Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 12

@Peacemaker67: You keep saying that it is a language, when it is a script. Are there cases where, for example German Latin or Polish Latin is used? Or some other Latin alphabet of course. I hope that you know that I have no problem with Serbo-Croatian. In this case, I think it is unnecessary. Also, please be civil and do not engage in an edit-war. Please leave it out of the article for now. The inclusion can be discussed here, I hope that you know that I am not close-minded. I will add the content myself if we come to an agreement. We started on the wrong foot. From now we can be civil about this. I have provided you with my rationale and point of view, please provide some rationale behind your inclusion. And again, please do not engage in an edit-war, that leads to nowhere. Also, I am not for the deletion of "Cyrillic" if that was your impression. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Also the sh template was not "there for ages". Please look it up. I was added at 13:50, 26 February 2020‎ by user SwissArmyGuy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&diff=942730197&oldid=942445016 --Tuvixer (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is a script. But a script of what? A script of Serbo-Croatian, which has two scripts, Latin and Cyrillic. Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic script has unique letters, Џ, Љ, and Њ which are not part of the Cyrillic script used other languages. Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic does not use Я, which is used in Russian Cyrillic. In addition, Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic has 30 letters, whereas Russian Cyrillic has 33 letters. So the use of the Cyrillic language template is not enough. As I have demonstrated, there are differences between Cyrillic scripts depending on the language. Similar differences existed in the Bulgarian language before 1945, which had 32 letters. It is clear that the language must be included, as a reader would not otherwise know which Cyrillic alphabet is being used, and a Russian reader would be confused seeing letters that are not part of their language. You can go ahead and revert yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:It is the same with the Latin scripts. Practically every language has its owns, some of which have also unique letters. You have ignored my question, so I will ask again, are there cases where, for example German Latin or Polish Latin is used? On Wikipedia, of course. I know that Џ is not unique to Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic, same goes for Љ, and Њ. The reader knows that the Cyrillic script is used. A a Russian reader would not be confused by reading Јосип Броз Тито, these are all Slavic letters of the Cyrillic script. Also, I have been accused, by you, that I "were the one who deleted it" and that "the sh template has been there for ages". I feel uncomfortable because they are false accusations. Can you please withdraw your accusations? You have not done that so it would be really nice of you to do that. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to withdraw. But clearly we are at an impasse. I haven't ignored your question, it just doesn't make any sense, and relies on a straw man fallacy. Serbo-Croatian is the only Slavic language with two scripts, which is why you don't see "Polish Latin" or "Czech Latin" on Wikipedia for example, because they are always in Latin script. "German Latin" isn't relevant to our discussion, as German is a Germanic language, not a Slavic one. In any case, it also has only one script, so "Latin" is again superfluous. Your statement about "Slavic letters of the Cyrillic script" is specious nonsense. Which Cyrillic script are you referring to? There are several, which is my central point. You have also made statements that just aren't correct, as Љ, Њ, Ћ, Ђ, and Џ are all unique to Serbo-Croatian as they were created for it by Vuk Karadžić. Џ was created from a medieval Romanian Cyrillic letter (Romanian being an Italic rather than Slavic language), but sounds different in Serbo-Croatian. Karadžić also added J from Latin, this does not exist in the Russian alphabet, and is used in Јосип Броз Тито, which makes the use of the sh template necessary regardless. If you have an example of where those unique letters are used in another non Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic alphabet, please produce it, with a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. First I started writing a reply to your last post: Merely stating that my question "doesn't make any sense, and relies on a straw man fallacy", without explaining why, does not say or prove anything. This is not how a discussion should be conducted. - and wrote a question: If you say that "Serbo-Croatian is the only Slavic language with two scripts, which is why you don't see "Polish Latin" or "Czech Latin" on Wikipedia for example, because they are always in Latin script", then do we see Serbo-Croatian Latin on Wikipedia? - then I read this question again and it came to me that I was wrong (English Wikipedia uses Latin script) - and this is how I continued: Ok, now I see your point and I agree. Somehow, it seemed to me, as I said, that the addition of "Serbo-Croatian" before "Cyrillic" is unnecessary. I did not remember seeing Polish Latin or German Latin (go figure why) and also the article title "Josip Broz Tito" is in Serbo-Croatian already, not "Joseph Broz Tito" so I thought that adding "Serbo-Croatian" before "Cyrillic" would somehow imply that "Josip Broz Tito" is not the Latin version of his name in Serbo-Croatian. Only "Cyrillic" was so long in the article, and at first, as I explained, it seemed logical. I somehow ignored the fact that the English Wikipedia is in Latin, so "German Latin" or "Polish Latin" would be, lets just say unnecessary (I don't want to say idiotic). Sorry, I really did not have any bad faith or tried to push something. Do you agree that if I come across some other article that has only "Cyrillic" and should have "Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic", that I can edit that? For the letter Џ I immediately remember seeing it in a picture or video from Macedonia, was it a sign for a town or something, I don't remember. For Љ, and Њ I had to check. It seems they are also in the Macedonian azbuka and in Itelmen language (never heard of it) and Udege language(never heard of it). I will edit the article as discussed. Thanks you for clarifying. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, no harm done. You certainly can use the Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic template on relevant articles, and I would support it. As far as Macedonian is concerned, it is also an South Slavic language and only being relatively recently formalised (in the 1940s) and North Macedonia having been part of Yugoslavia, it draws on parts of Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic as well as Bulgarian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In the article it is claimed that Tito was seen by most as as a benevolent dictator. However, this may be very misleading. Namely, after taking a closer look at the referenced text, it can be seen that it is taken from a book that contains testimonies of ordinary people with various opinions and possible biases. Thus, the claim that Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator is again the opinion of a single person as can be seen in the book that has been referenced there. On the other hand, however, there are numerous sources that claim Tito's reign to be a bloody dictatorship.^[1][2][3] Therefore, the claim about Tito being a benevolent dictator is biased and it should be said in a more neutral way, namely by mentioning the other side as well. Nbanic (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac is mentioned in this article and the content dealing with him has been changed several times. Namely, today his trial is considered to have been a show trial. This may have been unclear from some older versions of this article. In order to make things more clear to a reader, it useful to mention that on 22 July 2016, the Zagreb County Court annulled his post-war conviction due to "gross violations of current and former fundamental principles of substantive and procedural criminal law".^[1] Namely, there were numerous communist trials that were later not annulled, but this specific one was condemned even back in 1992 by the Croatian parliament. Therefore, mentioning this fact gives a reader a more clear picture about the facts. Nbanic (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You consider it to be a show trial. If Stepinac was a war criminal or not is not the subject of this article. Do not change the lead of the article as you like, that kind of edits show that you are just interested to push your own POV, so please educate yourself on how Wikiepdia works. This kind ob behavior is unproductive and disturbing, so please educate yourself on how Wikiepdai works, and please DO NOT ENGAGE IN EDIT WARS. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote had to do with the sources, i.e. I wrote sourced content. That means that I wrote what a large number of authors consider. Additionally, if Stepinac is already mentioned in the article and his trial is also mentioned in the article, it means that it should be clarified further. Otherwise, someone may get only partial information. Please, do not engage in an edit war as you do without reasoning your actions of deleting sourced content. Nbanic (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi, can you please tell me how is Total news Croatia RS? Also, what is the point in stating that the conviction was annulled in 2016? This article is about Josip Broz Tito, who died in 1980. The section, in the article, where the sentence: "On 22 July 2016, the Zagreb County Court annulled his post-war conviction due to "gross violations of current and former fundamental principles of substantive and procedural criminal law"; was added, continues with: "In October 1946,..." So we go from year 1945 to 2016 and then back to 1946. This is not how an article should be written. I do not dispute that some consider it to be a show trial, or that the conviction was annulled in the 21st century. The topic is too complicated to be merely composed in one sentence. It is wrong to burden this article with that kind of "discussion about Stepinac". Is it not better to remove the two newly added sentences, and change the existing sentence, like this: "The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on trial.", so that it redirects to the article about the trail, where the content about the trial is and should be covered? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the mentioned change would be more appropriate like this: "The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on a show trial.". Nbanic (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe even better like this "The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on what is by many considered to be a show trial." Nbanic (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Here all the currently used references could also be put.

Is not stating that it was a "trial" neutral and that it was a "show trial" not neutral? Best to see what other users think. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is neutral if it is a fact, there are numerous sources that claim that it was a show trial, even back then it sent shock waves in the diplomacy. So the statement is definitely neutral because it is in accordance with the facts and it gives more information by simply giving an additional word to the sentence. Nbanic (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a trial. That can't be disputed. If it was or was not a show trial is disputable, unclear and not the subject of this article. Historians can't agree on the subject, but user Nbanic seems to have a monopoly on truth. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I have seen the majority of historians agree on the fact that it was a show trial, even the newest research shows this, take for example the work of Dr. Gitman. I did not encounter serious books that would try to dispute that it was a show trial. Therefore, it seems to be a useful information that is even simply added. Nbanic (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked again and I found this reference.^[1] The book clearly states that the trial was also covered in numerous newspapers outside Yugoslavia and that it was largely perceived as a classic communist show trial. I am going to add this reference to the main text as well. Nbanic (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In the current version of the article it is mentioned that ten years after Tito's death Yugoslavia descended into civil war. This claim is very dubious and it seems that is should be changed just to the claim that it descended into a war, i.e. not a civil war because it avoid many possible mistakes. For example, the Croatian_War_of_Independence is also one of the resulting wars there. However, already on that page you can read the following text that I have copied directly from that page: Two views exist as to whether the war was a civil or an international war. The government of Serbia often states that it was entirely a "civil war".^[1][2] The prevailing view in Croatia and of most international law experts, including both international courts ICTY and ICJ, is that the war was an international conflict, between the rump Yugoslavia and Serbia against Croatia, supported by Serbs in Croatia.^[1][3][4] Neither Croatia nor Yugoslavia ever formally declared war on each other.^[5]

So if already the prevailing view of the international law experts is that it was not a civil war, it would be much better to simply drop the civil there. Does anybody have any objections? Nbanic (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The term "Yugoslavia descended into civil war" does not apply only to the Croatian war of Independence but to all the armed conflicts in Yugoslavia which followed after its dissolution. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, but take a look at e.g. the Bosnian War. There is the same issue and therefore it should as least be argued that there are significant differing views. And there also seems to be a reference missing about this being a civil war, i.e. it is unsourced. Nbanic (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

So, again, in the article on the Yugoslav Wars these conflicts are mentioned: Ten-Day War, Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, Insurgency in the Preševo Valley, and Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia with the latter two not even being classified as wars. As already mentioned earlier for the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian War, many consider these conflicts not to be civil wars and especially so in the case of the Croatian War of Independence so having the part "civil" in the part that Yugoslavia descended into civil war is highly controversial to say the last. Not to mention that there was not a single war, but a series of wars. Since for at least some of them there is a strong argument backed by the majority of the international experts that it was not a civil war (Croatian War of Independence), it would be much more appropriate, correct, and neutral in terms of points of view to remove the word "civil" from the last sentence of the introduction. Nbanic (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Of course they were a civil wars. They were the definition of civil wars. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It may seem on the first, but as I already stated on the beginning of the article, in for example the case of Croatian War of Independence there is a prevailing opinion among international experts that this is not the case due to the stuff around Croatia's recognition, the end of moratorium on independence proclamation that happened before e.g. the end of Battle of Vukovar, etc. That being said the situation here is not as simple as it may seem and precisely that is the reason that there is a lot of multiply sourced content on that topic in the page on the Croatian War of Independence. Should does not be enough to consider the term "civil" here controversial to say the least? Nbanic (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, it was not a single war, but a series of wars and conflicts that were even separated in time. Nbanic (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Civil war in the sense it it used in this passage isn't a reference to a single war, but a reference to civil war as a concept. Take the Croatian War of Independence for example. Croatia declared independence in June 1991, but there was a three month moratorium. The fighting started during that period, and Croatia's independence was not widely recognised during that period. The fighting during the moratorium, and arguably until international recognition in January 1992 was clearly a civil war, fought between Croatian forces, Serbs irregulars living within the nascent Croatian state, and the JNA. This clearly is the very definition of a civil war. Both the sieges of Vukovar and Dubrovnik occurred prior to international recognition. Once international recognition was achieved, it was both an international war and a civil war, as Serb ARSK forces (and other irregulars) continued to fight Croatian forces within the state until 1995 when they were defeated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The timeline of the battles that you described is correct. However, I think, that the reasoning for the war to be called a civil war is not widely used. Take for example the case of the United States of America (I am using it since it is a well-known country): List of nations by date of recognition of the United States So the USA was at war with the United Kingdom for a longer time before being internationally recognized then was Croatia before it was internationally recognized and you will rarely hear the American Revolutionary War being called a civil war despite the USA being formally recognized as a country by another country practically two years after the conflict has started. Thus it seems to me illogical to apply some different logic to the Croatian War of Independence when the largest operations in it took place a long time after Croatia was already an internationally recognized state, member of the UN, etc. So if the Croatian War of Independence is supposed to be marked as a civil war, then that would contradict as it seems to me at least the logic for other similar wars. The term Yugoslav civil war is not even sourced in the article on Yugoslav wars and as mentioned earlier, the topic is and was hotly debated among the international experts with the majority being of the opinion that it was not a civil war. Wouldn't it in the terms of neutrality then be better to simply mention that there ware Yugoslav wars, and not a Yugoslav civil war? Nbanic (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that "civil war" is the Serbian view of this conflict ie that everyone is equally guilty and that Serbia is not blame for Yugoslav wars but rather that it was some kind of civil war which has nothing to do with Serbia. We should see the legal point of view(what is actually civil war), but promotion civil war fact on wikipedia also needs plenty of sources citing this information. Mikola22 (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that whole line of argument defies logic. Feel free to post a neutrally-worded RfC about it, but I doubt you'll get much support, for the reasons I've identified. For example, in what way would be fighting between Croatian forces and the ARSK be international? They were both fighting in Croatia, and the RSK wasn't recognised by the international community... Obviously that is a civil war. What else is it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67. Armed conflicts are not defined by what someone thinks is an armed conflict or a civil war but by law, international law, etc. Also this article in not the right place to have such kind of discussion as there are multiple articles covering the wars that followed after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and where more users covering that precise topic can be involved. This is just another attempt by a disruptive user who is a proven sock puppet user - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic - to push his own POV. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 you told that civil war is a period of time until Croatia becomes internationally recognized. If the Yugoslav army armed local Serbs, many soldiers from Serbia and Bosnia fighting at that time in Croatia. Is that too civil war fighting with Bosnian and Serbian soldiers in Croatia? Is it a ten day war in Slovenia also civil war? Mikola22 (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, I didn't say that. Even after Croatian independence was internationally recognised, there were still ARSK forces fighting Croatian forces until 1995. This was clearly an ongoing civil war between Croatian state forces and irregulars who controlled a large swathe of the country. I don't understand the rest of your post, I'm afraid. Frankly I agree with Tuvixer, this is a minor matter on this particular article and I have explained the context in which the term civil war has been used in this article. It is clearly correct and I don't propose continue to argue in circles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that there is a reason why Croatian War of Independence if not considered to be a civil war so I am not pushing my own point of view as stated by some, but the point of view of a large number of experts. Nevertheless, it seems that there is not any agreement. On the other hand, the article still mentions that there was a single Yugoslav war by using the pronoun war in the singular. I think that we can all agree that e.g. the conflict in Kosovo had practically no direct connection to the Ten-Days War. I intend to change the part "civil Yugoslav war" into "civil Yugoslav wars" and this is also the name of the articles. Does someone object to that? Nbanic (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object to that. I have explained the context of the use of the phrase "civil war" and it is fine as it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that I understand the context that you have explained and in my last comment I was not anymore interested in the nature of the definition of the civil war and its application to these wars. I was more interested in the fact that there were several wars there, civil or not. Because of that I think that the noun war should be changed to wars because even the article that it points to n article that has plural in its name, namely the Yugoslav wars, which cover the Ten-Day War, the Kosovo War, and other conflicts. So, to make it more clear as not to interfere with the word "civil" - would it be OK to change the word "war" to "wars"? Nbanic (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't be grammatically correct. There is also no reason for that, civil war in this context is a concept, not a strictly singular compound noun. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi, this kind of edit by user Nbanic, combined with other edits that she/he has made, clearly shows that she/he is only interested in pushing her/his own point of view and that she/he is not interested in improving this article. It is pointless and unproductive to add a quote or citation to the lead just to make a POV push. First, I have no problem and I do not dispute that some consider that Tito was "equal" or "as bad as" Stalin, etc. Most of them, if not all, consider that he was even worse than Stalin. That is mostly because they are guide by their personal feelings which can cloud someones objective thinking. The phrase "taste for bloody revenge against enemies" seems like something from a trash movie, but ok. That point of view is already covered in the lead by "...his presidency has been criticised as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised... So I will moved the added content to a more suitable place in the article. Do you think maybe that it is better to state this in the section about Tito-Stalin split? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am for a neutral point of view and this did not seem to be the case with the previous version of the article. If his evaluation is already given in the introduction, than it should be neutral by giving both points of view. Tuvixer also says that he also does not dispute that some consider him a dictator similar to Stalin. So, in order for the evaluation in the introduction be neutral, this should also be stated. Nbanic (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I also do not dispute that some consider the Earth to be flat. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that few people dispute that. Nbanic (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As discussed, the referenced part where an author compares Tito to Stalin should be moved to a more appropriate section of the article, even though it was added by a user who constantly tries to push POV and engages in edit-warring. Does anyone else have any opinion on this matter? Any input would be welcome. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is now, it is reliably sourced and nicely balances the "benevolent dictator" material. The lead needs a lot of work, but frankly, so does the whole article, and the lead should summarise the article. I rewrote it up to Tito becoming General Secretary, a year or two ago, but haven't been able to dedicate the time to complete it. There are varying views on Tito, not all are laudatory. We must strive for a NPOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I agree. We should strive for NPOV. I think that it was NOPV before, but ok. I see the sentence added by the disruptive user Nbanic who is now using multiple sock puppets as redundant or at least ill placed or placed in the wrong place. Maybe it would be bast to incorporate it somehow in: "his presidency has been criticised as authoritarian and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised"? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That bit doesn't reflect this more negative view, and it is supported by a weak source. I think it is best as it is, a short sentence after the "benevolent dictator" bit. Frankly, the behaviour of the editor that put it there is irrelevant, it is clearly reliably sourced, and should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This kind of editing is an obvious POV push. That must be clear. Only editing the lead and with no intention of improving the article. I just don't see how this improves the article, especially when the lead is too long and when that kind of generalization is only backed by a marginal group of people, mostly right-wing. The fact is that Tito rejected Stalin and his presidency is not comparable to those of Stalin. How is he as bad as Stalin, no one explained. They" shared a taste for bloody revenge against enemies"? That sound like emperor Palpatine. It would be much more prudent to include that sentence somewhere in the article, as I have done, in the section Evaluation. Or maybe in Tito-Stalin split to present how Tito "said No to Stalin" but is perceived by some to be as bad as that. A statement that is a blatant generalization and is only an opinion not based on facts and truth. Politicians are often, those from the past and those in the present, compared to some "demonic" figures. Those on the left, mostly from marginal right-wing groups, like president Obama was compared to Hitler. I don't see that kind of "view" in the lead of his article, or in the article in general. Or the uneducated comparison that Bernie Sanders is equal to Fidel Castro. That kind of generalization is false, also bad and wrong and against Wikipedia rules. This kind of undue weight is misleading. Stating that Tito is as bad as Stalin gives undue weight to, be it a significant or a tiny minority view. That by Wikipedia rules should not be done and should not be attempted. As I have said before, the Earth is not flat, but some people think that it is. Both stamens are true, I just don't see that Earth is referred to, anywhere on Wikipedia as: "Earth or Flat Earth". --Tuvixer (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It is stated that Others consider him being a brutal dictator similar to Stalin. and this is then sourced. So, again, others, not everyone. Similarly, not everyone considers him to have been a benevolent dictator. How is this pushing any point of view? Not stating the other opinion would be an obvious push of a non-neutral point of view. If this is not supposed to be in the introduction, then neither is the claim about the benevolent dictator since it would be a push to the left-leaning point of view. Nbanic (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My thought would be a statement on both sides back by the appropriate citations that are considerable so something like “Tito says he is the spawn of Satan (cite), however, others compare him to Kim Jung un” (cite). Obviously I used different names because I’m not reading the article so I think in this case because of the numerous POV doing something like that would be considered neutral as there are two sides especially when it comes to an individual. This is just my thought and hopefully you all can come to a conclusion without an edit war. If you need anything else, let me know! —Galendalia (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Currently, both sides have a reference. Earlier there were several references to Tito being a harsh dictator if I remember correctly, but now only one of the recent books has been left as a sole one. However, more references can be added. Should that be done? Nbanic (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user Nbanic, again after being blocked for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nbanic is trying to push her/his own POV, giving nonsensical arguments and, as always, is leading the discussion in circles. That kind of behavior shows a clear and blatant attempt for an POV push by disruptive user Nbanic. Also I don't see how including someones opinion of himself should be relevant NPOV or can improve the article... Of course there are two sides, and they were included, as I have explained before. This is now all a POV push by disruptive user Nbanic. minority view should not be given undue weight. Earth is not flat. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this a kind of ad hominem attack here? Please, this is supposed to be a civilizes discussion, try to follow it. Can you please explain how my arguments are nonsensical? You should try to explain such statements and this is definitely not a minority view. Can you show that it is a minority view by using a reliable source? It seems to me that you are trying to push a non-neutral point of view without providing any references. Could you please support your claims with some reliable references? Nbanic (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, clearly Nbanic and I disagree with you, so you don't have consensus for the removal of this sentence from the lead. If you think that consensus for its removal might be gained by a wider community view, feel free to initiate a neutrally worded RfC or initiate another form of dispute resolution. There is no point in going around and around in circles here making the same points. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It says "others" - it sourced just a quote of Churchill from 1946. Tito was not even president at this time, the source is misleading, because it promotes only the POV of Churchill! --Koreanovsky (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The reference for why he chose the name "Tito" says: Dedijer, p.81. The article lists two books by Dedijer as sources:

• Dedijer, Vladimir (1952). Tito. New York City: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-405-04565-3.
• Dedijer, Vladimir (1953). Tito Speaks: His Self Portrait and Struggle with Stalin. London, England: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Which one is it? I haven't read either. JIP | Talk 23:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Apparently it is the latter one. The proper cite was in place until April 2015, when it was removed. JIP | Talk 14:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Josip Broz Tito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add link to Death and state funeral of Josip Broz Tito to See also section. P macauslan (talk) P macauslan (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

•   Not done, the article is already linked in the article. See MOS:SEEALSO. buidhe 21:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Griboski Buidhe can you please explain why sourced content was removed and explain other recent changes to the article that you have made. Also why did you change the source to the book in English, was that based on the content on the book or just arbitrary? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never edited this article. Looks like you've confused me with Buidhe. --Griboski (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, English sources are generally preferred when they have the same content, per WP:V. The other content removed was explained in edit summaries, please get consensus for retaining the material per WP:ONUS.

• "However, the relationship would reach another low in the late 1960s." this is due if it is correctly sourced and true, but the source does not actually make the claim; appears to be original interpretation of a primary source.
• Ó Brádaigh/Welles appraisal: Given the vast number of sources on Tito, for this content to be WP:DUE it should be mentioned in sources dealing with Tito specifically, rather than a primary source (in the former case) or an article dealing with Welles (and I was not able to verify this particular quote to a more reliable source) buidhe 21:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Griboski I was talking to user Buidhe, sorry. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe please stop edit-warring. It is unproductive and insulting. If there is a discussion please do not change the article when your edits were reverted. If we are going to have a civil discussion you need to stop edit warring. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, It's not edit warring to ask you to abide by WP:ONUS and get consensus for this material. buidhe 07:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

please address the actual points I made above rather than make accusations of edit warring. buidhe 07:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe all is sourced and verifiable. All sources provided are RS. If you have a problem with that then please explain why sourced content should be removed from the article. It is not up to me to seek consensus as you are the only one who is falsely claiming that the content is not verifiable and you are ignoring the discussion. If you do not stop edit warring and do not engage in a civil discussion I will have to report you. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." Please do not engage in edit warring and if you do not want to engage in a civil discussion then please try to seek consensus and follow Wikipedia rules. If you have been reverted you need to seek consensus and start or join a discussion. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, You haven't explained why the content in question is not WP:OR and is WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. buidhe 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

BuidheI have started a discussion and tried to engage in it, you just kept edit warring and reverting which is a clear sign of bad faith on your part. This kind of disruptive behavior makes any civil discussion impossible. I am open to the edits that you made but if they are explained in a civil manner and not by misinterpreting and manipulating the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, Please stop accusing me of bad faith and start addressing the points I made (why is this content not OR and DUE for inclusion?), remember WP:Content not contributor. buidhe 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

First, I feel very uncomfortable engaging in a discussion with a user who is edit warring and breaking Wikipedia rules. Second, for example, the Orson Welles quote is not OR nor DUE. The one who claims that it is need to prove it, it is not the other way around. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, If it's WP:DUE, you should be able to find a source which is about Tito (not Welles), which considers it relevant. I was unable to find any such source. (See also WP:OR, which states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"—a source about Welles is not directly related to Tito) buidhe 08:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The finding at edit warring noticeboard was "no violation", so please stop accusing me of bad faith editing, edit warring, or "breaking Wikipedia rules", and address the content directly. Thanks. buidhe 08:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe The source in question is reliable, it is directly related to Josip Broz Tito and directly supports the material being presented. Quote from the article: "He was friendly with Yugoslavian dictator President Tito, whom he first met in 1946 and once called "the greatest man in the world today"". By just a quick google search more sources confirming the same can be found. The administrator who resolved the matter stated that you were edit-warring and that "a version achieved by edit warring shouldn't be allowed to stand". So, please, show for start some good faith and revert yourself. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, It's written by a film critic, not a historian[1] and the piece only mentions Tito in that sentence. If there is a better source for this material, please post it here. buidhe 09:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Since there are multiple scholarly biographies of Tito, content that is due in this article will probably be in at least one of them. The Pirjevec biography, for instance, barely mentions Welles in one sentence[2] and does not include the quote. buidhe 09:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

she can't revert herself, the article is locked. Get some DR people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For example here ^[1] and here ^[2]. The source provided in the article is RS. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The first of these is an online news portal, not a great source compared to the large number of scholarly sources about Tito. The second is about Welles, not Tito. Again, there are a very large number of evaluations of Tito. Why is this one specifically relevant to include in the article? buidhe 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to run in circles. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• The content about the 1960s appears to be a bit inaccurate, it could be replaced by: "Relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union worsened in the late 1960s because of the Yugoslav economic reform and Yugoslav support for the Prague Spring.^[3]" buidhe 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What is inaccurate? --Tuvixer (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The academic source does not support the implication that the 1960s were a "low", as the relationship did not improve in the 1970s. buidhe 10:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. It seems like you are making your own conclusions. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think the previous version is better? buidhe 10:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I can offer a third opinion. The articles for a leader such as Tito are always difficult since it can be argued that almost any detail of a significant world leader's actions, short of what they had for dinner,^[4] is by definition significant. Let's therefore start with the core principles of the project, the Core Content Policies. The Neutral Point of View Policy includes a section on due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Both parts of the disputed edit are implicated by that policy. To take them one at a time:

• Long Tito quote from Christman: That the improvement in Yugoslav-USSR relations brought about by Stalin's death later soured is important and should be noted and the Christman book is an adequate RS for that. The quote, however, adds nothing to understanding the subject and is little more than standard Cold War chest-thumping. There are already more than adequate examples in the article of Tito's rhetoric, this was not an event of such significance to Tito's life that a quote that long is necessary, and this is not Wikiquote. For all those reasons, the quote should not be re-added.
• The Ó Brádaigh and Welles quotes: Quotes from other world leaders or reactions from governments are often included in the sections about the subject world leader's death. Neither of those applies to these. They read as nothing more than minor hagiographic comments to convince the reader how important Tito was. That is definitely not NPOV, as it is up to the reader to decide for themselves. If the reader of this article hasn't become convinced of Tito's importance in the Cold War by that point in the article, the reactions of a party leader and an actor aren't going to change their minds. On a technical level, they are also in the wrong place. They should not be re-added.

The bulk of the disputed edit therefore consists of quotes that, even though they are reliably-sourced, violate NPOV and do not belong in the article. Articles have to comply with all three of the core content policies and a passage added to an article cannot hide under the skirts of one policy if it violates others. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Merely stating that something is not NPOV without explaining why is an empty argument. The quote is not in the article but in the source description and if Buidhe can be more articulate then we can come to a consensus about the "1960s fall". Now I really do not understand what Buidhe is trying to say. I agree that the quote from Welles could/should be moved to a better place in the article. The quote is not "pulled out of a hat", unlike the Ó Brádaigh quote. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

?????? @Tuvixer:, I just wrote four paragraphs "explaining why" the bulk of the disputed text is NPOV. Please re-read the above and the policy itself. I particularly refer you to the phrase "...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The Christman quote, even in its original context, is a few lines about a comparatively minor event compared to the rest of Tito's rule, his speeches, and Yugoslav history. It is out of proportion. The quote from Wells is similarly not in proportion to the world reaction to Tito's death as it is one of only two reactions you were trying to add and the reaction from other governments and world leaders is absent. If that doesn't "explain why", you may be overly-committed to these potential edits. This is a cooperative project. "Anyone can edit" means that not only can any editor add something but that any other editor can change or even remove it altogether. This is why we operate by WP:CONSENSUS. Currently, the consensus of the only four editors that have expressed opinions is that these are WP:UNDUE additions. Since 405 editors watch this page and none have yet expressed opinions on this, the great likelihood is not that this is a representative sample. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: You were only stating your own opinion. How can a quote that is not presented as fact give undue weight was not explained. I haven't added anything. Buidhe was the one who removed sourced content from the article. Please look at the article and edit history, I hope it was a honest mistake. It seems to me that by stating that I "may be overly-committed to these potential edits" you are using ad hominem attacks in lack of real arguments. But let me say this: I am absolutely open to the removal of all "contested" content. I wanted to discuss this with Buidhe but she/he tried to bully her/his edits by edit-warring. I hope you can understand that this is a Balkan related topic and this and other articles are subject to constant disruptive edits. Now, the Christman quote is not even a issue, so I do not understand what you are saying? That the sentence "However, the relationship would reach another low in the late 1960s." should be removed or what? After your explanation I can see that the Ó Brádaigh quote seems random. I just don't see why the Welles quote should be removed, given the fact that Welles is a known person around the globe and has a great legacy. And also the quote does not present opinion as facts. The question is not, do you agree with Welles or not. Or do you think it is? --Tuvixer (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:, I'm going to put on my pendant hat for a second because Ad hominem does not mean what the Internet seems to think it means. It does not mean: "you said something about me and that automatically invalidates what you said." It means: "You attacked me as a way to invalidate what I said." I did not attack you, I (very gently) suggested a commitment to a particular edit. Our contributions are not valuable to this project because of who we are or that they are ours or that we are quoting some famous person. They are valuable because they help the reader and no other reason. You have now been given multiple policy-based reasons why these edits do not contribute to that. Dismissing my statements as merely my opinion misses the fact that I stated at the beginning that I was offering a third opinion and never pretended otherwise. That opinion, however, is informed by long experience and what the policies actually say. You are free to disagree but WP:CONSENSUS is more important than any editor's opinion. At this point, it is clear that "winning" this argument has become important but I will decline to continue engaging in that. I will state that, as you yourself pointed out, that WP:ARBEE applies and I will caution against WP:TE. Stay safe and healthy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: as you said, you gave a third opinion, an non-binding advice. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to respond to your accusations. I have stated that I am open to anything and you only insulted me (very gently) and wrote rows of unproductive comments that have nothing to do with this article. Unfortunately --Tuvixer (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There's clearly consensus against the version of the article you prefer. Best either accept that and move on, or start an RFC about it, if you must. buidhe 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus, since 405 editors watch this page and only one gave an non-binding advice. If you want, start a RFC. You have ignored the discussion and I advise you to engage so we can resolve this. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User buidhe is again ignoring the talk page and bullying her/his way into the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe and Eggishorn. You don't have a consensus for these edits. Use DR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you should have expressed your opinion earlier. buidhe made those edits without consensus. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I have reverted, and you should have divined where I stood from that. Also, Eggishorn and Buidhe outnumber you anyway. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I was mistaken. Still I have to say that I don't know how to read other peoples minds. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

How fortunate for you, then, that you didn't have to. It was right here on the page all along, you just didn't want to accept it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are by Rudolph Rummel: just one which reports in number 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse and other one which reports in number 9 Tito's Slaughterhouse. These sources are in introduction of Rummel's article in numbers 11 and 12 but in this article were removed and some users defend an unreliable source of unknown Shapiro about benevolent dictator. Furthermore my innocent attempt of neutral form was cancelled and other sources inserted by user Arslan Arie were removed. I want start a discussion regarding valid sources by important historian and fakes by an obscure author like as Shapiro, who has not an article on wiki. I changed just a word, but 2 minutes later it was cancelled: congratulations for high attention and quickly action! There are different opinions regarding a neutral form with reliable sources and discussion needed. I am waiting your opinions.--Forza bruta (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how much can I help you now as I am not too much into Tito area of editing lately. All I did was just reverting an unexplained removal of sourced content by an IP account who left the article unbalanced that way. I believe I uderstand what are you refering to. Unfortunatelly, still nowadays, the issue is still very much politicized. Several groups lobby for a positive narrative and legacy of Tito often removing or minimizing any negative one. The problem further grows when the full extent of the complexity of his personality and his policies comes into light. It´s impossible to describe one Tito, as there is a clear change in his personality, mostly visible at time he establishes his power and fears no more any internal rivals or enemies. Initially, he was a typical rutless dictator who believed the goals justified all actions. Behaving just as other communist leaders did, including same disregard for human rights, Tito strenghten his power by spreading fear and terror ammong his rivals and opponents, even simple critics. There is still a major controversy regarding the numbers of people killed and encarcerated in "labour camps" by Tito regime during the years after WWII. After his split with Stalin, Tito purged even the party itself to guarantee full loyalty of all members. It is in the following period that Tito gains simpathy in the west, and, subsequently, allows more freedom and liberal reforms to take place which will last until his death.

So this is the problem. How to include this complexity without falling into the trapp of just condemning him for being a mean communist dictator, or, celebrate him for being a "cool" or "benevolent" dictator, or condemning him for having treated without mercy his enemies, or, having taken advanage in the process and having eliminated much more than his enemies, and in a cruel way?

Too often writers, including respectable historians, descibe Tito in a certain way just to make a point. This is even more commun ammong local and neighbouring historians. By cherry-picking one phase of Tito rule, one can easily make him a hero or a vilain. Focusing on the post-war 1940s and 1950s Tito was hardly any different from any major communist dictator. It is then in the 1960s and 1970s that he is praised by the west for not being alligned with Soviet Union while practicing a communism with many liberal aspects included in it.

Internally, Tito removed the Serbian dinasty from the power, and shrinked Serbia maximally. However, Serbs formed the majority of Partisans, and were unhappy with the previous regime which favoured Serbian burguesie, so they embraced this idea of Yugoslavism and brotherhood and unity ammong all people. Serbs were after all still the most numerous, occupied high ranks in the army and state, and for Tito it was important to mantain a certain level of satisfaction ammong Serbs to avoid any revolts. Croats, once saw that Axis was going to loose, adhered en masse to Partisans in 1944, since the other Allied option, Chetniks, was defending the restauration of the monarchy which they were not fun of ever since 1918, when Kingdom of Yugoslavia was formed. Besides, Croats were getting internally a Croatia with botders drown in such a way that offred them more then any offer they had in the last 1000 years. A united Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, and with Tito still fighting to expand Croatian coast at Italian expenses as far as Trieste where Italians were clearly a majority and made no sense anymore fighting there than some Yugoslav/Croatian irredentism. Other nationalities didn´t complaind regarding Tito, Macedonians saw their status being raised to nationality, Montenegrins and Bosnians became republics, and overall minorities saw the change of regime as an improvement in their position. Ironically, when Yugoslavia starrted breaking-up, it was Serbia who tried to keep the union and kept, along Montenegro, the name Yugoslavia for their country.

So, what we need to adress here is that complexity. His initial tipical-communist dictatorial behavior, to a moderate, near-liberal conduct he had by the end. Gathering good sources is crucial and taking atention not to missuse them, to see if they are coverng his political style ovrall, or just in some phase. My main goal is to try to mqntain the article balanced, with best way reliable sources present him. FkpCascais (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Forza bruta, it would be better if you added content to the body of the article. The lead, in its current state, is balanced enough in my opinion, and it's best to concentrate on the rest of the article. Once that is done, the lead can be changed to reflect it. Tezwoo (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Endorse Tezwoo's comment. Pacemaker (click to talk to me) 22:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I want find a friendly agrement with administrator Pacemaker who spends long time on this article, but in opposite case I will start a regular dispute with tag of POV. I inserted various messages in Pacemaker's talk and send two emails to him and now I am here for explaining the point. The sentence While some criticise his presidency as authoritarian[5][6] and compare him to the brutality of Stalin,[7] many see Tito as a benevolent dictator.[8] is against all logical senses!

• 1-Broz Tito was a dictator: the obscure author Shapiro writes just his personal opinion about benevolent dictator because he does not report a survey in his almost unknown book; no data regarding a poll are in Shapiro's book. Source of Shapiro is in wrong position because it is source of not important historian: to transfer this unreliable source in section needed!
• 2-authoritarian presidency is not the same to dictator: Broz Tito was a dictator, according even Shapiro, but several historian like as Rummel affirms Tito's Slaughterhouse with 1,072,000 murdered! In introduction Rummel's source needed because Rummel is the best historian about political mass murderer: Broz Tito was a mass murderer!
• 3-In this sentence there are sources at numbers 5,6,7 which accuses Broz Tito and many other sources we can find, but Shapiro is solo author who support Broz Tito with his personal opinion about benevolent dictator and no many see Tito as a benevolent dictator but solo Shapiro reports a popularity as a benevolent dictator
• 4-In introduction does not exist a description of dictatorial Broz Tito's manner in his regime with numbers regarding victims and prisoners!

Introduction is POV very much!

Now I propose sentence: While several criticise his as dictator and mass murderer[5 Rummel's source][6] and compare him to the brutality of Stalin,[7] solo Shapiro reports Tito as a benevolent dictator.[8].--Forza bruta (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Forza bruta, it is very, very difficult to find meaning in your posts here due to English usage difficulties. I know that you are trying very hard to be understood but your argument is distorted by these problems. It is apparent that you want Tito to be described in a certain way but you need to read the Core Content Policies. We can't substitute our judgement about sources or article subjects for what the sources themselves say. The English Wikipedia is not the "central" or "main" or "most important" Wikipedia and there is almost certainly another language Wikipedia where it would be easier for you to communicate. I hope this advice helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You can read Rummel's sources in your own language: Rummel was U.S.A. citizen and professor! Maybe you don't understand what historian Rummel claims or you are a cousin of Shapiro! The problem is your and not mine: Rummel is important and not Shapiro! If you want, I can send Rummel's book to you in New England for your better deepen on this dictator. I repeat: this article is dramatically POV.--Forza bruta (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Support - Yes, Tito should be clearly presented as mass murderer in the first sentence of the article. That is an undisputed fact supported by every single source about him. Some sources that attempt to present Titoist mass murders as "understandable" and him as "benevolent" should be given less weight, outside of the lede, in order to avoid violation of WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support The new proposal would bring more balance to the general image of this particular person and dictator. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose not because I think that the current description is right, but because this suggestion is just as POV. We should use what the consensus of reliable sources say about Tito's rule, not just one or two that a few editors with an axe to grind think would be good to include. The suggested words are no closer to a neutral description of Tito's rule than the current ones. How about editors actually put some effort into the Legacy section of the body that discusses this, and THEN we summarise what that says in the lead? I'm so sick of this never-ending contestation over the wording of leads and minor things in infoboxes when the articles themselves just aren't up to scratch, and the lead and infobox should be a summary of the body of the article. This behaviour is tendentious and needs to stop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Examples of books that should be consulted in expanding the Legacy section include: Tito and His Comrades by Jože Pirjevec, Tito by Neil Barnett, Tito-Yugoslavia's Great Dictator: A Reassessment by Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Tito: A Biography by Geoffrey Swain, With Stalin against Tito: Cominformist Splits in Yugoslav Communism by Ivo Banac, and Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia by Richard West. I'm sure there are others that provide an overall and balanced assessment of Tito rather than some cherry-picked sentence fragment from one author. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

just one word in that sentence: no some criticize him but several historians criticize him and we have found the agreement! Only one word.--Forza bruta (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• strong oppose the publisher describes the authors: "Health education consultant and author Susan G. Shapiro lives with husband Ronald Shapiro, a foreign business development consultant and lecturer, in Silver Springs, Maryland." --no evidence of historical training. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Tito being described as "the ninth worst/deadliest dictator of all time" (or something along those lines) is a trope that's circulated in Croatian ultra-nationalist circles for years. The assertion that Tito was somehow responsible for over 1 million deaths is utter nonsense. That being said, the lead should certainly contain a summary of the Bleiburg killings, the post-war expulsion of ethnic Germans, Tito's repression of domestic political opponents and the killing of nationalists abroad during the Cold War. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

exactly ninth bloodiest dictator in statistic by Rummel, who was not Croat neither ultra-nationalist: read here. Rummel ever support his data with notes and references while Shapiro never do it because he is not a reliable historian!--Forza bruta (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, mostly per Peacemaker. Rummel is a bit eccentric and often his contentions are far off the academic mainstream. The current lead is balanced. (t · c) buidhe 20:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, same reasons as Peacemaker67. Peacemaker is also correct that the Evaluation section could be helped. Ted71 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, mister Shapiro is not a real historian and his book is unreliable very much: his source can't be used in lead.--Teo Pitta (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)