Yugoslav nations to yourself just for once. There's a whiff of that Mussoliniesque, condescending, "Slavic barbarians" vibe you like to spout off so often. And why is this thread all the way up here? -- Director (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start with the burying, cause currently there isn't a single one in favour of it, and (from the sources listed in the article) one that states "At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos." Even John R. Lampe has the late 1960s and 1970s listed as "Yugoslavia descending". Tzowu (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Yugoslav economy is one of near-continuous success, even breakneck growth - up until the slump of the '80s... And a POV focusing solely on the '80s, completely ignoring the "Yugoslav economic miracle" of the previous decades - is not something anyone will be getting away with.

I already feel as free as a mountain bird, thanks, but I do have a social life so this'll have to wait, like I said, until tomorrow. Be there or be square! :) Cheeriebye -- Director (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bad our emigrants in Germany, Austria, Switzerland... weren't informed about the "miracle". Or the United States that sent food aid to this El Dorado of the Balkans up until the 1960s. Or the bureaus of statistics that recorded a continuous growth in debt (OECD Economic Surveys: Yugoslavia 1987, p. 16) and unemployment (Susan L. Woodward: Socialist Unemployment: The Political Economy of Yugoslavia, 1945-1990, p. 377). Even its GDP per capita was much lower than, for example, Czechoslovakia.

The problem with socialism is that you just can't live on humanitarian aid, debt and remittances of guest workers forever. And, well, make Star Trek episodes. Tzowu (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Emigrants were also part of the plan for economic growth. They went to work in Germany, make some money and return here to spent it. They went to work in Germany so unemployment did not grow. That was also the idea of Yugoslav socialism. Funny for some, but it worked. xD --Tuvixer (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly it was around 5 or 6 billion $ worth of remittances, and unemployment (as the guest workers were counted as employed) didn't grow as fast with them working abroad. It's funny cause it's sad. :( Tzowu (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why are you so obsessed with unemployment. There was no unemployment in Yugoslavia, everyone who wanted to work did have a job and even those who did not want to work had jobs because they were not fired. Emigrants were necessary so that the system would work. Ask your friends who are unemployed which system would they like more, and you will always get the same answer.--Tuvixer (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a myth, of course it had unemployment. In 1980 it was 13,8% (not counting those that worked abroad). First country below it in Europe was Spain with 11%, all others had it under 10%. From 1973-1979 SFRY averaged a 12,23% unemployment rate, again the highest in Europe. Ireland was second with 7,3%. From 1965-1972 it was 7,9%, the second one was also Ireland with 5,3%. If we add guest workers as unemployed then these rates go up to 20% or even over it. Tzowu (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Director, use your energy (and your time) to provide sources instead of directing personal attacks to your fellow editors (come on, try to grow, :)!). More seriously: if you want the sentence to stay it has to be sourced. Boldly sourced. In view of the catastrophic events marking the life of the Balkans in the 90's it is relevant to source if Tito's policies were beneficial of not to unite or not the different nations forming Yugoslavia. In the meantime I have been looking for sources ]. A brief perusal of this valuable source will make clear that ethnic hate existed already during Tito's dictatorship and did not rose abruptly "out of the blue".

From the source above: Far from being the great unifier, Tito pursued many policies that eroded unity. In a simplistic, Marxist-Leninist manner, Tito saw nationalism as "bourgeois ideology" and national conflicts as caused by "capitalism." So after the war, with the "bourgeoisie" defeated, he did little to combat nationalism and forge unity. While a common Yugoslav school program was created, cultural exchanges among Yugoslavia's six republics were not intense and with time became rare. No university for all nationalities was created, nor was there a policy of encouraging students to study outside their republics. It was rare for a Croatian professor to teach in Belgrade or a Serbian one in Zagreb. When the media did advocate all-Yugoslav ideas, it was an exception to the rule. This cultural and intellectual autarky of republics helped preserve the traditional nationalisms of various groups.

Concerning the "success" of Tito's policies it would be sufficient to speak about the huge debt Yugoslavia owned to the IMF to show such success.

@Tuvixer. For which reasons (to quote your words) "Ethnic hate rose in the period after the death of Tito"? Don't you have the doubt that such hate was simply repressed (or somehow strongly controlled) during Tito's (mild) dictatorship? Such ethnic hate does not raise in a matter of years. And I am very serious in writing the last sentence. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an interesting situation. Asking for a discussion on talk, then leaving it without giving any reasonable explanation for the reverts, and then reverting everything while asking for another discussion on talk. I'll repeat what I already wrote, "Anyway, let's start with those citations that confirm this, where are they? "Such successful diplomatic and economic policies allowed Tito to preside over the Yugoslav economic boom and expansion of the 1960s and 1970s." and "...seen by most as a benevolent dictator (Most?? Come on...), due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies""

Tuvixer, you said "Citations are provided." OK, maybe you didn't read it correctly, WHERE ARE THEY? These are the listed (unpaged) sources, on what page can I read any of it?

Lampe, John R.; Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country; Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-521-77401-2

Ramet, Sabrina P.; The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918–2005; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-253-34656-8

Michel Chossudovsky, International Monetary Fund, World Bank; The globalisation of poverty: impacts of IMF and World Bank reforms; Zed Books, 2006; (University of California)

And why are you removing the sentence "in which human rights were routinely suppressed", it is directly sourced on page 17 of Tierney, Stephen (2000). Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Tzowu (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to explain his actions, you are trying to change the article and by the most biased manner. You have even changed the text that has been sourced, changing it the way you think things were giving no source that supports your statement. That alone is the reason for a ban. But I did not ask for you to be banned. I said that I will warn you if you continue to break the Misplaced Pages rules, and so I did.

So everything that is cited is going to remain the same.

Yes, he was seen by MOST as a benevolent dictator. His funeral attended state representatives from almost all countries in the world. To be precise from 128 different countries out of 154 UN members at the time. That was more than 4/5 countries in the world. Also the Secretary General of the UN, Secretary General of the Arab League, Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Parliament attended the funeral. The largest funeral in history at that time. So "by MOST" is a powerful statement. From Prime Minister of UK Margareth Thatcher to bishop Achille Silvestrini from Vatican.

So please stop. You can not change facts and you CAN NOT change history. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There, I knew it, you are reverting it because it doesn't suit your views about him. No, that is not a reason for a ban. I know that you don't like the truth about this dictator, which is obvious from the constant threats, but you should check the rules again. I did explain every change I made and gave my own sources, while again you failed to provide a citation from those 3 unpaged sources about the "successful economic policies", although you said that "citations are provided". You also didn't explain the revert of "in which human rights were routinely suppressed", which is sourced. The "benevolent dictator" nonsense is another issue, but you didn't just revert that change.

I'm not surprised that someone who thinks that there was no unemployment in Yugoslavia also thinks that his funeral was attended because the foreign politicians liked him, cause he was popular. Yugoslavia just lost its "Dear Leader" and the funeral was just another chance for the two blocks to test their strength on a country that was on crossroads. And, newsflash, lots of dictators had far bigger funerals.

Now, once more, give me a citation from these sources that the locksmith's economic policies were successful and that it was a reason that everyone loved him: Tzowu (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lampe, John R.; Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country; Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-521-77401-2

Ramet, Sabrina P.; The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918–2005; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-253-34656-8

Michel Chossudovsky, International Monetary Fund, World Bank; The globalisation of poverty: impacts of IMF and World Bank reforms; Zed Books, 2006; (University of California)

It is obvious that you are biased. You have called him "locksmith" which is a term used by right wing revisionists in Croatia, intended to discredit Josip Broz Tito.

It is obvious that you do not have the consensus. So you can not change the Article.

You have changed the text that has been cited, the text in the books, you have even changed that just to create a sentence that is acceptable to your political ideology. Don't be driven by ideology. You can not change the text that has been cited and sourced, just the way you like it. Do you understand that? Leave it be. Misplaced Pages has strict policies for those who vandalize the articles.

Three sources are not enough for you? What is wrong with you?

This is now over. We all have seen your real face. I really don't understand you and other right-wing fanatics who edit articles about the Left. Really, why do you do that?

As for the funeral, I was not talking about number of people present but about the number of foreign delegations. That was indeed the largest funeral, attended by statesman from more than 4/5 counties in the world. More than 200 delegations, and so on, and so on. Even Jon Stewart was talking about the funeral a couple of weeks ago. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

obviously this text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! Why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism?Passando (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

After all the threatening you now decided to forbid me from editing this article? Who are you to tell anyone what they can and what they cannot edit? Who do you think you are? Are you so brainwashed with propaganda that it clouded your mind? Calling him a locksmith is revisionist? Well it was, a few decades ago I would go to jail for this, in the "good old days". I believe that the work camps in Slavonia and Vojvodina for Volksdeutschers after the war where tens of thousands of people died discredit him far more than that.

2 weeks you can't answer a simple question, you can't find the citations you talked about in these three books because they aren't there, you can't explain why you removed the part about human rights violations which is sourced because there is no meaningful explanation, all you can do is rant and avoid a normal discussion. Now tell me who is biased here? Tzowu (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not forbidding anything, just stating the obvious. You have vandalized this article driven by your political ideology. If I call for a Misplaced Pages administrator to see your edits we all know what would happen. You have called Tito a locksmith, you are saying that I am brainwashed, what is next? This is not the vocabulary for Misplaced Pages, thin is an encyclopedia, not a club. You have changed the text of the article that has been cited, what is wrong with you? You have not changed the source but just the text so that it complies with your political ideology, ignoring facts and sources.

You can find 10 sources from 10 different books and authors written by right wing fanatics, even a source that says that Tito was the Satan himself. And that 10 sources would have no weight compared to a single source from a normal and sane person.

You have multiple sources and still there is a problem, well if there is no problem in the article then there is a problem with the editor who has vandalized this article for weeks now. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You should for start read what vandalism actually is here on wikipedia, or more preciselly what is not vandalism. I also can't believe that you still don't understand that the text I deleted is unsourced, and not only unsourced but opposed by both my own sources presented above, statistics and other articles on Misplaced Pages. OK, I'll draw it for you, maybe that will work. So the blue selected text is sourced (together with the "seen by most" claim that is challenged), the red underlined text is not sourced.

Also, does this represent a prime example of a desirable vocabulary on Misplaced Pages?:

"This is now over. We all have seen your real face. I really don't understand you and other right-wing fanatics who edit articles about the Left. Really, why do you do that?" Tzowu (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, lets get this debate club to wind down. I saw this was going into vague territory and decided to keep out of it, but its still going on?? People, this is just Silvio's standard, pointless commenting on "Balkan barbarians" destined to kill each-other forever, for goodness sake - don't give him the satisfaction.

Why is an NPOV tag in the article? What specific issue is being challenged? The title sentence, as it stands now, is indeed problematic. Yugoslavia did enjoy significant economic success, terms such as "Yugoslav economic miracle" and "Tiger of the Balkans" being coined, but of course this is a complicated issue, and there were ups and downs. A Yugoslav "economic boom" is unquestioned, but of course it was followed by a slump during the late '70s and 80s (I'm generalizing)... ironically going on the upward swing in the last couple years.

The bottom line is that the connection between the economic success Yugoslavia enjoyed (in the decades wherein it did), and Tito's popularity (which is itself referenced and pretty much indisputable), isn't sourced. I'm certain I did source it with something... but its now gone apparently and I can't find it in the archives. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok.. The original sentence read "Such successful diplomatic and economic policies allowed Tito to preside over the Yugoslav economic boom and expansion of the 1960s and '70s.". That refers to policies of Non-Alignment and Market Socialism respectively, and the thing was sourced... The key thing to note is that the sentence made no claim as to his popularity being caused by this or that, merely that he presided over them. This was changed later by someone, I don't know whom and I don't know why.. It seems I didn't source the connection (which is probably why I couldn't remember the source :)), and made no claim of a connection. -- Director (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that it's complicated and problematic, I know that you can find sources that will praise its economy, and you probably know that I can find sources that claim the opposite, which is why I removed the mention of economy from the lead in the first place. Why insist on such biased sentences? If we can't agree on not mentioning the economy, let's at least make it neutral, that the economy had its ups and downs, not that it was a miracle unprecedented in modern times. Something similar to this: "He implemented a self-managing system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. The system had periods of economic growth and recession." Tzowu (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Britannica (a tertiary publication summarizing numerous reputable secondary sources better than we could hope to emulate in our wildest dreams) says it best in the least words imo: "under the new system, remarkable growth was achieved between 1953 and 1965, but development subsequently slowed". The original purpose of my sentence was to point to said period as a period of Tito's rule, i.e. his introducing the "new system", and the "remarkable growth" the country experienced as a consequence. I don't think removing this now could possibly be seen as NPOV.

In my opinion, however (and the opinion of several sources I could cite), the "negative" of the "slowing" of development can't be compared to the positive effects of the boom. I mean, that was a boost of such magnitude (truly massive economic growth stats), that us natives can't look out the window without seeing its effects... And what achieved this? It wasn't Kardelj's workers' self management nonsense (which did more harm than good), it was the break with Stalin and Non-Alignment. Tito's diplomacy. -- Director (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I also like Britannica :), but it is very critical about Tito and Yugoslavia, look at the whole paragraph:

"Under the new system, remarkable growth was achieved between 1953 and 1965, but development subsequently slowed. In the absence of real stimulus to efficiency, workers’ councils often raised wage levels above the true earning capacities of their organizations, usually with the connivance of local banks and political officials. Inflation and unemployment emerged as serious problems, particularly during the 1980s, and productivity remained low. Such defects in the system were patched over by massive and uncoordinated foreign borrowing, but after 1983 the International Monetary Fund demanded extensive economic restructuring as a precondition for further support. The conflict over how to meet this demand resurrected old animosities between the wealthier northern and western regions, which were required to contribute funds to federally administered development programs, and the poorer southern and eastern regions, where these funds were frequently invested in relatively inefficient enterprises or in unproductive prestige projects. Such differences contributed directly to the disintegration of the second Yugoslavia."

Yugoslavia had growth when everyone had growth, it had a somewhat higher percentage of GDP growth because its starting point was low, but it had more severe consequences on its economy when the rest of the world was in recession, very much felt in the 1970s oil crisis. Already in the 1970s it had high unemplyoment and inflation levels with debt increasing by 20% yearly. Another citation from his page on britannica:

"The irony of Tito’s remarkable life is that he created the conditions for the eventual destruction of his lifelong effort. Instead of allowing the process of democratization to establish its own limits, he constantly upset the work of reformers while failing to satisfy their adversaries. He created a federal state, yet he constantly fretted over the pitfalls of decentralization. He knew that the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others could not be integrated within some new supranation, nor would they willingly accept the hegemony of any of their number; yet his supranational Yugoslavism frequently smacked of unitarism. He promoted self-management but never gave up on the party’s monopoly of power. He permitted broad freedoms in science, art, and culture that were unheard of in the Soviet bloc, but he kept excoriating the West. He preached peaceful coexistence but built an army that, in 1991, delivered the coup de grâce to the dying Yugoslav state. At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos."

Look at the numbers from 1980 and compare them to other countries in Europe. An "empty treasury" and the highest levels of unemplyoment and inflation in Europe means you did something wrong. Seriously, don't you see a non-neutral point of view there? Tzowu (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Now lets be clear, I most certainly don't think Tito was some kind of messiah and I don't think Yugoslavia was eden on earth... There were ups and downs, both corresponding to general trends in the world economy... I really, really don't want to get into these vapid debates here for the fifty-millionth time.

The sentence was originally introduced to make note of Tito's presiding over the Yugoslav economic boom. I have no problem mentioning the economy also suffered a downturn in the later years... I think its a good idea to just get the original sentence back, and be done with this. Or d'you wanna balance that out with something? -- Director (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the workers self-management should be mentioned, so this would be my proposal:

"(in 1951) He implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries, which brought economic expansion in the 1950s and the 1960s and a decline during the 1970s." Tzowu (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So do you agree with this or not? If I add it Tuvixer will revert me the next second. Tzowu (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tzowu: I wanted to give him the chance to add input. And I think he's perfectly in the right to revert non-consensus additions (especially with regard to Silvio's butchery).

The problem with the sentence is that it states the economic expansion, and decline, were caused by self-management.. I don't think either is really true. Self-management was really an insignificant flop, its market-socialist economics that caused the boom, combined with the diplomatic situation after the Tito-Stalin split.

But I do agree that we should mention self-management, because of the effect it had on the lives of the Yugoslav population. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this: "In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. A turn towards a model of market socialism brought economic expansion in the 1950s and the 1960s and a decline during the 1970s." Tzowu (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, more-or-less... How about "He presided over a move to market socialism that brought..."

Lets wait until Tuvixer returns, though. There's really no hurry.. -- Director (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:, are you ok with the proposed formulation? -- Director (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that anything more should be added to the lead. Maybe just "He presided over the implementation of the self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries." --Tuvixer (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care :). Either formulation seems neutral and fine to me. -- Director (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Would this suit everyone? "In 1951 a self-management system was implemented that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. Tito presided over a move to a model of market socialism that brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s and a decline during the 1970s." Tzowu (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore the original "Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" and a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad" in the first section and replace the last one with "In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. A turn towards a model of market socialism brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s and a decline during the 1970s". It can't be more neutral than this, at least for the views about the economy. Tzowu (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you can't make changes to the article without a consensus. Ok? I and other users have said that no changes are needed. You can see that and you know that. So please stop. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What other users? You are the only one complaining about literally everything even after I and director agreed on a neutral formulation. What possible problem can you have with this change? What bothers you now? Tzowu (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Director does not care. And he said that you have to see what I have to say about it. You have asked this question before and I have given my answer. Then you asked the same question again and I have ignored you. Stop acting like a child. You do not have the consensus, so please stop. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"and I have ignored you" :D, you should really look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I'll quote it actually:

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

Does not engage in consensus building:

a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

If asking a question is "childish", then how would we call your actions? You are ignoring my questions, ignoring what me and Director discussed, reverting everything while you don't even explain why, your behavior is basically: revert - "no consensus" - "go on talk" - "no". Tzowu (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, asking a question is not childish. Asking the same question again and again is childish. Ok? I am not your idiot who will obey all your commands. I have said, but it seems that you do not read what i write, that it would be ok for me to include "He presided over the implementation of the self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries.", nothing more. The administrators have said that you Tozwu and other users can't make changes to the article and have to put them on talk and discuss them here. So you have to go to them about that. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What same question was asked by me? You really don't understand anything, from the beginning of this you are aggressive, infantile and act as this is your article that no one else can edit before they pass your standards. You also provide no explanations for anything you do (because there's no meaningful reasoning for it, of course) and disregard what others are saying. Btw the administrator was commenting the edits of Silvio.

Me and Director had discussed the edits, we managed to agree on something and add both the economic growth and decline in the lead. Need I remind that you didn't participate in the discussion? I must say that I've never seen a user here on Misplaced Pages that asks for a discussion on a talk page, refuses to participate in it and then ignores everything that is written by other users. I also don't expect you to understand this, you'll just keep bragging about "no consensus". Tzowu (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop insinuating. I did participate in the discussion. Everyone can see that. Director said that you have to wait for my opinion. And you can,t remove sourced text. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I support "In 1951 a self-management system was implemented that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. Tito presided over a move to a model of market socialism that brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by a decline in the late 1970s.". Ok? Lets stop this now? -- Director (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that is now in the Article. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

3O posted on removed sourced edit by User Tuxiver

I have right now posted a 3O request concerning this contested section. User Tuxiver continues to threat me of EW but does not really explain why my sourced edit is not acceptable. I hope this 3O will convince him to join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• 3O response: When inserted material is contested and removed it stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include. The source you provide is not currently online or you formatted the link wrong, in any case we cant see if it supports the material you want toinclude. I think it would make sense if you could quote the source here so that we can see what it actually says. Secondly the material you are inserting seems to be both problematic in the sense that it is clearly controversial and that it is someone's opinion that is presented as a fact about what Tito did and believed. If it should be included it probably requires in line attribution to who ever wrote the article that you are citing. But given the controversial nature of the statement it would be better to find a better source, preferably academically published, to write about what Titos views was on the continued integration of the Yugoslavian nation. So, I agree with Tuxiver that the material is problematic and should probably not be included in the form suggested by Silvio1973, and that edit warring to keep it in is a bad idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source now works. And I am in favour of discussing a different way to insert the material in question. For this I need Tuxiver to join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I have said that the source does not work. Now when I see the source, I see it has been taken out of context and misquoted. Again, you are vandalizing this article. We had a discussion for days. Saying that I do not participate in the discussion is a lie. Everyone can see my posts on the talk page. Now you are introducing a misquoted source that is not from a book, which is a example of vandalism and a violation of a consensus and practice on this article that the lead should be sourced from books. I will say again and again and again that you are vandalizing this article. Please stop. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, the source says verbatim what I wrote. I have however reverted to your edit to show my good faith. Can we discuss now? Also because if my source is out of context, your current version is not sourced at all so I do not see where is the improvement with your version. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It does, but you didnt format it as a quote, so including it like that would have been plagiarism. Secondly the source is a summary of a book by Richard West that makes a revisionist argument that contradicts the established view that Tito maintained peace, saying that rather he personally benefited from maintaining division. That argument can perhaps be included, but it cannot be stated as fact. You would have to rewrite it in a way so that it is clear that this is Wests argument, and that it is not universally accepted. You will also have to cite West himself and not a secondhand summary of his book.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You got the 3O you wanted. Will you now please stop? Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, you need to start to engage in meaningful dialogue, as well. Tellingsomeone to stop is not dialogue and it is not respectful. You also falsely accused Silvio of vandalism. Step up your game, provide some better sources and strive to form consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, you posted an entire unsourced section but pretended my text is controversial. Also pesterised my talk page without any reason. I have no problem in reformatting my edit, indeed I would be happy doing so. But you just revert to your edit and accuse anyone else of vandalism.Silvio1973 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been disrespectful. It was not my intention. The article about Winston Churchill has in the lead only one source, the article about FDR has 4, the article about de Gaulle has 5 and the article about Tito has 19. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Or is it a pattern? Where have I "posted an entire unsourced section"?

Manus, do you really think that a consensus can be achieved with Silvio1973 on the other side? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not required in the lead, this is because the lead should only summarize the rest of the article and all information included in the article should already be sourced in the body of the article. SO yes, you are right, the amount of sources in the lead is excessive and it suggests that there is a problem with the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, please stop this play. I have rephrased my edit. If you are not happy you can change it and we can discuss, but try to do more than just reverting (and please stop pestering my talk page). Yes, the section just before my insertion is unsourced. Your apologies are accepted. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't ignore what manus wrote. Read again what he wrote. He was very clear. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:1

Of course Tuxiver has reverted without discussing. So typical. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You should probably start discussing before adding this material. Your new phrasing is just as bad as the previous one, it stats Wests opinion as fact and implies that all other scholars are mistaken.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus I Agree, I should have discussed before. Indeed I have exactly the same problem with the section of the lead affirming Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies and a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad. One source is used to imply that the most of scholars say the same. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Manus wrote and I quote: "When inserted material is contested and removed it stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include. " That is his first sentence in this talk page. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The opinion of West, does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the body in a discussion about Tito's view on the ethnic divisions. And it has to be explicitly attributed to West.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen.. Silvio doesn't care about BRD. His addition absolutely must go in, stated as fact, without qualification, in the first sentence probably - because he agrees with it. Its got some half-baked link behind it, donchaknow: its "sourced", therefore its absolutely accurate, regardless of whether its revisionist tosh or not. Its "so typical" of Balkans barbarians to disagree with this perfectly logical position, and demand that he discuss it before engaging in another of his edit wars.

On the other hand, when something he doesn't agree with is supported by several scholarly sources (see above thread), then we must be civilized and accommodating, we must "compromise" with him and his own personal appraisals of the accuracy and reliability of a half-dozen scholarly publications (listed complete with direct quotes). As if those aren't worth considerably less than the bytes they occupy on Wikimedia servers...

Folks, I've been here over and over again. This is silvio's mo. I've pointed him to WP:V and other policies over and over again - he just doesn't care. If he's ever to contribute on this project, the need to follow the most basic guidelines must be impressed upon him somehow. Otherwise there's no point even talking to him: he just won't accept your position. He'll simply conclude that he must add several more coats of sycophantic slime to his often-barely-intelligible posts. -- Director (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is West's opininion and deserves to be in the article, although perhaps not in the lead. Director, you should really learn to discuss the edits and not the editors. If you were less confrontional no doubt I would listen more to your arguments as I do listen to those of other users. Concerning this article I am not the only one user affirming it is POV.

@Tuxiver, I hope we can discuss about this. Being blocked both of us a second time would be not good idea. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You know I thought it was the height of arrogance for someone to presume one's opinions should count as counterweights to scholarly publications, but you've managed to go beyond that. Not only do you think your irrelevant opinions are something we must "discuss" and bother around with - you also think they're shared by the entirety of the Western world. They're the "Opinions of the West" xD. Now I guess we know why you're so important: you're the respresentative of the West... against "Easterners", I can only presume? :)

I'll repeat once again: your opinions are worth considerably less than the bytes they occupy on our servers. They concern no one but yourself. Goodbye. -- Director (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Director, once again: comment about the edits and not the editors. It would make everything much smoother. BTW, funny to read that you still divide the world in "Easterners" and "Westerners"... Are you aware that since Tito's departure a few things happened on this planet? :) Silvio1973 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be surprised you're making fun of me for something you actually did ("it is West's opininion ") and I parodied, but frankly - you do that often, and the only thing that shocks me is this time I can understand you while you're embarrassing yourself. -- Director (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard West is the author Silvio is wanting to include... Oh man, this is good stuff a la Seinfeld :D FkpCascais (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes.. yes it is :D Al sta ti stvarno pratis moje komentare, il sta?

But there's a reason I misunderstood his meaning: its completely in line with what he usually comments (as in the "ex-Yugoslav barbarians" being opposed to the "peaceful countries of the West")... -- Director (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahah :D No I follow many discussions regarding our region, this one I followed ever since the thread about the "benevolent dictator". I also know a bit of your concerns regarding Silvios view of barbaric Yugoslavs. No problems, keep on, regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Kani se čorava posla.. :) -- Director (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

This article is constantly manipulated by a titoist gang with which it is impossible to find an agreement: the ongoing dispute requires the intervention of administrators! We have not reason to discuss with titoists who edit on blatant commission! I have already alerted an administrator! I suggest to titoist gang don't insist because we honest users are in superior number!Passando (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Up there in the talk you can see the discussion. Calling someone by names will not do any good, you need to try to work on a consensus, not insult users. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando, I would suggest you heed Tuvixer's comments. If you have issues, be very specific and the editors will discuss it here. Do not come here calling names. JodyB _talk 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

dear JodyB I consider Tuvixer and PRODUCER obvious Director's sockpuppets and Passando's version only a provisional rewriting: in this discussion you can find all comments against titoist POV by 1.000 users and Tuvixer made edit war against Silvio1973Teo Pitta (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Teo JodyB is an administrator. Listen to him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

reported case of titoists in ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulated and mystified sources--Passando (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando, do not remove sourced material from the article again. You will not edit war. If you wish to create a criticisms section then bring your sources together and we will discuss them on this talk page. Second, stop accusing editors of being Titoists. It will not work. Come here with a respectful attitude and a scholarly approach and you will be welcomed. Take a moment to breathe and settle down. JodyB _talk 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have personally used a RfC instead of an ANI to report this concern. However, the issue is real. IMHO the article is non-neutral. Indeed, what is non-neutral is the lead rather than the article in its whole. And other users (see above in this Talk page and the related archives) have raised this concern. Some examples:

1. 'His internal policies successfully maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation.' This sentence is not sourced. Indeed I provided a source stating exactly the opposite, but my edit has been reverted and qualified of revisionist. And possibly the scholar is revisionist. And so what?
2. 'Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator'. Indeed one source claims that, but the way the lead is written suggests this opinion is shared by the most of the sources.
3. In the lead the first five lines report 14 sources. Too many. The sources are used to selectively report a POV description of Tito, instead they should be used in the rest of the article. The lead in the actual state is not the summary of the article, but rather an article on its own. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I confirm Passando's alarm because I know those books and no historian claims 'economic boom' and political success of Broz Tito but the citated historians, in article's introduction, criticized dictator very much: in actual version there are sources which are fakes! John R. Lampe, Sabrina Ramet and Michel Chossudovsky never reported economic expansion in any historical period but are strong critics versus Broz Tito's beast genocide of Yugoslav citizens: I was born and lived under titoist dictatorship then know my friends imprisoned and assassineted by OZNA and UDBA; there are 1.000 verifiable sources which confirm these historical facts, not fakes or propaganda's inventions! But in previous versions of article were links with yugoslav gulag of Goli otok, Sveti Grgur, etc. and in section were sources of repression and ethnic cleansing but user PRODUCER removed all in a single edit without administrator's sanction or control! Teo Pitta (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Since Teo Pitta asks for my opinion, I agree with him that pro-Tito bias and misuse of sources have long been a problem on these pages. However, these things run both ways : for example, I am currently busy trying to correct pro-Mihailovic bias on the French wikipedia. We should definitely not fall into an opposite extreme by presenting Tito as the worst guy ever.

   It is perfectly possible to present in an unbiased manner, by a balanced use of the sources, all aspects of the problem. Tito's regime was indeed very bloody and repressive in the first years, yet it did become relatively "benevolent" (as far as communist regimes go) later on. I's not that contradictory, and this is what makes the subject interesting. Also, the "economic boom" must be relativized, but Yugoslavs were indeed better off than most inhabitants of the Eastern bloc, and Tito was indeed successful in maintaining a balance among nationalities for many years. It is perfectly possible to mention all this without turning the page into titoist propaganda. What I'd recommend is to use some good sources and stick as close as possible to what they say (I'd recommend personnally John R. Lampe's Yugoslavia as History, about the whole period. Stevan K. Pavlowitch's Hitler's new disorder is a fine book about the war years). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The number of users bothered by the bias of this article surpasses by far the number insisting in leaving this bias unchanged. Why nothing changes? Why all changes are reverted by those same users without any action taken against? This article seems written by Tito himself not to speak about the way the sources are used. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone think its kinda weird all these users, appearing in such a short timespan, happen to be from Italy? I mean this the most prominent Yugoslav historical figure so it really isn't strange, in terms of Misplaced Pages, to see users from former Yugoslavia discussing on the talkpage. But this bunch of guys appearing out of nowhere like this, with little or no edits outside this article? Come on. Its a POV-pushing "gang" (to use "Passando's" terminology). And since there are at least a dozen individual accounts blocked for Italian-nationalist POV-pushing in the Balkans articles, I'm betting we're seeing socks of blocked users as well. This is further indicated by the mention of User:PRODUCER, who's been retired for almost a year now, but did participate in opposing the aforementioned blocked accounts.
Apparently Silvio1973 can still (transparently) mobilize a decent bunch of SPAs and sockpuppeteers from itWiki.

To address the silly "points" brought up by Silvio1973 (which are virtually trolling in my opinion):

• "1.": That's a WP:BLUE statement, entirely supported by general bibliography. Virtually any biography of Tito describes him as a stabilizing factor in Yugoslav politics, in terms of suppressing inter-ethnic antagonism. Support can be found in less than five minutes .
• "2.": Silvio1973 would like us to change a sourced statement based on his lack of English skills. The statement is sourced in the specific wording, and further sources for Tito's popularity (in general support of the statement) are both listed there in the article and can be found at the drop of a hat. This has been demonstrated above to Silvio1973, but he continues trolling. He further seems to think the sentence implies something about "most" sources, rather than people, which I can only ascribe to a lack of English skills.
• "3.": I agree with this point! The lede is just sourced far too well! We must put an end to the bias..
• "Point numbered as 1. for no discernible reason": Silvio1973 does indeed often like to subject us to his musings and opinions here on Misplaced Pages - that I know already, so.. no new information here. I for one encourage him to get back to us as soon as he publishes his paper (suggesting I miei pensieri su Tito as a title? or Miei sentimenti per tito?). -- Director (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not mobilized anyone. I can see in this talk page a few users concerned about the way this article is written. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have. Do not insult the intelligence of the participants here. Not only are they canvassed from itWiki, they are obvious socks/SPAs of previously-indeffed sockpuppeteers. As evidenced by, if nothing else, the reference to producer.. they never were a very clever bunch. -- Director (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Director, what's wrong with you? You see enemies and conspiracies everywhere. Are you sure you are fine? I have not canvassed anyone and I had not heard about those users before. The issue is that this article is very controversial so whenever the discussion arises, many users contribute. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Many users" that are supposedly new on enWikipedia, but talk about editors that retired a year ago? Just who do you think you're kidding here? I sniffed out dozens of sockpuppeteers on this project, but this is kindergarten-level transparency. As for your borderline-insults regarding my mental health, I'll take them in stride with the borderline-fascist comments you like to post in that same tone. But, for future reference, do please bear in mind I have a zero-tolerance policy for such disgusting conduct: I happen to know what paranoid schizophrenia is, what it looks like, and what it does to real people. Next time such comments will be posted where you can explain your apparent concerns about my health to the community. -- Director (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... What I can answer to this new load of attacks? Take a break and breathe Director. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am turning to admins: user Director asserts Broz Tito most prominent Yugoslav historical figure and this dogma or assumption, in his mind, attests my reason! He wants apologetic static article and protects it at any cost, in blatant violation of wikipedia's rules. In my opinion, king Alexander I was most prominent Yugoslav historical figure, but I never did edit in Alexander I of Yugoslavia. User Director has this attitude since his first edit in article, insulting, calling names, assaulting 100 editors who notify huge POV in this talk and always remove POV's tag like a sentinel who shoots on sight. He talks again about socks with this curriculum: example he was also banned but his account was unblocked in same day Passando (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You have turned to administrators and they have said to you what you have to do and what you have to stop doing.

Most of the things you said about Director, you were actually saying about yourself. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Fully protected for a week, discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary. --kelapstick 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando's proposal

This is my proposal for introduction:

He was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980. During World War II he was the leader of the Partisans]. He gained international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.

He was General Secretary (later Chairman of the Presidium) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav guerrilla movement, the Partisans (1941–45). After the war, Broz Tito and his titoist followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship: he was the Prime Minister (1944–63), President (later President for Life) (1953–80) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). From 1943 to his death in 1980, he held the rank of Marshal of Yugoslavia, serving as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav military, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA).

Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from 1943 to 1991–92. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he was also the first (and the only successful) Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony. A backer of independent roads to socialism (sometimes referred to as "national communism"), he was one of the main forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement, and its first Secretary-General. He supported the policy of nonalignment between the two hostile blocs in the Cold War. In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. He remains a very controversial figure in the Balkans.

I am waiting comments and suggests: in next days I will propose section -Criticism-Passando (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The introduction is just fine as it is, so nothing should be changed. Don't start the discussion all over again, ok? See up here, on the talk page, that we have/had the discussion about the introduction. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of silly and offensive titoist propaganda is basic job: dictator's promoters tell tall stories with unwarrantable and unreliable sources in actual article's head; titoist economic expansion and economic boom are and funny lies. Passando's proposal is acceptable article's start: I suggest to mention captivity in Russia and participation in soviet and stalinist affairs. All you consider this point: the same promotional sentences, in provisional actual version's head, are also in various article's sections, therefore organized propaganda appears sure! If, in provisional actual article, there are reliable sources relevant dictator's few good opinions by some historians, we can put these sources in section called with two parts called and .Teo Pitta (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The current introduction suffers is IMHO of a basic issue: does not reflect the content of the rest of the article. More precisely does not contain any reference to any criticism. Indeed does not even mention anything about Tito's internal policy or that under Tito Yugoslavia political system was one-party. For the sake of clarity I want however to stress that except the introduction this article is globally sufficiently balanced and well sourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Teo Pitta

Please Teo do not engage in a edit-war, and make your point on the talk page, ok? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Teo added tag in correct manner: I reported this situation to adminsPassando (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu

@Tzowu please do not engage in a edit-war. You have the talk page where you can make your point. But you need a consensus to change the article. Try to work on a consensus here, please. As stated above, you can not change the article if you do not have the consensus, so please show good faith and discuss your problems here and try to work on a consensus, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I'll draw it for you Tuvixer yet again. The blue selected text is sourced, the red underlined text is not sourced. "Domestic and foreign policies" is a wider encompassing wording that the current one which is not sourced and is opposed by other sources. Tzowu (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is great that you have stopped edit-warring. :) Now read the discussions, you can find the if you scroll up. There has been achieved a consensus. You will see. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to read that from a user that never entered an edit war on this or other pages. The "consensus" (its interesting that you call it that way, because you would still oppose that if it wasn't for director showing up) was not to keep "succesfull economic..." in the sentence I changed. Now what is your problem with this change, besides that it was made by me? Tzowu (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please read the above sections. We can't start the dispute all over again, that would be idiotic. So please read the above sections. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

:D OK, please give me quotation where in these sections above was agreed that "due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies" should stay.Tzowu (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to consider creating a RfC. You clearly need some wider input. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a RfC really needed for such a small edit in wording? It doesn't even change the meaning of the sentence, it's just more neutral. Do you agree with it? Tzowu (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking you should RfC anything mildly controversial with this article as a circuit-breaker from the edit-warring, not just this one issue. I'm butting out of this, I don't know enough about Tito, especially post-war. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was finished..? What's going on now? -- Director (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, we have to discuss every word, comma and full stop. The current sentence is "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies and a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad." Since Tuvixer doesn't want it to be removed, I'm proposing a change from "due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies" to "due to his domestic and foreign policies". It's in my opinion more neutral, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence and also gives more hits on google books , while the current version gives only results for publications based on Misplaced Pages. Tzowu (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing is quite clear. As things are now, Tzowu's edit corresponds more to the source than the version Tuvixer rolled-back. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is funny how you guys are starting a dead discussion like it never happened. That is sad. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That is true, Silvio. Of course, we still have no explanation in why a sourced edit is reverted and an unsourced one is left. Tzowu (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer, I am also surprised. Perhaps Tuvixer can give us an explanation. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks that Tuvixer can revert edits in less than 10 minutes but it can take more than a week to have an answer. Tuvixer, can you please explain why you keep reverting Tzowu's edit? --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the discussions, you can find them if you scroll up. I am not going to explain again to everyone who does not read the former discussions. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I did read the discussion but can't find a valid reason for your edit. Your edit clearly misrepresents the source. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, we are not mind readers. Can you quote the part of those discussions that you think denies the right to remove an unsourced sentence and replace it with a sourced one? Tzowu (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-Aligned Movement

Why do you want to remove that sentence? --Tuvixer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's redundant. In the first paragraph it says: "He gained international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with...", then in the fourth "he was one of the main forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement, and its first Secretary-General. He supported the policy of nonalignment between the two hostile blocs in the Cold War."

There's no need for it to be in there twice. The broader problem is that the lede is too long and badly organized. Per WP:LEDE, the lede is supposed to summarize the article. In particular, there's too much biographical detail in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much detail and as I already wrote above the lede currently does not summarize the article. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Volunteer Marek is not familiar with the practice on this article that was imposed because of some users who want every sentence in the lede to have a citation. Volunteer Marek, because of that you have to present the changes on the talk page first. You understand?

The ledge is too long? I mean, is the ledge of Winston Churchill too long, or is the ledge of Franklin D. Roosevelt too long? It is not too long. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

First, it's "lede" not "ledge". Second, I don't care whether the lede of Winston Churchill or FDR articles is too long or not, this is not an article about WC or FDR. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Third, don't talk down to me with this "you understand?". I've been on Misplaced Pages for eight years longer than you have. Fourth, the tag I added - and one which you removed without discussion - provides useful links to the relevant guidelines. Here they are again: WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:LAYOUT: The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. And obviously cutting out redundant info - which is the part you completely failed to address in your response - is what one would hope would be a non-controversial way to cut it down. Fifth, I don't see anything about established practice or any kind of sanctions/restrictions imposed on this article, although I figure there's a couple of Balkan-related ArbCom cases that might be pertinent. Regardless, there's no presumption in favor of existing version on Misplaced Pages and there's no tyranny of the status quo. Misplaced Pages articles are improved via editing and the making of changes. You cannot hold an article hostage (see WP:OWN) by insisting that even the most trivial changes be discussed first (and judging by above discussion, then engaging in obstinacy and obfuscation in an attempt to make sure these discussions go nowhere).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of citations in the lede, ideally the lede should have no citations. The lede is a summary. So if the info which it is summarizing is cited in the main text, it doesn't need to be cited in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Please stop edit waring. You do not have the consensus. That is how Misplaced Pages works. If you do not have the consensus you need to work on one. Please stop changing the article and try to work on a consensus, don't be a bully, please. You need to discuss this on the talk page. And yes I know its not "ledge" the browser auto-corrected me. And definitely the lede is not too long. You can't ignore the facts. I really don't know why are you saying that. Please can you explain, because you can't ignore the fact that WC and FDR have even longer lede. So please explain what do you want to change, and we can then work from that. Also you can ask for a 3O. That always went really well on this article. :) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, you can't accuse others of edit warring when you yourself have violated the 3RR rule by making four reverts in less than 24 hrs. Add to that your recent blocks for edit wars on other articles. You also appear to have a misunderstanding of what WP:CONSENSUS is. It does not mean that one person - you - gets to hold an article hostage, especially in violation of Misplaced Pages policies or resisting even non-controversial changes. And again, I don't care if WC and FDR articles have longer ledes. That's something to be discussed over there. I've pointed you to the relevant guideline, WP:OTHERSTUFF and here I am doing it again.

My edits are self explanatory. I've removed redundant info from the lede. I also think there's too much unnecessary detail about where exactly he got sent, whether he was the sixth, fifth, seventh or the eightieth child etc. which simply does not belong in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And why did you have to be so mean? You could have explained it very well. Please, you are not familiar with the other users who are trying to vandalize the article. You can see that the lede has 18 citations, that is all because those users are asking for all the sentences to be cited, but when they make changes they do not provide the citations. You can understand why I am being cautious. In my country Croatia, there is a rise of right wing nationalist fanatics and they pay some users to edit Misplaced Pages and spread their propaganda on the internet. You can also see the tensions in the nearby Macedonia and it all can escalate in a horrible event, orchestrated by the same people who are behind those users. Are you ok with the current version of the lede? Tnx. There is really no need to remove the information that he was born in Kumrovec. Maybe you do not understand that because you are not from Croatia, but that information is very important. Also why did you remove that he was the only successful Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony? And why did you remove that he distinguished himself, becoming the youngest Sergeant Major in the Austro-Hungarian Army of that time? It is even cited. The current formulation is historically incorrect. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes Marek, user Tuvixer has been holding this article hostage. The user reverts any edit and also insists in replacing sourced material with unsourced one (please see previous section on this talk page). Silvio1973 (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You guys have been proven wrong so many times and you are still trying to change the article. Please, stop this. Now tozwu has seen a chance to change the article. But I will not pass. Why you guys don't ask for a 3O?? Are you afraid of it? Please stop terrorizing this article and follow the rules of Misplaced Pages. Your fanatical idea to cite all sentences in the lede is insane. Please leave the article as it is, ok?

It is symptomatic that you are only trying to change the lede. Why is that so?

The lede is not too long. If that is so then almost all are. xD Please stop terrorizing the article and engage in a constructive discussion here on the talk page. do not insult other users and please do not ignore what other users have been saying. Ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer, you should really not come here calling names. You have already crossed the line and there is already enough on this talk page to make you reported and possibly blocked. Please stop accusing your fellow editors of fanaticism and political extremism and change your general attitude. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is possible to have a compromise here. By looking to this set of edits done by Tzowu, I think the removal of "successful" at the "successful economic and diplomatic policies" is OK because successful is a vague word, however I am not so sure about replacing "economic and diplomatic policies" with "domestic and foreign policies" is correct. I would prefer to leave "economic and diplomatic" since it is sourced and more specific. Then regarding the family and A-H army I am OK that the part is shortened, its not a big deal. Regarding the part leaving Cominform, I do think the fact that he was the only one to have succeded in leaving is important, although it would be preferable to have it in prose and not in parentheses. What I oppose is the first addition regarding the "human rights being routinely suppressed". Tito was a dictator, and despite the wording being sourced, I don't think there is consensus among historians about such strong wording, and it doesn't seem to belong to the lead but rather in the article body. FkpCascais (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair comments Fkp. Yes, Tito was a dictator. Not the worse one and possibly his dictatorship was one of the mildest during the XX century. Still his one was a dictatorship and in this sense a mention about human rights has its place in the lede (and it's sourced). You say that it might not be consensus among historians about "human rights being routinely suppressed". I agree but is there consensus among the historians about him being considered "by most as a benevolent dictator"? I don't think so, but this sentence is in the lede. However, instead of "human rights being routinely suppressed" I propose "Concerns about the respect of human rights raised among historians".Silvio1973 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fair. FkpCascais (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But what human rights? I mean, today human rights are suppressed every day, and no one calls Obama or Merkel a dictator. It should not be in the lede but in the text. Every country in the Cold war had human rights suppressed. And no one is saying that he was not a dictator. The country needed a dictator to make essential reforms and he was successful. He modernized and industrialized Yugoslavia and ended illiteracy, he also kept Yugoslavia together and made it one of the most important actors in the world theater. Defying Stalin, and so on, balancing the position, Non-Aligned Movement, and so on. He was the most important person in the history of our nations and the most important person to come from Croatia, and always such unique figures, call them leaders have a good side and a bad one. In this case the good side prevails. He turned a agrarian country stuck in the 19th century to a modern 20th century socialist federation that had influence across the globe. And if you ask someone that had lived in Yugoslavia, 99% will tell you "if Tito was really a dictator then I want a dictator, it was better than than it is now", and that is a fact. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

He had all those positive aspects, but we cannot ignore he was ruthless against his adversaries... Goli otok, domestic nationalists, Ustaše, Chetniks, monarchists and pre-WWII burguesie, Italians, Germans, then internal opposition in the CPY, etc. Ends up being correct to cover all those aspects. FkpCascais (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We all agree Tito was a dictator, and he was - but certainly of the "benevolent" variety. Many sources use that term (just have a look, I count about 200 sources), I don't add such things to leads of articles if I can't defend them well.

As regards concerns on human rights, I've no doubt historians have raised such concerns, but do they warrant mention in the lead? Such statements will need to be lavishly supported in order to warrant inclusion into up there. In my opinion, however, no such things is warranted: scholarship is chock-full of positive appraisals of Tito's reign, and the matter regarding "violations of human rights" is very much disputed along the left-right divide (both in the local public and in scholarship). It falls into the category of him being a "controversial" person - and a statement along those lines is imo the best way to represent all that in the lede.

As food for thought, when we talk about Goli, (the prison for Stalinists, with Stalin's army at the border arming for invasion), lets recall President Obama still has Guantanamo running, and yet we wouldn't have "violations of human rights accusations" up there in the lead, would we?

P.s. I certainly disagree that the lede is "too long". Its not my lede, mind you, what I wrote eons ago has been jumbled about pretty badly and expanded considerably, but in terms of size as such - its not too big. It could be tighter, I'll grant, but its really not too long as such. -- Director (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, it is very likely Tito was the "best" possible product of the communist ideology. It could also be discussed if the use of a ubiquitous secret police and the violation of human rights were functional to preserve the unity of the country and to avoid the rise of the Stalinism in Yugoslavia. Indeed this is not the point. The point is to understand if the concern raised by historians about the respect of human rights during Tito's dictatorship deserves to be in the lead. I think that with proper wording is deserves to be in the lede (give a look to the alternative formulation I propose), because the amount of sources in support is very simplistically to large to be ignored. Concerning the other modifications you made to the article I do not see why the reference to his grade in the military service should have room in the lede (but this is a minor concern).Silvio1973 (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, not surprisingly you have reverted my alternative formulation on the ground that a reference to the human rights in the lede is undue. Well, it is not because the amount of sources in support is very large. I do not want to reduce this discussion to a dispute between you and me so let's see what the other users think before piling the sources.--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I'm not interested in our personal opinions and theoretical appraisals of Tito. All such comments in my post above refer to points made by sources, and a great many at that. I don't care if he was "the best possible product of communism" or whatever. Lets none of us waste each-other's time on such vapid debates.

There very well may be a few sources here or there that accuse Josip Broz Tito of human rights violations. So lets see what they say. You listed Tierney p.17 as your source. Page 17 can't be accessed, so can you please quote exactly what the author states?

However, just so be clar, one source (even if you did list it twice for some reason  :)) will not suffice to convince me personally that a statement like "concern is raised among historians about the respect of human rights" is warranted in the second sentence of the lede (also please bear in mind that your addition is badly worded grammatically). You say "support is very large"? Well then, show us please. Because I've not seen it.

My final point is to make sure sources alleging human rights violations do indeed talk about Tito being complicit, at least in terms of some vague connection. -- Director (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ilarious. One source does suffice to affirm that he was a "benevolent dictator"? For some reasons one source is sufficient to sustain some posts but not others. Again, before starting with the sources I want to see what the other think. And for the records I do not mind what you think about Obama and Guantanamo, so if you want the discussion to be focussed on sources do not start diverting it yourself. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And again that same problem that always comes up with you, Silvio1973: you don't read (and/or understand) talkpage posts. You just don't. I can't speculate whether its your difficulty with English or whatever that causes that - but it renders discussion with you extremely difficult, and your involvement generally disruptive. Kindly read my first post in this thread. -- Director (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, don't speculate. Let's wait the others joining the discussion.Silvio1973 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. You don't read talkpage posts (for the umpteen-millionth time), which is disruptive... We're in agreement that speculation as to why is ultimately irrelevant. -- Director (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you silvio and users like you always have to edit war?? If you see that your edit has been reverted or contested can't you stop editing the article and present your case on the talk page? Please do that, that is constructive, edit war is not. Please join the discussion and be constructive and read what other users write. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this is what we are doing. Opposely to you Tuvixer, I have not reverted my edit but I am discussing and opened the discussion to the others. You have less than 1,000 edits and already been blocked twice. Indeed with what you wrote on this talk page you could have been reported already.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, that's more irrelevant gibberish and non-responses from Silvio1973. I request that he bring forward the other sources from the "very big support" he claims he has, wherefrom we might move forward.

He has done none of this (but has instead demonstrated that he did not read or understand my first post in this thread: specifically, he talks about how its unfair that the "benevolent dictator" statement needs only one source - in spite of my linking directly to about a dozen other sources (and probably much much more) that use the term to describe this person).

I myself am absolutely NOT going to consent to the introduction of allegations of human rights violations into the second sentence of the article(!) without a proper body of support in sources. In fact the whole thing should probably just be represented with a statement (or perhaps even paragraph) on Tito's controversial nature as a historical personality, and nothing more. -- Director (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My English is excellent Director. No-one is asking you to consent to the introduction of such allegations without proper sourcing. And clearly a discussion will need to have place first. Indeed, a discussion had place yesterday and only after a reference to the human rights was entered in the lede. Again, there's no rush. Let's first give the chance to the users to participate because this is not our private discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah.. you're Shakespeare reincarnate.

And you're placing the cart before the horse. People can only "get a chance" to discuss - if there's something to discuss in the first place. This isn't a forum. Either you have "heap big support", and we have something to discuss (and can have input from others etc) - or you don't and we have nothing to discuss.

In other words, what do you want people to comment on? You've posted nothing... Are you looking for some kind of philosophical debate on Tito? You proposed a change - support it, and support it well (as you say you can), or there's nothing to talk about. -- Director (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Director, we need more people to join the discussion. This can be only a good thing. However, if in day or two the discussion remains restricted to the both of us I will start posting some sources. And yes, there are a lot of sources confirming the violation of human rights during Tito's Yugoslavia. This is not surprising, how could a one party communist dictatorship sustain itself without the use of some repression? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

*sigh*... Again, you're just not reading what's written, and aren't responding.

Without you supporting your proposal (and supporting it well) - there is no issue, that people might "join the discussion". You proposed a change. You said you can support it well - you did not. Had you supported it, we would have had something to discuss (and yes, in that case, the more people join the better). But you did not.

In short: without sources, there is nothing to discuss. There is nothing for people to "join". This isn't a debate club. -- Director (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is already to discuss. You reverted a number of edits and I would like to know what the other users think about this. Let's give some time to get some feedback about your reverts.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mhm.. Instead of providing all those sources, which you claimed you have (but clearly don't), you hope others will arrive to support your edit and push it that way. Nothing new there. It was stupid of me to expect an honest, source-based discussion from you. "There is already to discuss" is illegible, btw.

For the record, I reverted #1 your edit, and #2 some of the changes to the third paragraph of the lede, which deals with early life. The rest are valid changes in my opinion. -- Director (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Repression and violation of human rights

Listen Director, if you want to have a discussion on sources I have no problem. But again, I do not want to restrict this discussion to you and me. So let's start listing the citations. Please note that it took me less than an hour to found the following... In practice I could have continued forever. Namely during its first ten years, Tito's regime was responsible of major violation of human rights . Again not surprisingly, how could a one party communist regime guarantee its own survival without some repression?

(edit conflict) As far as I'm concerned, please don't bother to list sources that don't actually implicate this person, at least in some way. Also don't bother to list unscholarly sources (as on Talk:Dalmatia). Finally, sources that don't actually refer to "human rights", can not be used to source claims of violations of human rights (that would be OR). -- Director (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The following sources are listed to justify in the lede the insertion of a mention about the respect of human rights during Tito's regime or alternatively about the repressive nature of this regime:

1. At page 17 of "Accommodating National Identity" published by S. Tierney it is written that "human rights were routinely suppressed"]

2. At page 460 of "Europe in the Twentieth Century", referring to Tito's Yugoslavia historian Pavlowitch speaks of "Stalinism without Stalin". Also he says that "His repression of political opponents rivaled that of NKVD in Poland in swiftness and scope". ]

3. At page 56 of "Unholy Terror", John R. Schindler says that Tito proclaimed that the purpose of his secret police was "to strike terror terror into the bones of those who do not like this kind of Yugoslavia" and that "this was precisely what the secret police proceeded to do". ]

4. At page 173 of "Tito's Communism", J. Korbel writes "The Constitution says the maximum detention period is three days. This clause has been violated a thousand times, but I do not know of a case where a Yugoslav citizen appealed against the procedure of the secret police. There is no lawyer who would dare act as counselor to a man who is on bad terms with UDB." ]

5. At page 175 of "Tito's Communism", J. Korbel writes "The karakteristika has become an identification paper which the citizen never sees but which goes with him wherever he moves... Finished is the man whose karakteristika is negative. There is no hope for him to get a job."]

6. At page 1391 of "Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia,- Volume 2" edited by Bernard A. Cook, it's written: "Tito's secret police was modeled on the Soviet KGB; its victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands, including not only alleged German sympathizers but middle-class intellectuals, liberals and democrats".]

7. At page 352 of "East Central Europe : Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" edited by Milorad M. Drachkovitch, it's written: "This Stalinist phase of Tito's regime had four basic elements. First, the party gain control of the country using terror to cow its opponents."]

8. At page 183 of "Rights Before Courts", W. Sadurski writes: "The name Tito does not only symbolize the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia... it also symbolizes the post-war totalitarian communist regime, which was marked by extensive and gross violations of human rights and fundamentals freedoms.". ]--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

9. At page 37 of "No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations", D. Matas writes: "Human rights violations were observed in silence... It was not only that the wide list of verbal crimes flouted international human rights law and international obligations Yugoslavia had undertaken. Yugoslavia, a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paid scant regard to some of its provisions."]

And there we go... nothing except the first source qualifies as supporting the claim that "human rights" were violated. None of the rest even mention human rights (the last source is just a quotation of a Slovene court decision, not the source itself, i.e. Sanduski does not "write" that - you're being deceptive). WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You are not qualified to render judgment on what does or does not constitute a violation of human rights, Silvio1973.

P.s. do not move around or edit my post. I wrote my first post in this thread before you posted the list. -- Director (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the sources above are all scholarly. And all refer to violation of human rights acted by Tito's regime. If you think they are not, you can abandon the discussion for the time being. I am pushing any edit in the article for the moment. Again, I want other users to join first. In view of the above sourcing it is justified to insert in the lede that repression and violation of human rights were used by Tito's regime. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@"And all refer to violation of human rights acted by Tito's regime." No. They do not. None except the first even mention human rights. You don't get do decide what is or is not a "violation of human rights". You've been editing this project for far too long to post arguments in contradiction to such elementary policies as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. -- Director (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not said that they necessarily justify in the lede a mention (and actually I think they do) about the violation of human rights. They could easily justify another formulation. If this is your problem I have rephrased. However, what is your problem? I am not pushing any edit. Let's wait the other to join. If they don't, it means they are not interested. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well then please propose specific changes! I can not emphasize enough that this is not a debate club. What is your proposed change?? -- Director (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I think there is enough to write in the lead that "concerns have been raised about the violation of human rights". And I want to listen what the other users think about this proposal. If this does not fly, consensus can arise for a different formulation such as "concerns have been raised about the repressive nature of the regime". Silvio1973 (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lets boil it down.

• #1 "Human rights were violated"
• #2 "Tito repressed political opponents before the 1945 elections"
• #3 This is useless, its a WP:PRIMARY quotation.
• #4 "The UDBA detained people for longer than allowed by the Yugoslav constitution". Ok.. But that doesn't directly refer to Tito, and I can't see what it can be used to support in terms of general statements for the lede.
• #5 "There was an identification paper that couldn't be negative or you won't get a job". Again, pretty useless.
• #6 "There were hundreds of thousands of victims of the UDBA". This is suspect. Yugoslavia only had about 18 million people all told, and about 1,000,000 were killed in the whole of WWII. The idea that the secret police went about killing "hundreds of thousands" of people is patently absurd. The source appears very general, and I think the figure can be easily refuted.
• #7 "Tito repressed political opponents immediately after WWII" (just like "#2") Yes, that's not really disputed.
• #8 This is useless. The source is merely describing a court case.

So what you have is: "Tito repressed political opponents in the aftermath of WWII" (#2, #7), and "the UDBA was brutal" (#4, #6). In addition to #1 saying human rights were violated. Sources #3, #5, and #8 are pretty much useless: a statement by Tito (which is primary), something about an id that sounds vaguely bad (even though unemployment in Yugoslavia was minimal), and a description of a court case.

This is in no case enough to support a lede statement that "human rights were violated", in my personal evaluation. That would be egregious OR.. Other things, perhaps..

As regards the State Security Administration (UDBA), it should be noted that the issue is a complex one. As cited in sources on our project, while pretty nasty, the organization was nowhere near as repressive as the police in Eastern Bloc countries. The idea that it killed "hundreds of thousands of people" is patently ridiculous, and I have no idea what the source supports that with; that's an exaggeration orders of magnitude higher than any sensible figure I've ever read. Finally - the UDBA was controlled by Aleksandar Rankovic, not Tito directly. Aleksander Rankovic eventually became a political enemy of Tito, and was removed, with his organization curtailed significantly. -- Director (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

1) Source 6 speaks of hundreds of thousands of victims; this does not mean they were killed.

2) I never proposed to insert a statement in the lede affirming that human rights were violated. Far from that. I said that among historians concerns were raised about the violation (or alternatively the respect) of human rights.

3) Rankovic was removed when Tito realized that he had become too powerful (do you need this to be sourced?). For more than 15 years Rankovic and his police committed any kind of crime. Tito controlled the secret police and the party, even if not directly.

4) I made clear that if also other users disagree for a specific reference to human rights, I am open to a more general sentence such as "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns raised among historians about the repressive nature of his regime, Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." But now, would you mind give also to the others the time to join? Of course, if in a day or two they don't join we shall have to close the discussion the two of us.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping people from joining the discussion, Silvio...

1) Its still suspect: the NKVD had "hundreds of thousands of victims", in a country of 200 million. Its ridiculous. I can't see any primary source and I have no idea how the figure was reached.

2) Alright granted.

3) That's all true, more or less - its just that UDBA actions need to be connected with Tito in the source, at least in some vague reference, for me personally to accept the statement as relevant.

4) That seems a fair composition.

-- Director (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am having very limited time these weeks, that is why I haven't been active here. I just think that the sentence Silvio is proposing is fair given the fact that we describe his positive feedbacks about him and his regime, so it is fair to mention as well the various concerns and criticism some historians have been raising and that way the sentence ends up giving a balanced summary in the lead. FkpCascais (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Vetted for grammar, that reads: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns have been raised among historians about repression, Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." Support it with #2 and #7 and its fine by me. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, his regime was repressive and this is what the sources say. Written in the way Director suggests, things got somehow diluted. Also source source #1 should be included. Alternatively, and to over over-referencing, it could be discussed to use sources #1 and #9 for a specific statement about human rights to be inserted in the article but not in the lede. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To say that the "nature of the regime was repressive" (which is what your sentence states) is an exaggeration and oversimplification, that doesn't have support in sources. What you posted were two refs that state Tito repressed political opponents in the aftermath of WWII. Its an OR stretch to therefore characterize the "nature" of "regime" as a whole as having been "repressive". You have not established that. What you did establish is that "repression" occurred, and that's how I modified your sentence. Its actually pretty generous(!) considering we don't qualify that the sources talk about repression in a specific period, the '40s.

Further, please note grammar errors:

"While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns raised among historians..."

-- Director (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a look at those sources about him beeing a benevolent dictator (there are not 200 of them, I got c. 30 results for my search). There is a source claiming that he was "seen by most" in that way, one that he was "known by many" , and one that he was a "relatively benevolent dictator" . I think that the word "many" is the most appropriate one. Would you agree to change the word "most" to "many"? Tzowu (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the regime was de facto repressive (at some extent), but not its nature. I also agree that saying that the regime was in its whole repressive it's a simplification. Still it should somehow explained that we refer to repression acted during Tito's regime (at least this is what the sources say). Also note the sentence contains two present perfects and one past perfect, hence for sipmplicity I suggest to replace the past perfect with a past participle. Finally, including Tzowu's comment, it gives: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns raised among historians about repression during his regime, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies." This sentence is already a compromise and it is well balanced. Adding concerns about repression is just repeating that it has been criticized as authoritarian, so leave the sentence as it is, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tzowu. Oppose "many": most of those sources just say flat out he was a "benevolent dictator". "Most" is a concession already in that regard, and I think its fine. Sourced and fine.

@Silvio: You're missing the point: you can't flat out say that the regime was "repressive" ("de facto" or "by nature", whatever distinction that is). You haven't established that, and it really wasn't (have a look at this extremely comical American tourism documentary :)). Secondly, you can't use terms like "regime", its loaded, unencyclopedic.

As regards stating that repression did occur - that's what I wrote: "concerns have been raised among historians regarding repression.."

Use whatever tense you like, just as long as its grammatically correct ("concerns raised" isn't; "are raised", "are being raised", "were raised", "have been raised", etc.. take your pick).

@Tuvixer. Perhaps we can merge the wwhole thing more elegantly: "While concerns regarding authoritarianism and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was 'seen by most as a benevolent dictator.'" -- Director (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Historians have different views regarding Tito; while many agree on describing him as a benevolent dictator, others however raised concerns regarding the authoritarianism and repression of political dissidents."

Not sure how would it fit into it, but it wouldn't be bad idea also to point out that the repression and authoritarianism were more harsh at beginning and with time the situation became better and better. But it will possibly just complicate more. FkpCascais (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's really not a formulation that would fit where we're looking at. -- Director (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, I do not use the word "regime", the sources do. It was a regime, indeed. However, let's move to compromise. Repression was directed mainly to political dissidents but not only. So we have 2 options: 1) We specify that the target of the repression were particularly political dissidents or 2) we leave it plain. Instead of particularly, notably could also work.

@Fkp, what you suggest could work in the article but for the lede it's just too much. Doesn't fit IMHO.

@Tzowu, I agree for "many" instead of "most".

I suggest: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns have been raised about repression, particularly of political dissidents, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." or "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns have been raised about repression, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, of course, but its one of those words we generally shouldn't use - because its an encyclopedia. "Regime" just means "government", so Tito did have a "regime" strictly speaking, you could use the term for anyone ("the Renzi regime") - but the term is loaded with negative connotations (like "terrorist" or "murderer" etc.). Just use "government", it means the same.

You have not established that repression was directed against people other than political opponents. And even that at any other time besides the '40s. That's what you have from the sources you posted... Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a "political opponent" in some sense would be repressed... -- Director (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No Director, your link about the Renzi's regime direct to websites describing Renzi's government as an extreme left-wing regime. It's pretty much a position cheerful to Berlusconi and his allies. However, we can leave things plain and write: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns have been raised about repression, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh.. Its just a Google search for "Renzi regime", meant to illustrate the term just means "government" and can be technically applied to anyone - but that it carries negative connotations, i.e. is loaded. Just don't use it on Wiki.

Your sentence doesn't sound well. "Repression" is too vague and just sort of hangs in mid air.. which is because I composed the sentence to include a followup there (what repression, repression of whom?). Also, I will not deviate from sources and do not concede "many" instead of "most". No way.. -- Director (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, I've expressed my personal position, its such because its based on sources, yours and mine, not because I feel like it - and that's where I stand. I'm not prepared to "barter like we're at the bazaar" as people say over in ex-Yugoslavia. As in "you give me 'many' and you can qualify 'repression' of whom", etc.. no. "While concerns regarding authoritarianism and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was 'seen by most as a benevolent dictator'." -- Director (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that repression without something else is too vague, indeed I proposed repression of political dissidents. However, we are not alone Director. Tzowu raised a concern about the use of "most" instead of "many". I share such concern. @Tzowu, what do you think? Side note: it would be not "were raised" but "have been raised", because historians continue to discuss about Tito.--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read talkpage comments, I know we're not alone - and I replied to Tzowu. And I said I disagree with "many", based on the prevalent position in relevant sources. Two points:

• If you read my posts you would know I replied to Tzowu, and presumably would not feel the need to point out his position to me. It seems to me you are once again not reading my posts, and I find it annoying and insulting that you would feel the need to point out to me that "we're not alone" as if I'm somehow not aware of that.
• I don't know why you keep calling on and referring to other people, over and over again, in this discussion. The participants are here, if they want to comment - they can and will. I dare say they don't need you "looking out for them" constantly.

-- Director (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

#8 This is useless. The source is merely describing a court case - Uhh... why exactly? That means it's a secondary source which is exactly what we should be using.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

#6 "There were hundreds of thousands of victims of the UDBA". This is suspect. Yugoslavia only had about 18 million people all told, and about 1,000,000 were killed in the whole of WWII. The idea that the secret police went about killing "hundreds of thousands" of people is patently absurd. The source appears very general, and I think the figure can be easily refuted. - Then refute it, with a reliable sources. Otherwise you're just dismissing what appears to be a reliable source based on your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

#3 This is useless, its a WP:PRIMARY quotation. - Uh, no, because then the author - the secondary source - says "this was precisely what the secret police proceeded to do". That's a secondary source.

Come on Director, I just came here to make some minor copy edit changes but now that I see this discussion I'm a bit appalled. You're basically flailing around looking for an excuse to remove ANY negative statements about Tito from the lede. Now, as far as dictators go, Tito doesn't really rank up there in terms oppression and human rights violation but let's not white wash the subject. "Violations of human rights" is a perfectly valid and succinct summary of the source provided. Indeed, if you keep pushing with this 100% crystal clear POV what's going to happen is that you will motivate other editors to really go digging into sources and it's quite likely that that particular aspect of Tito's rule will be expanded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, I just want to give to the others the time to participate. For some reasons you want to close the matter immediately. Why? Tzowu proposed "many" instead of "most". You replied that you insist for "most". What about giving him the time to reply? Of course he has the right not to reply, but before assuming he did not want to, you might want to wait at least a few hours. Director, there's no rush. Let's give to anyone the time to participate. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Marek, I am perfectly conscious that I adequately sourced that human rights were violated (or at least that historians raised this concern). Sources #1 and #9 clearly speak of violation of human rights. I know that I conceding too much to Director but I have no alternative, unless other participants do not decide to join. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "flailing" at all :). This is controversial stuff - I'm being rigorous.

#8 The secondary source does not state his support for the verdict or any part thereof, merely quotes the findings of the court. That's primary, and therefore useless for our purposes. Uh.. "come on Marek"?

#6 The figure of "hundreds of thousands" is patently ridiculous. Its a general source, it makes a very vague offhand statement, I don't see any primary citation.. Its suspect. Such figures are extremely controversial - confirm it with another source. But more importantly: even if we were to grant the figure, that's material for the UDBA article, not for the lede here.

#3 That's my mistake, admittedly. I only read Silvio's quotation and thought both parts were Tito's statement. But even so, what are we supposed to use that for concretely? "The UDBA struck terror into the bones and hearts of those who disliked Yugoslavia!", what?

Violations of human rights is a very specific criminal allegation in international law. If its going to go into the second sentence of the lede of this article - it needs good support. Its not something to "summarize" with OR. That said of course - if there's good backing, I'll naturally support a mention of the issue in the lede. -- Director (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

patently ridiculous is your own original research. Who cares if it's a general source? What makes it "suspect"? That you say so? The numbers actually do line up with some other estimates, for example Rummel's, although they probably are at the high end of these. As far as #3, keep reading. It references Tito and the UDBA. Read the paragraphs before and the ones after. And what are we supposed to use it for? To cite the fact that "Tito's secret police instituted a campaign of terror aimed at Tito's opponents" or something like that.

"Human rights" is not just a legal term, it's a general set of principles. You are being needlessly legalistic here in an attempt to set a way-too high standard for inclusion. We can re-word it, so that it omits the phrase "human rights" but something about it has to be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with both the proposals of Director and FkpCascais, the only thing I wanted to change in Director's one was "most" to "many". There aren't a lot of sources that call him literally a benevolent dictator, and "he was seen by most" is referenced with only one of them. It's hard to tell how was/is he seen by most people (or just historians), but there certainly are many that see him that way. That is not contentious at all. Tzowu (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Marek, can you materially propose an alternative wording? My proposal was "concerns about the respect of human rights were raised among historians" looked to me well matching the 9 sources I provided, but for some reasons did not fly.

@Tzowu, "many" compromises well between "some" and "most". Director do you agree? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Marek. The idea that we should now introduce into the lede of this article (the second sentence?) the claim that the secret police of Yugoslavia not only had "victims" (now that's NPOV wording!), but also "hundreds of thousands of victims", based exclusively on an unsupported, vague, offhand comment, in one, very general publication, and attribute them all to Tito implicitly - is something I'm going to have to oppose. IF that's not what you're proposing, then lets not waste effort. Lets talk about what we can actually put in the lede. And for the record, the "hundreds of thousands of victims" figure would place it on par with Stalin's NKVD. As for Rummel - he has been discredited as a source on this project about twelve times now...

But discussing the UDBA is ultimately pointless. There is no real dispute as to its being pretty brutal (although with the usual caveats: only until the fall of Rankovic, and even then far less so than the secret police generally was in the Eastern Bloc)..

"Tito's secret police instituted a campaign of terror aimed at Tito's opponents" - the source does not say that, and neither did Tito. What "campaign" is that? Further, I'm sure you know the word is actually "fear" (strah), not "terror" per se. As in "utjerati strah u kosti" ("get fear into the bones"), that's the expression. Instituting a "campaign of terror" is something quite different than "striking fear into someone". Like enemies of the state; with Stalin's tanks lining the border. I think you may be "flailing" as well just about now... Further, the source is so professional it seems to be confusing the OZNA ('Department of National Security', the counterintelligence agency) and the UDBA ('State Security Administration', the secret police)...

The claim that violation of human rights is not a legal categpory - "is your own original research", as you said. Perhaps it means something to your personally, I can't say that's relevant. For the fifteenth time - I'm nobody's advocate here! I'm really not. But if we're going to add some kind of accusation up there where you're aiming at - its going to be well sourced, goddammit. Ten kings and princes lined up for this guy's funeral.. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the secret police of Yugoslavia had "victims". What so POV about that? I don't know if hundreds of thousands is appropriate, but something about repression and use of this force by Tito belongs in there. You didn't like the statement about "human rights violations" because you claimed it was too specific and didn't meet some legal standard you invented. Ok, then we go with a general description of the same phenomenon and mention the secret police and its victims.

And yes the source pretty much does say "Tito's secret police instituted a campaign of terror aimed at Tito's opponents". It's called paraphrasing. And it's being done because you were objecting to the quote as a "primary source" and pretending that the author of the source does not endorse the quote. If you doubt the professionalism of the source, based on some original research of yours, take it up at WP:RSN, it certainly looks reliable. You're splitting semantic hairs and ... yes, flailing about, making excuses.

"As for Rummel - he has been discredited as a source on this project about twelve times now." - care to support this assertion with actual diffs? And I don't mean some diff where you or someone else expressed their own personal opinion, personal bias, or original research and tried to cram it down everyone else's throat. I mean, twelve discussions which have reached the WP:CONSENSUS that Rummel is a "discredited source". Now, I know that there's no such twelve discussions (in fact, if you look through WP:RSN discussions they pretty much say Rummel is fine but like any potentially controversial source should be attributed). Which means that I know that now you're just making shit up to get your way in this argument and in this article. Not nice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As regards "benevolent dictator", lets go by them as they come

• seen by most as a benevolent dictator
• more of a benevolent dictator
• best described as a benevolent dictator
• not to mistake it, Tito was a benevolent dictator
• a benevolent dictator of sorts
• Tito has been a benevolent dictator, seeking to be humane
• Tito had ruled for more than 35 years as a benevolent dictator
• like Tito from the former Yugoslavia, (...) a benevolent dictator
• Tito gained the reputation of being Europe's 'most benevolent dictator'.
• Marshal Tito, by birth a Croat, was a relatively benevolent dictator
• Dating back to the benevolent dictator, Josip Broz Tito..
• known by many as a benevolent dictator
• Tito, the benevolent dictator of old communist Yugoslavia

etc, etc... it goes on and on

• Tito was a Communist, but emphasizing the 'mellowed' nature of his benevolent dictatorship...
• relatively benevolent dictatorship of Marshal Tito ...
• Nor did he seek to conceal the pleasure he took in the exercise of power, which amounted to a benevolent dictatorship..

etc...

The only reason I didn't write outright (back when I did) that 'Tito was a benevolent dictator', as I possibly could have, but qualified it with 'seen by most' - and placed the word in parentheses - is that "dictator" is one of those terms we generally avoid on Wiki as a matter of style. I'm not prepared AT ALL to switch from Shapiro, 2004 (The Curtain Rises) - to the formulation used only by Tails I Lose: The compulsive gambler who lost his shirt for good ("known by many")... I'm afraid I am personally not going to agree to any changes in this regard, and I can't foresee how I might. The text is already, in my view, making too fine a point of this. -- Director (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The amount of sources pointing to the ruthless use of the secret police made by Tito is simplistically too large to be ignored. It deserves being mentioned in the lede. Director refused the wordings proposed so far, hence I invite him to propose something. Concerning the use of "many" instead of "most", IMHO the first is more appropriate. Using "most" instead of many would be egregiously UNDUE because only one source uses "most". Silvio1973 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Marek. We're talking about the legally-instituted police of a sovereign country. The detainees or prisoners or whatever were "victims"? It seems unencyclopedic, see WP:LABEL.

Nono, we are not conforming to my legal standards: we're conforming to Misplaced Pages policy. You're not gonna be the guy that "passes judgment" on what does and does not constitute "violations of human rights". Its that simple. Sources that don't even mention human rights will not be used here to support claims of violation of human rights. Those are all the "standards" of mine that I'm asking you to conform with.

As far as I'm concerned, talking about the udba in the lede is UNDUE weight, too specific. The body of the article - that's a different issue. Like I said, I'm for adding "repression of political opponents" in the lede..

No, that's called editorializing, "pretty much". In fact you're introducing a whole new historical event the source doesn't even mention: a "campaign of terror" of some sort, at some point. What the source says, exactly, is that "the OZNA struck fear into the bones of those who didn't like the new Yugoslavia". That is precisely what the source states, and that indirectly. A paraphrasing would be something like "the OZNA intimidated political opponents". So again, I can't agree to use sources that don't even mention any "campaigns of terror" - to talk about campaigns of terror. You can call that "splitting hairs", or "flailing" or whatever you like - I don't buy it.

By the way, and as a matter of fact, the OZNA is not the "secret police", its the security service.. counterintelligence. And what Tito said was "..utjerati strah u kosti onima koji ne vole ovakvu Jugoslaviju", referring specifically to the OZNA, not the UDBA. "Strah" is completely equivalent to the English word "fear", and can by no means be translated as "terror" - which of course carries additional negative connotations, especially in a phrase like "campaign of terror". Which is to illustrate how far you've "paraphrased" us away from the actual sources. (The word for "terror" is - "teror", or perhaps "užas".)

Rummel? He's a joke. I myself am categorically opposed to any mention of him or his arbitrary nonsense. Or rather decamegagiganonsense.. Diffs? Sure, have a look at this, just for example. Indeed, your bringing him up makes me wonder if you've been reading too much of that sort of garbage..

@Silvio. Yes, your two sources on the UDBA are truly an impressive "amount"... Look, I'm not for mentioning the secret police at all in the lede. I'm not saying we should "ignore" it - insert that stuff in the body of the article, that's fine.

As for "benevolent dictator", I've laid out what the sources have to say on that. The only thing that could be UNDUE is using "most" - rather than just stating flat out that he was such. Further, the current formulation is quoted directly from a scholarly publication, whereas the only thing that uses "many" is some gambling story... I don't know what more to say on this topic. My position is "most", or we can follow the sources more accurately by getting rid of "most", and just stating outright that this guy was a "benevolent dictator". -- Director (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, the sources are not just two. I have linked to 9 sources (or 8 if we move out source #8) referring to the use of repression during Tito's regime. Some of the sources speak clearly of violation of human rights (#1, #8 and #9), others about the ruthless use of the secret police (#2, #3, #4 and #6) and the remaining about general repression of political dissidents. Mind well that more sources could be found, albeit I am not going to post others if we do not first make proper use of the already sourced material. Now, we need to find a synthesis to represent this material in the lede. And synthesis does not mean dilution, which it is what would be if we agreed to post your wording.--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@All, for the sake of order I have inserted the POV banner in the article as there is a serious discussion ongoing here. As soon the discussion is closed (the sooner the better) the banner can be immediately removed.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You referred to "sources pointing to the ruthless use of the secret police made by Tito". Those are #3, #4 and #6. So ok, three not two (#2 doesn't refer to the use of secret police). But never mind - it was an offhand comment.

In my view "repression of political opponents" is the appropriate synthesis of the material you presented. Its not dilution in any way.. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I genuinely do not understand your opposition to mention that the repression was made using the secret police. tito controlled the country using the party and the secret police. It is not undue at all that the repression of real or alleged dissidents was made using the secret police.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For several reasons. firstly, the "repressing" was done by both the OZNA and the UDBA, and the former was not the 'secret police'. Indeed, in the early years (which our sources emphasize), it was the OZNA (army counterintelligence) that did the repressing. Secondly, much of the "repression" in said early years wasn't necessarily done by either the UDBA or the OZNA specifically, but generally by the system and the party (as in the sources you posted that discuss repression, but don't specifically mention either organization). Thirdly, to go into the subject of the "how and why" of the repression, seems to me too much for the lede.. -- Director (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Director, Tu veux le beurre et l'argent du beurre! The various sources make clear that repression was acted by different subjects, at various levels and at different times. This is the reason why "concern about the violation of human rights" would be a valid synthesis. May be instead of human rights we could write civil rights? And detail more about the secret police in the article itself?

I suggest:"While concerns regarding authoritarianism, violation of civil rights and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator". --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense, Silvio. I don't even wear a beret.

If "repression was acted by different subjects, at various levels and at different times", then explain to me how "human rights were violated" is a better synthesis of that than "repression was acted", essentially. Fetchez la vache! -- Director (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Director, I proposed indeed an alternative formulation but it looks that nothing it's good enough for you. Except what you propose, of course. PS Excellent the reference to Monty Python, but it does not help here. Unfortunately. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't reply to my post, Silvio...

What? Its you who keeps upping the ante. You proposed a wording above, and people basically agreed (sans the repressive "nature" bit). And that's where I'm at now. The only difference is I formulated it so it fits better grammatically (which is obviously my secret way of diluting the info...). -- Director (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is huge and inappropriate POV. These were not just "concerns". His regime was generally known as dictatorship, even if it was much "softer" than other communist regimes.My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You have ignored my input, and I was very clear. I am not going to be your idiot and go in circles. I have said that adding violation of human rights and so on is redundant because we have n the lede that it was authoritarian. Stop edit-waring and read what other users say. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes. The addition isn't bad, My very best wishes.. Its just a bit too much. There isn't enough support, in my opinion, to go with "violations of human rights" as the introduction to this article in the first part of the lede. We should go with Silvio1971's original suggestion (which he now rejects in hopes of pushing a bit more negative stuff), and refer to the "repression of political opponents". -- Director (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was mentioned in intro, but it was not properly described in the body of the page (which is a lot more important than the mentioning in intro), and this deserves significant coverage to describe the matter in depth, rather than to only mention "concerns". That was my point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. -- Director (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In the beginning of this thread Silvio1973 provided nine good secondary refs telling not just about human right violations, but about KGB-style repression. Telling that these sources do not tell what they tell (as here) looks highly problematic to me. What exactly should be said about this is a separate matter. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. You can't convince me that sources not even mentioning "human rights" can be used to source the claim of "human rights violation". That is textbook OR, in my opinion ("..you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented").

That's what I'm talking about in that post: Silvio1973 was attempting to shore up the claim of human rights violation, claimed by the first source (which was brought up long before and acknowledged as relevant) - with sources that, far from not claiming human rights violation, do not even mention human rights. Do note that I acknowledged the first source as relevant in this regard (and that the last source was added some time after my comment).

Therefore, while your own perceptions of "problematicness" are not something I can address, be assured that I at no point "told that the sources do not tell what they tell". And once again: please keep in mind that the discussion is only heated over what should go in the lede. No one is attempting to keep reliably-sourced data out of the article... its just that interest seems to sort of peter out when it comes to actually expanding the place, rather than just quickly slipping in a political message into as prominent a position as possible. -- Director (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, one should follow the sources. If, for example, sources describe activities by Tito as political repression rather than "human rights violations", they should be described as "political repression" (which of course includes "human rights violations"). My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Not only do more sources seem to go with "political repression", but political repression also includes (as you say) the "human rights violations". Its also more descriptive and more precise.. If we're going to summarize Silvio's sources up there in the second sentence or thereabout, that's my choice. -- Director (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the nine sources (yes... "'nine sources) speak of political repression and violation of human rights. This is exactly the reasons why I suggested: "While concerns regarding authoritarianism, violation of civil rights and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator...". --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's been two weeks now. I agree with the sentence proposed by Silvio above. Tzowu (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tzowu, I could post a modification and source it with many of the 9 sources I listed above, but I am unsure that such modification would resist. It looks Tuvixer will refuse whatever modification. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In English, please? I have no idea what you are proposing... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV format

According to suggestions and appreciations, in priors page's sections, of users Silvio1973, Passando, Tzowu, Jean Jacques George, FkpCascais, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes and other IPs, I present this NPOV format, restoring informations with reliable sources already linked in the past, but habitual POV accounts removed valid material all at once.

Josip Broz, nicknamed Tito, was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980. During World War II he was the leader of the Partisans]. He gained international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.

After being seriously wounded and captured by the Imperial Russians during World War I, Broz was sent to a work camp in the Ural Mountains. He participated in the October Revolution, and later joined a Red Guard unit in Omsk. Later he was NKVD agent and member in communist party of the Soviet Union under Stalin's command. He was General Secretary (later Chairman of the Presidium) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav guerrilla movement, the Partisans (1941–45). After the war, Broz Tito and his titoist followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship: he was the Prime Minister (1944–63), President (later President for Life) (1953–80) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). From 1943 to his death in 1980, he held the rank of Marshal of Yugoslavia, serving as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav military, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA).

Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from 1943 to 1991–92. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he was also the first (and the only successful) Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony. A backer of independent roads to socialism (sometimes referred to as "national communism"), he was one of the main forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement, and its first Secretary-General. He supported the policy of nonalignment between the two hostile blocs in the Cold War. In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. He remains a very controversial figure in the Balkans.

Democide

Broz is accused of democide by important historians.

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.

In the years following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a number of historians have stated that human rights were suppressed in Yugoslavia under Tito, 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. 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.

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.

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..

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

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

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 . 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."

Undue enrichment

Broz is accused of undue personal enrichment by fraudulent gains, which impoverished Yugoslav State's public property; 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. Broz Tito constructed huge personality cult around him.

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. Some historians report his successful diplomatic policies and reputation as popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad, and he was viewed as a unifying symbol, he was very popular among the Yugoslav citizens.

I am ready to accept all your counselsTeo Pitta (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes

1. Badredine Arfi: International Change and the Stability of Multiethnic States: Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and Crises of Governance, p. 116
2. Mieczyslaw P. Boduszynski: Regime Change in the Yugoslav Successor States: Divergent Paths toward a New Europe, p. 63-64
3. 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.
4. ^ 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).
5. Andjelic, Neven (2003). Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy. Frank Cass. p. 36. ISBN 0-7146-5485-X.
6. ^ Tierney, Stephen (2000). Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 90-411-1400-9.
7. 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.>>
8. "Naming Street After Tito Unconstitutional". Slovenia Times. 5 October 2011.
9. Text of the decision U-I-109/10 of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, issued on 3 October 2011, in Slovenian language
10. 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.
11. "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
12. In Trieste, Investigation of Brutal Era Is Blocked NYT April 20, 1997
13. Slovene-Italian Relations 1880-1956 Report 2000
14. Paolo Sardos Albertini (2002-05-08). "Terrore" comunista e le foibe - Il Piccolo
15. Slovene-Italian Relations 1880-1956 Report 2000
16. 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.
17. 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."
18. 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."
19. 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."

IPA

@Tuvixer: Clearly, you were lying when you said that I'm changing the article without further explanation. It is you who are choosing not to read the edit summaries. I suggest that you go there and read them again, this time carefully. Mentioning edit-warring in such circumstances is a hypocrisy beyond belief, especially given the fact that your only arguments are "I am a native speaker".

I am perfectly aware of the fact that BCS doesn't normally devoice word-final obstruents (save for some accents of Croatian, and immigrant accents from Slovenia and Macedonia.) However, that is not what I'm speaking about! What I'm speaking about is assimilation of voicing when pronouncing the whole name of JBT without a pause. Whereas it may be possible for a native speaker of BCS to pronounce Josip Broz with (a released voiceless followed by voiced ) rather than (long ) (I don't actually know), it's not possible to pronounce Broz Tito with . It must be . The source, which I already presented to you and you chose to ignore it, is Handbook of the IPA (which stands for International Phonetic Association), page 68: "voiced obstruents alternate with their voiceless counterparts when followed by a voiceless obstruent." You, on the other hand, have presented zero evidence (apart from "I am a native speaker") to back up the pronunciation. Peter238 (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That is only your opinion, and it is false. I know because I speak BHS. Please, I beg you, stop this and show some good faith and revert your edit and place the letter z. Tnx.

You are changing the article, and you do not have consensus. It is only you who is for this change. Please stop this.

Do you speak BHS?

I have read the "summaries, and they are nonsense, really, man that is my mother tongue, I mean, why would I lie about that. It is so stupid.

You are crazy man. xD I am joking of course, but this is really insane. I have now asked 10 people who I kone to pronounce Josip Broz Tito and everyone pronounced it with z. Please, really stop this, it is insane, and I probably think that you do not know BHS, to push your own opinion. You can't change the article without consensus. I mean, I tried to reason with you but is seems that I have failed, so please show some good faith, or I will have to report you. :/ --Tuvixer (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite your message citing reliable sources or I'm done talking to you. Peter238 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are so stubborn. http://www.forvo.com/word/josip_broz_tito/ http://www.pronounceitright.com/pronounce/6782/josip-broz-tito Please revert now. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, these are not reliable, and they require listening to the audio clip and making an OR judgement about the pronunciation. Either way, you clearly don't understand what "without a pause" and "in isolation" means. Galaksija's pronunciation from Forvo as well as the PronounceItRight pronunciation are not "without a pause", these are enunciated in a way that makes every word sound exactly as it sounds when pronounced in isolation. I've already said twice that in this case, it is obvious that the correct pronunciations of Josip and Broz are the ones that end with and , respectively.

Lutalac's pronunciation from Forvo is much closer to what I meant. It features a released voiceless as well as somewhat devoiced . It's still unclear of how representative this is of the normal pronunciation.

What we need is an academic source that states that BCS doesn't feature voicing assimilation. Until that, the IPA must stay as it is, as it's sourced. Peter238 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

People who live in the former Yugoslavia are not idiots and they do not pronounce names in a millisecond. I really don't understand why are we having this discussion. I speak BHS, you do not, end of story, you source is also not reliable and you are proposing changes, you do not have a consensus on this matter so show some good faith and revert your edit. And if it is so important to you, then ask for a 3O. But before that show some good faith and revert it to z. Tnx

And yes, when you pronounce it together iz is still Josip Broz Tito. A situation when someone says "I am Josip Broz Tito" and the other person says "Is it spelled with a S or a Z?" is unthinkable and never heard of. It is apsurd. Put aside the fact that everyone knows who Tito is. I hope you understand now. :)

I can see maybe why you think it is s instead of z. When you try to pronounce Josip Broz Tito as fast as you can it really sounds "JosiBrosTito", but only if you try to say it as fast as you can. When you speak in normal tone and speed it is "Josip Broz Tito je bio..." Why would I lie?? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We are having this conversation because you ignore most of what I say, including the fact that being a native speaker does not mean you're able to hear the pronunciation nuances of your language.

Landau et al. (1999) is not reliable? Prove it. Before that, read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. I can prove that Forvo and PronounceItRight are not reliable:

- they require WP:OR auditory judgement on the pronunciation. As a native speaker, you are in no better situation than anyone else to hear voicing assimilation in your language. Especially if you have never undergone a phonetic training.

- Forvo, even if it provides the IPA (it doesn't in this case), it's from Wiktionary, which itself is not a reliable sources because anyone can edit it.

- At least on Forvo, native speakers can upload whatever pronunciation they wish, and it immediately becomes available to the public. It can take quite a time to remove incorrect pronunciations.

Let me repeat myself: we need an academic source that states that BCS doesn't feature voicing assimilation. While it may be true that the final /p/ of Josip is normally released and thus more likely to stay voiceless (but Landau et al. (1999) don't say that), it is clear that Broz is pronounced Bros in the situation we're talking about. This is supported by Lutalac's pronunciation on Forvo, but that's not a reliable source. Peter238 (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Read this: http://hrvatskijezik.eu/gramatika/ --Tuvixer (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't be a hypocrite. What you are doing now is telling the people, whose language you do not speak, how to speak their language. Insane. Please show good faith and revert your edit or I will really have to report you. Your fascism will not pass. No pasaran!--Tuvixer (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Top-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• High-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• C-Class Serbia articles
• High-importance Serbia articles
• C-Class Belgrade articles
• Unknown-importance Belgrade articles
• WikiProject Serbia/Belgrade articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• C-Class Slovenia articles
• Mid-importance Slovenia articles
• All WikiProject Slovenia pages
• C-Class Cold War articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• C-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2015)