Talk:Josip Broz Tito

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

Concerning Wikipedia's Article Josip Broz Tito

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

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

Josip Broz was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader [1] and was the main decision maker in military and political matters. He was President for Life of Yugoslavia and played crucial if not the main role in historical events of that country. He was considered to be by many, one of the prominent Eastern European Balkan Dictators of the Cold War Era. Here are six examples of 20th century European Balkan history that are missing (all of this can be referenced):

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

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

3. Cult of Personality [3] [4] (He is mentioned in Wikipedia's Cult of Personality article)

4.Bleiburg massacre [5] [6] & Foibe massacres [7].

5. A more detailed account of UDBA’s & OZNA [8] Yugoslavia's notorious police KGB style organizations, which he helped establish; and

6. His immensely luxurious life style as a dictator [9].

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." [10] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Exactly. As I tried to explain to the man on his talkpage [11], the only point that perhaps has some merit is the one about the cult of personality (though I by no means see it filling a full section). In response, he accused me of "offending him" by writing "communist propaganda" on his talkpage, and asked me never to address him there [12] (yes, in response to this post :P). It would appear we're not dealing with a neutral person. His main ambition on this talkpage seems to be the inclusion of accusatory text that would depict Josip Broz Tito as responsible for the foibe killings. I consider it absolutely inappropriate to mention the events in this particular article without a proper source - he was the commander-in-chief, ffs, everything was under his command. Its like blaming Roosevelt for the US massacres of SS soldiers.

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

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

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

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

Only successful Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony?

Beware of sockpuppets! :)
IP 151.21... is an IP sockpuppet of User:Luigi 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josip Broz Tito

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

• Zdravko Dizdar [13][14]: Croatian Historian (Institute for History in Zagreb): Partisan/Communist Repression & Atrocities in Croatia/1944th to 1946th - Document: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia
• BBC-History: Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941-1945

Recent Events Reported In the Media:

• Croatia's-Javno: [15] Mass Grave Massacre Ordered By Josip Broz Tito
• Slovenian Press Agency: [16] Columnist Says Silence on Post-War Killings Needs to End
• Slovenia Times [17] Post-war Killings Enter the Bloody History
• Croatia's-Moje Vjest:[18] On the Island Daksa Exhumed 48 Victims of Communism

World Media:

• New York Times [19] Evolution in Europe-Piles of Bones in Yugoslavia Point to Partisan

Massacres.

• BBC News [20] Italy-Croatia WWII Massacre Spat
• Mail Online-Word News:[21] Gassed to Death: 300 victims of Yugoslavia's Communist Regime Found in Mass Grave

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

• Croatian Government:[22] Deputy PM and with Representatives of the Croatian society of Political Prisoners-Victims of Communism
• Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia
• Mitja Ribicic - [23] Internal Security of Former Yugoslavia: BBC 4
• Janez Stanovnik - [24] Slovenia Politician & Economist/Former Yugoslav Partizan Commander

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

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

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

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

Involved are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This silly nonsense dispute always amounts to the same thing:

1) You keep talking about the massacres

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

translated:

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

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

The author continues to state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foibe

Beware of sockpuppets! :)
IP 151.21... is an IP sockpuppet of User:Luigi 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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