Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Semi-protection urgently needed for Tito entry

I have just restored sections on Tito's article that some IP user deleted. Such vandalism is a chronic problem with this entry. It deserves semi-protection under Wikipedia guidelines which state: "Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from accounts that are not autoconfirmed. Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are: Subject to heavy and persistent vandalism." The Tito entry is persistently vandalized. Aslo some Users is used article to describe there nacionlism and not references facts.Snake bgd 10:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection doesn't solve neutrality problem but I am dumbfounded by behaviour of an admin who restored shamefully titoist propaganda! This article is tagged and I want contribute to neutrality! I agree with users Sir Floyd, ShadowRanger, Andrea Fox2, Thewanderer, AP1929, Jeppiz and others who reported here a lot of sources about Broz crimes: I will report these sources to article in my next edits.--ANTE RAKELA (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Standard-issue nationalist spam. The higher the quality an article posesses, the more of these accounts are attracted. Some action must certainly be taken to safeguard the hard-established neutrality of the article (I'm not saying the article is perfectly neutral, but the torrent of Balkans political spam will only demolish what we have thus far). Obviously either the article should get protected or something should be done about the disruptive account (the latter seems more appropriate, imho). I'm going offline for a few days (I'm generally busy again) if User:ANTE RAKELA continues this sort of behavior, I'll compile a report.
A word to User:ANTE RAKELA (I'm not under the impression my warning will be heeded, but what the hey): please refrain from introducing controversial edits without prior discussion. Do not edit-war. If you are reverted, discuss and at least try to agree with people (form a consensus). Trying to push your edits "by force" will certainly not work. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request semi-production at WP:RPP if anybody wants but to be honest, there isn't much real vandalism (a bunch of people who call every actual content dispute vandalism isn't vandalism) and full protection would be needed to really get it under control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Specific times the Germans could have killed Tito

Ok, I don't get the inference between the paragraph I removed here. While I get that increased German resources fighting him would mean more chances to be captured or killed, I don't get what that (unsourced) random paragraph adds. If the particular battles are important, I think it's better to put them in context chronologically than try to do a summary of the situation in the middle of a chronology. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Partisans were hard to pin down. Tito, however, was one guy. The Axis main effort to removethe Partisans was centered on capturing/killing the Partisan high command, i.e. Tito personally. The SS commando Raid on Drvar is a good example of this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

R.J. Rummel's manuscript

Here, I removed this source as I do not think a pre-publisher manuscript is an reliable source in accordance with policy. I'd rather not go with just his personal views and estimates until I'm sure we are given this the appropriate weight. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Otto Skorzeny was sent into Yugoslavia with the orders "Capture Marshall Tito," but failed when a general insisted that his forces, rather than Skoreny's, should attack the Partisan hideout. Given Skorzeny's position and his sucesses in previous and subsequent exploits,it is highly likely he would have succeded. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Just an idea - RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.187.217 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:ANTE RAKELA's recent edits are disturbing at best. The account apparently belives he shall first get me blocked on some nonsense charge [1] and then use enWiki to publish his "feelings" on Josip Broz Tito. Please find actual scholarly sources dealing with Josip Broz Tito personally. This is not an article on Yugoslav history. These edits show a profound lack of knowledge of Yugoslav history and a deep-set POV.

  • I removed the tons of unsourced personal "musings" by User:ANTE RAKELA, including the somewhat childish paragraph at the end of the "Critiscism" section.
  • I removed the "Tito opressed everybody with the OZNA", sentence. The OZNA has already been discussed at length. It is, of course, absurd to somehow equate Aleksandar Ranković's secret service that spied on Tito with Tito. "Tito 'opressed everybody' with the secret service controlled by the hard-liners (that bugged his house and tapped his phone lines)"? (Not to mention that the actions of the Yugoslav secret service are not related to Tito personally.)
  • I added a paragraph on the subject of Tito's culpability in the Bleiburg massacre. It is a basic fact that Tito was not only unaware of the killings, but actually explicitly forbade any violence against prisoners of war in an order issued on May 14 1945.
  • I reverted the undiscussed "POV-isation" of the section title. User:ANTE RAKELA is convinced the word "crimes" must be written in bold, it seems.
  • I restored the section on awards. Section-blanking will be reported, User:ANTE RAKELA.

User:ANTE RAKELA, please understand that your own thoughts and feelings about this person are not something the general public is likely to be interested in. Please refrain from section blanking and let me once again reccomend you discuss your edits prior to introducing them, they seem to be rather "politically charged" and are thus likely to be opposed. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are total wrong and in contradiction! First of all, you are the principal edit warrior during at least two years here but in other related articles too! Your inventions are hystrerical and absurd minds of a titoist nostalgic as you are!

  • section's title Criminal accusations is not mine!
  • awards are in a summary by my edit: you can read huge list in linked article!
  • I have reported you claiming ARBCOM as a mediation: what do you will report?
  • you have removed valid sources then you are a vandal!
  • you always remove ethnic cleansing against Hungarians sentence then you are a vandal!
  • don't edit always nonsense initial word Lol or lol in your many rows: it's annoying and arrogant; control yourself!

Now I restore correct previous edits by various editors and if you persist in your vandalizing and bullying, some admins will decision-making--ANTE RAKELA (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten Wikipedians and be polite in discourse, do not add your personal feelings and opinions as fact, and please do not engage in POV section blanking. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Authoritarian

Consensus needed on this article. Sir Floyd (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Consensuses are achieved on issues, not articles. "Consensus on article"?)
Tito was indeed what you'd call a "dictator", User:Sir Floyd (though he has been called a "benevolent dictator" in a number of scholarly publications), but we did not agree to insert the term authoritarian in the Britannica-derived lead. If the Encyclopaedia Britannica (probably the best source for encyclopedic wording) did not use the term at all, why should we stick it in the lead when its already mentioned in the article. Do not think for a moment I'm under some illusion, his rule was authoritarian, but the unilateral awkward butchering of a perfectly NPOV lead for the sake of satisfying someone's POV - now that's not what I'm prepared to agree on.
Do not add tags without actually raising POV concerns. Do not simply place the POV tag so you feel better about yourself and then go away.
And for once, PLEASE do not start revert-warring to push the edit into the article. For once, could you wait until discussions are over to have your way, or must it be "right now!"? (This is a new edit, and its opposed. Discuss before reinsertion.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Director. I see DWC LR sorted things out, that's good. Why don't you get Admin to lock this article (in it's current shape). You'll always get edited wars here. This will just go on for ever and for ever is a long time. That's my advice. Well I'm off, it's quite late here in Aussie Land. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm that was three months ago. Lots of discussion on this talkpage, looks like I forgot. My mistake. There's no call for your snide comments, Floyd. The wording is still awkward (probably because the term was inserted into a quality lead for the sake of someone's POV). I'll see about rephrasing that sentence later, stay tuned, you might want to edit-war some more. Considering the addition of the terms "benevolent authoritarian" into the lead as well. Found a number of sources describing Broz in this manner. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of name in lead sentence

Per MOS:BIO guidelines I have changed the lead sentence with regards to the subject's name. It now reads:

  • Josip Broz (7 or 25 May 1892 – 4 May 1980), commonly known as Tito, was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman.

The undisputed fact is that the subject of the article was born Josip Broz. It is also not disputed that "Tito" was not part of his legal name at birth but rather a pseudonym that he adopted at some point in his life. Without dispute again is that he is best known by this pseudonym, himself acknowledging it to the point that that's almost exclusively the way he signed his name.

MOS:BIO, in the section dealing with Pseudonyms, stage names and common names states: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym." In this case, that would mean that "Josip Broz" would appear first, closely followed by "Tito". MOS:BIO also states "Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name." Adopting the usage of a nickname does not mean that the name was legally changed.

Examples of right and wrong application of the guidelines can be found all over the encyclopedia but I'll use a few WP:FA articles as examples of how the above MOS guidelines have been applied because those are the articles that have undergone the most scrupulous examinations.

  • From Yasser Arafat:
    • Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (Arabic: محمد عبد الرؤوف عرفات القدوة الحسيني, 24 August 1929 – 11 November 2004), popularly known as Yasser Arafat (ياسر عرفات) or by his kunya Abu Ammar (أبو عمار), was...
  • From Diocletian:
    • Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (c. 22 December 244[1] – 3 December 311[2]), born Diocles (Greek: Διοκλῆς) and commonly known as Diocletian (pronounced /ˌdаɪ.ɵˈkliːʃən/), was...

MOS guidelines would also be met if Tito preceded the actual legal name such as:

  • Bob Dylan:
    • Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman; May 24, 1941) is...

I don't think it's encylopedically or factually correct to state his name as "Josip Broz Tito" without any indication to the reader that there is a distinction between the legal name and the pseudonym. The article does contain a section on Tito as the nickname so the reader will see that once they get to that part. But WP:LEAD states that the lead paragraph "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and "summarize the most important points", his name and pseudonym being fairly important points. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, he changed his full legal name later on to "Josip Broz Tito". In other words, his name at the time of his death was "Josip Broz Tito". US presidents Carter and Kennedy called him "Mr. Tito", for example. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, I haven't moved heavens and earth to locate them but I haven't yet seen any external sources that attest to him legally changing his name. Even if he did, a distinction should still be noted in the lead sentence about this. Using another FA class article, Angelina Jolie legally changed her name by dropping Voight as a surname and using her middle name Jolie as her new surname. The lead sentence still (as it should) explains this distinction. I completely agree that "Mr Tito" is likely how he was addressed by other people, probably more so than "Mr Broz" (you and I referred to him as "Drug Tito", not "Drug Broz"); but that doesn't change much in terms of how we refer to him in the article because "Mr Arafat" was also used almost exclusively over "Mr al-Husseini". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the burden of proof is on the claim that his legal name in Yugoslavia was "Josip Broz". It seems pretty outlandish considering that every source I've seen thus far refers to him as "Josip Broz Tito". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
A negative cannot be proven — we cannot cite that something didn't happen. If we have an obscene amount of literature stating his name was "Josip Broz" at birth and an equally obscene amount of material proving that he used a pseudonym of "Tito", the burden of proof really is on the side that claims that his legal name was changed or that "Tito" was not simply a pseudonym. All the sources that refer to him as "Josip Broz Tito" will still make a clear distinction between his legal name at birth and his pseudonym without mangling them together to suggest to the reader that they're one and the same. MOS guidelines do make a very specific provision for this sort of thing. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I'm asking proof for a negative. I'm asking proof that his name was "Josip Broz" in SFR Yugoslavia, a positive affirmation. When the new Yugoslav state was created in 1945, new documents were naturally issued to all citizens, his name was simply entered as "Josip Broz Tito" at that point. I do not think he actually requested his name be changed via formal legal channels like an ordinary citizen. As such, I see no difference between asking proof that his legal name in SFR Yugoslavia (and that's what matters) was "Josip Broz", and demanding evidence for the claim that his legal name in SFR Yugoslavia was "Josip Broz Tito". (That is, except for the fact that the latter full name is far more common in sources.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% when you say that the "full name is far more common in sources". Wikipedia:Article titles states that "articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article". Because "Josip Broz Tito" is unquestionably the most commonly used name, the article's title is correct and it should not be changed. But our guidelines directly and specifically advise that a distinction be made in the lead sentence between the subject's legal name at birth ("Josip Broz" per every source ever written on the subject) and subsequent names — be they pseudonyms or adopted names or legally changed names. The article refers to him as "Tito" throughout the entire body of text and this is absolutely accepable per the guidelines. In the case of explaining to the reader what the name of the subject of the article is, the article should conform to the existing guidelines the way FA articles do. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, "legal name at birth"? Where does it state that exactly? I don't remember reading that on WP:MOSBIO. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't state "legal name at birth", I didn't mean to imply that it states that hence no quotation marks. "Legal name" usually means "name at birth" as recorded on a birth certificate or similar document. Sufficient documents exist for this subject as to what his name was at birth which was then his legal name. If his name changed legally (which it very well may have), it should be noted in the lead sentence that the legal name by which he was known at the time of his death and throughout most of his life was different than his legal name at birth. Surely you will not dispute that "Tito" was not part of his legal name at birth. As stated before, I would find it acceptable for the lead sentence to state:
    • Josip Broz Tito (born Josip Broz on 7 or 25 May 1892 – 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman.
Would that be a better compromise? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As seen here, that was his full name in communist Yugoslavia.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. What do you think about the proposal that I made immediately before your comment where his legal name at birth is shown to differentiate his legal name in SFRJ? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds acceptable to me.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I changed the lead sentence to that because it seems that my initial change is not without resistance. I welcome further comments on this issue, though, and will not consider it closed if there is still disagreement. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Slight alteration, how about:
  • Josip Broz Tito (born Josip Broz; 7 or 25 May 1892 – 4 May 1980)
"Tito" was a party name, like "Stalin", "Lenin" or "Leka" (to give a Yugoslav example). As with Stalin or Lenin, the name "Tito" was officially entered into his full legal name. The leads of those articles may serve as precedents, I think. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The alteration is minor enough that I don't really have on opinion one way or the other; feel free to alter the sentence that way. The party name examples do make sense and there's no harm in using them as precedents. I usually like to quote only FA quality articles but, in the absense of FAs within the context of our discussion, your examples are descriptive and they do conform to the guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section seems to presents biased information concerning the German minority in Banat; based on information provided by the "Donauschwaben Villages Helping Hands" group (see Ethnic Germans in the Banat, amongst other pages in dvhh.org ). It is crucial that this article comes to some sort of reconciliation with this site. if needed, a seperate article can be made Pjbeierle (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that website compares with the scholarly publications presented in the article. In fact, the website should not be used for a source on these serious events at all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
All criticism seections are an editorial and narrative cop out. Criticism should be included in the other sections of the article.58.152.80.152 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I also find the sections on the German minority in Banat to be heavily biased and in fact supportive of genocide. Tito and the partisans created concentration and liquidation camps for ethnic cleansing of the the population, including women and childen. The "scholarly publications" that you cite are biased; I fail to see how it is possible that the women and children of the concentration camps for ethnic Germans constituted a "fifth column."

The German minority was deported in a very orderly manner, much like the ones in Poland, Italy, and Czechoslovakia. According to sources, had they stayed they would have to have been protected by the military to save them from the lynch mobs trying to avenge the mass desolation of entire regions their own SS divisions performed. The sources you claim are "biased" are the most acclaimed professional publications available on the subject of WWII Yugoslavia. I think the bias lies in your own personal estimates of their reliability. Please find someone with a degree who criticized them. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The German minority was deported in a very orderly manner? Were you there? Please we are writing an encyclopedia, don't judge other's good faith just to push your pov. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The German minority was not deported in an orderly manner, and there are numerous first person and scholarly accounts to prove this. Since you are only impressed with someone with a degree, please read the sources that ARE provided. The first person ones, however, are much more compelling, as are the numerous death certificates of Danubeschwaben which are marked as the individuals - women and children - dying in the concentration camps set up. Your bias is significant and your defense of Tito bordering on outright worship, so I doubt sincerely if there will be any change in your opinion. There is a saying about teaching a pig to sing.... Again, this is an encylopedia and not your personal page of sainthood for Tito. PR (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your evaluations of my behavior and/or "religious beliefs" do not concern me in the slightest. You are bordering on a violation of WP:NPA, I recommend you control yourself lest you find that you've been reported for insulting other editors. Most importantly, such jabber does not present any real arguments.
Secondly, this article is on Josip Broz Tito, not the widespread eviction of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (more or less "standard" in all previously German-occupied countries, and endemic of 1945). If atrocities are to be described here, their link to Josip Broz Tito should be conclusively established prior to their inclusion (obviously to avoid random listings of all sorts of events by all the assorted nationalist "lobby groups" involved with the inescapable implication of guilt, i.e. the effective destruction the remaining NPOV in this article).
Thirdly, and finally: do not alter/remove sourced text from the article. Every syllable in that section is carefully and fully sourced, therefore one does not simply rewrite it at will. And naturally, do NOT edit-war to push your changes. Discuss. Contrary to your apparent belief, discussion is not pointless here: we do not have to agree, you should merely demonstrate your changes are sourced by respectable publications. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Herr Direktor, the section which you fanatically removed was thoroughly and completely inclusive of sources which are highly credible but which run contrary to your point of view. I realize that some sort of vested interest must in fact be your impetus for continued reversions; however, your unceasing cries for sources have been amply met and were so in the revisions that you imperiously deleted. Simply because they conflict with your personal POV does not warrant the extreme hostility of your response.

With regard to your comment as to whether these "evacuations" can be linked to Tito, the commentary which "your" article quoted prior to my edits directly links him, by direct quote from Tito! not only for the action to be taken but the need for secrecy in doing so.

I haven't the time that you have to endlessly devote to guarding the reputation of this individual. Your zealousness and personal "onwership" of this article approach a level of fanatacism that bespeaks deep and nearly religious prostration. I have stated the correct information, provided ample sources, neutralized partisanship, and included a clear edit style. The fact that you reject any edits that conflict with your POV is indicative of other factors at play. Since your excessive zeal outweighs all known fact, it is rather like shouting at the oil in the Gulf to end its despoilment; the pollution continues, regardless. PR (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm German. And a believer that preaches the gospel of the one true god. I absolve you in the name of the Josip, and the Broz, and the Holy Tito. Brotherhood and Unity be with you my son xD
Fun times aside, since you seem to be interested in me how about a quick disclaimer? I'm an atheist Croat, atheism being the ever-present companion of Catholicism :), and I am, most assuredly, neither a communist nor a socialist in any form. And no, I do not have an unrealistic or idealized view of Josip Broz Tito (if you disagree, please notice: its just my personal view vs yours), nor do I in any way feel I WP:OWN this article. Rather, I hold that there is a trend to over-emphasize his shortcomings. This person accomplished much, for good or for evil, and has unfortunately become a symbol of a period of history, effectively turning the guy into a scapegoat for anything remotely negative that occurred in Yugoslavia between 1943-1980. The only thing I keep repeating on this talkpage is this: prove that Josip Broz Tito had anything to do with it, which is elementary WP:V.
Moving on. Why did I revert you? I reverted you because it is customary to discuss challenged edits here on the talkpage rather than start an edit-war. In short, the etiquette is: if you're reverted, discuss and leave the article alone for a while. If I may point out: your edit is still there, easy to restore, leave it for a while and discuss.
Just one more thing, I realize its a lengthy post but I feel this may be rather important. As far as I'm concerned, all you have to do is 1) present reliable, published, scholarly sources for any of your edits, 2) prove that your text is related to the subject of the article (i.e. show that Tito actually did/ordered something or other), and 3) not alter any sourced text without consensus (esp. not without discussion or without even having a look at the source in question). I believe and hold firmly that these three "criteria" that I go by are both sensible and well grounded in Wiki policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name 'Tito'

I've heard that the name Tito means "Tajna Internacionalna Teroristička Organizacija" (Secret International Terorist Organization). This would be a good addition to the article if someone can locate sources for the explanation. --Eleassar my talk 09:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a serious idea, more like a joke. What communist agent would call himself a "terrorist"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It was German propaganda during WW2. -- Bojan  Talk  10:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Tito's regime"

I'm referring to this sentence:

"A number of Italian authors and scholars such as Raoul Pupo, Gianni Oliva, and Arrigo Petacco consider Tito's regime responsible for the Foibe killings."

"Tito's regime" is obviously not NPOV and encyclopedic (equally as much as "Clinton's regime" or "Hitler's regime"). "Tito's regime" is the "Yugoslav government" or "Yugoslavia" in NPOV wording. As per previous consensus on this issue, "Tito" ≠ "Yugoslavia", and this article is about Tito. If these author refer to "Tito's regime" instead of Tito personally, their comments are to be removed. Such tricks and word games were attempted in the past.

Either way "Tito's regime" is POV and goes. The only question is whether the whole sentence should go OR, if the sources refer to Tito personally, the term "Tito's regime" should be replaced with simply "Tito" or "Josip Broz Tito". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The authors, whose books can be found on the web to be checked, referred to "Tito" as the person responsible for those atrocities. So "Tito" is more correct. At least it should settle these "problem". I think the name of the paragraph should be reverted to "criticism": "opposing views" is POV. AndreaFox2 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I supposed that this was the case, though I will do some checking. One thing: "historical" is not spelled with a "y", it now looks more like the "Hysterical criticism" section :)) (I did not rename it into "Opposing views") --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, but your own personal perception of "POV" is not an argument. You misrepresented sources and removed sourced material, you added unsourced claims. Open a proper discussion on proposed edits so that consensus may be reached. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone hysteric is an insult. Please apologize. Or at least use a more proper language. I removed sourced material: where? I strongly ask you to tell me where, as it is a very offensive statement and it isn't true. You have removed three sources: one from a Princeton teacher, one from the new york times, one from an historian. I ask you to tell me why. Your personal perception of Pov isn't an argument either: reinserting that all germans were nazis is surely pov. I removed that pov, you reinserted it. Why? AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not an insult, and I will certainly not apologize. As always, feel free to report me. As is expected on controversial articles, please discuss proposed changes before making them.
In fact I've done some checking, the Bernard Meares source is actually some apparently unpublished [2] [3] text from a private Italian website. Not only that, but the work is highly unprofessional (rarely if ever cites primary sources) and has been misrepresented in that it does not state that Tito is personally responsible for these events. Please find proper published scholarly sources, not website links. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stating the (disputed) numbers of victims implies guilt without evidence. Its word games - its going.
  • "Some authors has considered Tito responsible for the Bleiburg massacre"? Is that right now? Who exactly?
  • Tito did issue repeated calls for surrender and this is sourced. You also altered the wording to into "others states that Josip Broz Tito repeatedly issued calls for surrender to the retreating column". Bad grammar aside, nobody "states" anything - there's no dispute: he did so, many times. Prove that there is a dispute or stop.
  • "Tito has been accused of the persecution of the German minority in Yugoslavia"? Really, by whom? The Yugoslav parliament ordered their deportation, much like the German minority in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and yes, Italy. This will not be characterized as "prosecution".
  • Pamela Ballinger does most certainly NOT consider Josip Broz Tito personally responsible for the obscure foibe nonsense. Provide a citation, please.
  • Only three authors (reportedly) consider him personally responsible for the foibe (though I did not check them yet). The fact that they're Italian is relevant as this is an Italian nationalist dispute, and will certainly be included in the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Apparently": you have to demonstrate it. Your personal feelings over it are simply your personal feelings. The same goes with your personal opinions ("highly unprofessional"). "As is expected on controversial articles, please discuss proposed changes before making them": the same goes with you, as i see from the history of the article you have deleted a lot from the "criticism" section and you have rarely discussed it. Moreover, my edits aren't controversial as they are sourced and as it is surely POV saying only italian authors wrote over the Foibe and that Germans were all nazi (statements that were inserted by you: why do you insert them?).

  • "Stating the (disputed) numbers of victims implies guilt without evidence. Its word games - its going": no it isn't, it is an historial research that deals with the persecution of the german minority in Yugoslavia. Or (for example) writing that six millinons jews were killed under Hitler is a "world game"?
  • "Some authors has considered Tito responsible for the Bleiburg massacre"? Is that right now? Who exactly?" see the Bleiburg massacre page: there are plenty of authors cited and plenty of sources linked. You deleted my edit before i was able to insert the source. On the web you can easily find even more sources from historinas and journalists.
  • Tito did issue repeated calls for surrender and this is sourced. You also altered the wording to into "others states that Josip Broz Tito repeatedly issued calls for surrender to the retreating column". Bad grammar aside, nobody "states" anything - there's no dispute: he did so, many times. Prove that there is a dispute or stop": the fact that there is no dispute is your -very POV- personal opinion. If ther wasn't a dispute why there are so many books and authors cited in Bleiburg massacre that tells the exact opposite? My version is NPOV, in the sense that it says "some think x, some think y. authors who think y say...".
  • "Pamela Ballinger does most certainly NOT consider Josip Broz Tito personally responsible for the obscure foibe nonsense. Provide a citation, please.": she does, read the link.
  • "Only three authors (reportedly) consider him personally responsible for the foibe (though I did not check them yet). The fact that they're Italian is relevant as this is an Italian nationalist dispute, and will certainly be included in the article." No, it isn't true. If it was, the new york times would have not dealt with the matter, nor bernard meres, nor Pamela ballinger. If you see Foibe killings there are plenty of italian and stranger authors cited.

AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox2, allow me to introduce you to WP:V.
  • Yes it is word games, you've just proven that yourself. This article is not about "the persecution of the German minority in Yugoslavia", but about Josip Broz Tito. Those numbers are not only disputed, but also imply this person's guilt without any evidence. They're POV-pushing & they're going.
  • On the Bleiburg massacre article, which I largely wrote, there isn't a single solitary author that claims Josip Broz Tito was responsible for those events. Nice try. Find a source of some sort or that nonsense will be removed.
  • This is not about my opinion - I have a source. You do not have a source that disputes this source, i.e. that disputes the simple fact that Tito did indeed issue numerous calls for surrender. Find a source citation of some sort or that nonsense will be removed.
  • You did not respond to this. Find a source that Tito is personally "accused".
  • LoL what nonsense, I did read the Ballinger link - no accusations. Please provide a citation since this source is obviously misrepresented.
  • If you think more authors consider Tito responsible, find the sources. Don't tell me there "must be more authors or the NY Times would not have had an article on this". What kind of nonsense logic is that?
In addition, the Bernard Meares "source" is actually some apparently unpublished [4] [5] text from a private Italian website. Not only that, but the work is highly unprofessional (rarely if ever cites primary sources) and has been misrepresented in that it does not state that Tito is personally responsible for these events. Please find proper published scholarly sources, not website links. Removed as unverifiable per WP:V. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Heaven help us. Surely you can do better than Tolstoy, of whom Alistair Horne wrote that
"Trying to weave a way through the tangled cobweb of truths, half-truths, and downright inaccuracies woven by Tolstoy proved to be one of the longest and most arduous tasks I have ever undertaken as a writer".
"...his writing came increasingly to reveal a fanatical obsessiveness that was more Slav than Anglo-Saxon. Appalled by the injustice inflicted upon his fellow White Russians, and dedicated to the cause of seeing that it should be requited on a public platform, Tolstoy progressively persuaded himself that the repatriations had flowed from an evil conspiracy".
"...in it [The Minister and the Massacres] Tolstoy jeopardized what claim he had to be a serious and objective historian by his tendency to shape the facts around conclusions he had already formed".
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Luigi I may be young, but you're old. It is easily possible to see every reference to Tito made in that publication on Google Books, regardless whether the page is available or not. You just don't know how. I think we can all rest assured that Pamela Ballinger does not state anything of a kind.
Theirrulez, I'm not surprised you play as the meatpuppet for these socks (with no sources :). However, these people were banned from enWiki by impartial admins and for good reason. They are not allowed to edit this website, and their edits should be removed. If you do actually start edit-warring over re-inserting sock edits, you will be reported (and for other things as well). Then you can explain all about how you think banning users is "censorship". :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Easily? Wonderful! Let's try. Wich is the first word of page 108 of Ballinger's History in exile?--151.21.250.85 (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Best". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Tito's regime" is perfectly encyclopedic and factual, much like "Mussolini's regime", "Castro's regime", "Salazar's regime", "Obama's administration" or "De Gaulle's presidency". It was certainly a distinct regime, and was certainly linked to one significant person.Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LoL, I do know about that. I thought you wouldn't be silly enough to try to use it. :) Dear šjor Luigi, you're old, you should know stuff like this this. Do you know what's collaborationism? Its a form of high treason. Do you know what used to be the penalty for high treason during wartime in Yugoslavia, Italy, the US, UK, France, Norway,... etc etc.? Execution. So Tito "executing collaborators" is not only fine - its actually required by the law... I can't believe you actually started exclaiming "Oh, my God! Someone accuses directly Tito! We have a source!" :P. Sorry, no.
The same thing for "Croatisation" nonsense. All I see in that text is some stuff about Yugoslavs, i.e. South Slavs. Nothing about Croats. Most importantly, nobody says anything about "Croatisation". You need to understand that I'm not going to agree to you guys using your own weird definitions of "Croatisation", when you can't even find any statement of that sort in your biased Italian right-wing sources. Since that's the case - its obviously an attempt to shove political propaganda into enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And no, "regime" is not fine. We don't call governments "regimes" on enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Direktor, just to let your post a little bit nicer, let's clearify:
  1. In your opinion "regime" is not fine. In many others' opinion it is.
  2. You can't believe to represent en.Wiki, so please, don't write «we don't call governments "regimes" on enWiki» because on en.wiki people do that when a government is authoritarian.
Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regards to you too Theirrulez, I'm afraid however that I can't understand much of your post. Sock posts will be continuously removed from now on without fail. These socks need to be discouraged from posting here. If this persists a semi-protection will be requested. This is an IP sock of User:PIO/Luigi 28. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if you are not able to understand my post. If you wold able to do it, maybe your posts could be more civil and polite.
Just one thing: the IP posted some interesting sources which evidenlty don't match your POV: if he's a sock or not I don't know, but I believe cancelling his post it's not polite, it's manipulatory (how could you understand if he's a sock? Many users easily could have his same opinions) and it's not constructive for the neutrality of this article. If you want to take care of this article you shold accept every opposite views, If you avoid it the result will be a single-view article as it's now, and I don't think (I hope) you'd like to have a pov article, don't you? --Theirrulez (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Direktor's agressivity and arrogance to be unbearable. "Sock posts will be continuously removed from now on without fail" : who exactly decides which are "sock posts" ? I personally interpret this as "Posts I disagree with will be continuously removed by me". And, I repeat myself, "Tito's regime" is just fine, unless one is a hyper-sensitive Tito fanboy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jean-Jacques Georges, please stop edit-warring over the undiscussed insertion of blatantly misrepresented sources (as elaborated upon above). I am touched by your personal attack above, and by the fact that you have followed me here and decided to base your position on the fact that you dislike me/think I'm a communist. I applaud your objectivity and professionalism.
The IP who's edits were removed is our constant guest, User:PIO/Luigi 28, who incessantly trolls on this project. He also likes to follow me around and oppose me haphazardly.

In short, the edits inserted by Fox are a slap in the face to Wiki policy. Sources were misrepresented, text supported by them altered, fake sources were added, and laughably biased wording was introduced. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tito's regime is a fitting definition in a lot of users' opinion. Sources added by other users seems to be reliable and pertinent.
DIREKTOR, never considered to stop refusing consensus (me, several IPs, Jean-Jacques Georges, AndreaFox2 and others) and to start sticking to content and not making personal remarks to/about others? You'd better to do that before your personal war will be more disruptive than how much already is. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"Regime" is unencyclopedic wording. You guys agreeing on biased wording in this issue does not really mean anything. Please stop trying to justify your POV-pushing edit-war with false claims of a "consensus". There is no "consensus" (WP:CONS). I will certainly not stop disagreeing with you on this. All my comments were on content, and you may feel free to report me at any time. As I said before, you don't talk to me about such "complaints" - just report me. Why? Because your complaints are fake and ungrounded in anything.
Now, assuming you're going to stop talking about me, and focus on content, here's the list of issues:
  • 1) Stating the (disputed) numbers of victims implies guilt without evidence. This article is not about "the persecution of the German minority in Yugoslavia", but about Josip Broz Tito. Those numbers are not only disputed in themselves, but are also included here in an attempt to imply this person's guilt without any sources. That much is obvious from the text. Find sources, don't try to "work your way around them".
  • 2) "Some authors has considered Tito responsible for the Bleiburg massacre"? Is that right now? Who exactly? Find a source, please.
  • 3) Tito did issue repeated calls for surrender and this is sourced. You also altered the wording to into "others states that Josip Broz Tito repeatedly issued calls for surrender to the retreating column". Bad grammar aside, nobody "states" anything - there's no dispute: he did so, many times. Prove that there is a dispute or stop. I have a source. You do not have a source that disputes it, i.e. that disputes the simple fact that Tito did indeed issue numerous calls for surrender. Find a source citation of some sort or that should be removed.
  • 4) "Tito has been accused of the persecution of the German minority in Yugoslavia"? Really, by whom? The Yugoslav parliament ordered their deportation, much like the German minority in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and yes, Italy. This will not be characterized as "prosecution". Find a source that Tito is personally "accused".
  • 5) Pamela Ballinger does most certainly NOT consider Josip Broz Tito personally responsible for the obscure foibe nonsense. Provide a citation, please.
  • 6) Only three authors (reportedly) consider him personally responsible for the foibe (though I did not check them yet). The fact that they're Italian is relevant as this is an Italian nationalist dispute, and will certainly be included in the article. If you think "more" authors consider Tito responsible, find the sources.
In addition, the Bernard Meares "source" is actually some apparently unpublished [6] [7] text from a private Italian website. Not only that, but the text is highly unprofessional (rarely, if ever, cites primary sources) and has even been misrepresented in that it does not state that Tito is personally responsible for these events. Please find proper published sources, not website links. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it is useless to argue endlessly with Direktor, or even to discuss with him at all. Sources should be provided if there are some. That's it. And as for the "encyclopedic" nature of the word "regime", his arguments are absurd. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree Theirrulez (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree as well. Its pointless to argue out of spite or bias when one is obviously wrong. Though i must say, I've rarely had more irrational and pointless discourse than with you two fine gentlemen. Find sources, see you then. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Meares and Arrigo Petacco

I will refrain from commenting on the most intriguing coalition that has formed around this article in recent days, except to say that it's a splendid example of disparate people coming together for a common purpose. To matters in hand. JJG, to address you personally, since you have rejected all use of Cohen in the DM article on the grounds, amongst other things, that he is only a dentist, may I assume that you will be on a mission, as a sign of your good faith here and of your commitment as an encyclopedist, to eradicate any mention of the good Mr Meares from this article? Further, can we hope that you will be on a mission to hunt down and exclude anything from Mr Petacco from this article, since his published work uses not a single primary source and is written in the style of a $3 airport novella? Will you take him out of the article tout de suite? Just a question, caused by this edit here [8] to reinsert Mr Meares, so that we can assess the lay of the land before we begin. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

come on...

There's no need to push this!!! - Theirrulez (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think: neutrality of this article is disputable. Stronger must be condamned Tito's responsability for crimes against civil population during and after War II. See article Lojze Grozde too. --Stebunik (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • 1. Use published professional sources by actual historians.
  • 2. Show a clear connection between events in question and Josip Broz Tito
  • 3. Do not alter text referenced by published professional sources without consensus.
That is all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In-line citations

  • In-line citations are necessary to confirm the statements that "Raoul Pupo, Gianni Oliva, and Arrigo Petacco consider Tito personally responsible for the Foibe killings". Raoul Pupo and Arrigo Petacco likely do, but WP:V requires in-line citations. I've found no source even pretending to confirm the same about Gianni Oliva. Please post the sentences and their respective pages here, so they can be discussed.
  • Now, the whole sentence was brought under suspicion when I noticed that Dennison I. Rusinow's The Yugoslav experiment 1948-1974 was cited in support of that. I've read that particular book, and I can only surmise that it was falsely quoted. I will remove that source after a while if noone can clarify why it was cited there by pointing out where it says anything about Josip Broz Tito's responsibility, or the opinions of various authors.

I'm merely trying to verify sources that were not properly cited. I will edit the article only if noone responds after a while. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

recent rollbacks regarding genocide of ethnic germans

I rolled back a recent edit regarding treatment of ethnic germans. It seems that that is already pretty well documented, and the edits were not very clearly expressed. If anyone objects to my rollback, please feel free to revert me, but please also explain here what the point of those edits are (given that we have already some specific references to Tito's orders in this area. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The father of Josip Broz

The father of Josip Broz Tito in this article is stated to be Franjo Broz a Croat. In the book "Bread From Underground" 1988 Bonifacio Bolognani states that it is likely the father of Tito Josip Broz was Giuseppe Broz of Ombra, Vallarsa in Trentino (then Austria-Hungary; now Italy). I checked the birth records in Vallarsa and found a Francesco Giuseppe Broz born 26 March 1860. According to Bolognani, this Broz and other Trentini went to the Austro-Hungarian region of Croatia in about 1890 for construction of tunnels. It is well known that many other Trentini went to North and South America to work in mines. If true, the fact that Tito's father was Italian and probably spoke Croatian poorly and his mother was Slovenian and probably spoke Croatian less well than a native Croatian could account for the assertion I've seen that Tito spoke Croatian poorly. Do you think this is something that could help people understand this man better? If so, I could strengthen the documentation. I'm new to this so please excuse me if I have somehow violated normal protocols. Eddittorre (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Eddittorre

Well, in terms of the birth records, I think it sounds at first blush like good research, but we can't really use it, since it's original research. If you can find secondary resources that support this, then we can consider it, I think. Does anyone object to using Bolognani as a reference? Nuujinn 01:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll refrain from commenting on the silly story, I'll just point out that Tito spoke his local Kajkavian dialect perfectly fine. He just wasn't a native speaker of Shtokavian, which is the standard dialect. Zocky | picture popups 09:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, Giuseppe Brozzo Tito? :P Of all the legends surrounding this person, this one is right up there with the claim that he was actually - a woman. xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Given the pic of him at the top of the article, I think he would have looked stunning in a teal strapless evening gown. But more to the point, we are fortunately alleviated of the responsibility to determine truth. I'm not familiar with Bolognani or pretty much any sources in this area, can Bolognani be considered a reliable source in general, regardless of the truth of this particular claim? Nuujinn 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
That would certainly give new meaning to the term "dress uniform". :) But yeah I was thinking of suggesting his most famous portrait replace the one in the article now. How about this image? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
As Nuujinn wrote: there's no secondary resources supplied to support this statement - for now. Especially for the mention that Bolognani states the likelihood - but not certainty - of Giuseppe Broz being the father of Tito, this claim is to be regarded as original research in my opinion. --Biblbroks (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of section „Criticism” is in question

Section speaks not about Tito, but about Germans. Especially Criticism section is also under question. Here is not article about German minority, but about Tito and his responsibility to Germans and their deportation in concentration’s places, later prosecution from homeland. Here is not place about responsibility of ethnic Germans Donauschwaben. Children or old persons were surely not responsible for Hitler’s ideology and his politics.

All Donau Schwaben were:
offers of Hitler’s and nazi’s politics,
offers of Tito’s communistic politics.
Both ideologies were without tollerance, respect and conscience. Tito is also completely responsible for offers between all nations and minorities during and after War II on territory of Tito's Yugoslavia, that are caused from his partisans against civil population. He was however supreme commandant of exercity, communistic part, governement.--Stebunik (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Every single word of that section is very well sourced. Those statements are backed up by scholarly publications citing primary sources such as cold hard numbers. Your own thoughts and opinions are irrelevant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

While this person's mother was of Slovene origin, his father and his immediate family in general were ethnic Croats. He grew up in Croatia and spoke Serbo-Croatian as his primary language. Sources seemingly do not place much weight on his mother's ancestry: while some do he was of mixed ancestry, as far as ethnicity is concerned an overwhelming majority of sources describe him as an "(ethnic) Croat". I've searched at length for sources that may describe him as "multi-ethnic" or as an "ethnic Croatian-Slovene", the few I found were completely outnumbered by those that stated he was a Croat.

Now, I'm not some Croat nationalist or whatever, but the sources should be properly represented here in the article:

  • "Tito, an ethnic Croat, held the disparate nations together in the Yugoslav federation by allowing cultural autonomy"
    • James Minahan, One Europe many nations, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000
  • "Although an ethnic Croat, Tito opposed any form of political autonomy and promoted the centralization of the country."
    • James Minahan, Miniature empires: a historical dictionary of the newly independent states, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000
  • "Tito, who was an ethnic Croat, skillfully pleased the West, without ever resigning his Communist ideology."
    • Rade Petrović Kent, Is it poor memory or Just one more treason?, L'AGE D'HOMME, 1998
  • "Tito was little more than an ethnic Croat."
    • David Bruce MacDonald, Balkan holocausts?, Manchester University Press, 2002
  • "Tito (Croat) being the supreme commander offered certain hopes to all constitutive nations."
    • Dejan Jović, Yugoslavia: a state that withered away, Purdue University Press, 2009
  • "...the Partisans led by the Croat Tito."
    • Lenard J. Cohen, Jasna Dragović-Soso, State collapse in South-Eastern Europe, Purdue University Press, 2008
  • "Ribar - Croat; Tito - Croat;..."
    • Michael Barratt Brown, From Tito to Milosevic, Merlin, 2005
  • "Tito, a Croat..."
    • North American Society for Serbian Studies, Serbian studies, Volume 16, North American Society for Serbian Studies, 2002
  • "How did Tito, a Croat, rule Yugoslavia for so long?"
    • Khoon Choy Lee, Diplomacy of a tiny state, World Scientific, 1993
  • "Tito, the Croat, was a traitor to many of his countrymen."
    • Anne Alexander, Nasser, Haus Publishing, 2005
  • "After the war, Yugoslavia fell under the control of Marshal Tito (a Croat), whose Communist government in Belgrade..."
    • Katie Wood, Cheap Sleeps Europe, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003
  • "Yugoslavia's new president was Marshal Josip Tito, a Croat born near Zagreb."
    • Yahia H. Zoubir, François-Serge Lhabitant, Doing business in emerging Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
  • "After the war, Tito, a Croat, made a second attempt to create a viable Yugoslav (South Slav) nation..."
    • Wayne Bert, The reluctant superpower: United States' policy in Bosnia, 1991-95, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997
  • "He may or may not have heard about the hard-faced Croat named Tito,..."
    • Whittaker Chambers, Terry Teachout, Ghosts on the roof, Transaction Publishers, 1996
  • "...indeed, it appeared that Tito (a Croat) intentionally sought to limit the Serbs' clout..."
  • "Tito, the Croat metalworker Josip Broz who joined the Austrian army and later the Bolsheviks in Russia,..."
    • Nicholas V. Gianaris, Geopolitical and economic changes in the Balkan countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996
  • "As is well known, the communists under the Croat Tito dominated the partisan internal resistance..."
    • Paul B. Rich, Reaction and renewal, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996
  • "More importantly, Mihailović was a Serb and Tito a Croat,..."
    • Richard Harris Smith, OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency, Globe Pequot, 2005
  • "However, Josip Broz Tito, a Croat and communist who fought the Germans"
    • Kristen P. Williams, Despite nationalist conflicts: theory and practice of maintaining world peace, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001

...etc. etc. I could literally go on like this almost in perpetuity. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this issue is of any importance. Tito himself never referred to his identity except to describe himself as a Yugoslav. In what way does your suggestion help us to understand the man? Anyway, even if all these published sources refer to him as a Croat then they are referring to his place of birth rather than any notion of ethnicity. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok so I want to fill in the 'ethnicity=' parameter in the infobox. I go on Google Books and google "Tito ethnicity" - this is what I get. That's all I'm saying. (Is this our first disagreement ever? xD) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with DIREKTOR's reasoning. The first four sources cited explicitly use the term "ethnic Croat", which negates the idea that they refer to his place of birth (which would, following that logic, make him Austro-Hungarian). Is Alasdair saying we should ignore reliable sources? Timbouctou 22:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Barnes, New Empire, 30, 46; Bowman, "Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy" (CAH), 68.
  2. ^ Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine", 32–35; Barnes, New Empire, 31–32.
  3. ^ "No. 51772". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 16 June 1989.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_4&oldid=1078397975"