Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titoism and Totalitarianism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. A clear majority favors deletion, and after reviewing the dissenting voices, I feel that the "delete" side has made more persuasive arguments based on original research by synthesis and (more importantly) biased content forking. After reviewing the article text, I concur that it holds an anti-Tito bias, and the arguments presented on the "keep" side in this AFD argue for why that angle is right, rather than why it is neutral. I am also declining the merge requests, because I cannot see that there is a consensus for including any of this content in other articles (indeed, my impression is that there would be significant objections to that). Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Titoism and Totalitarianism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Classic WP:POVFORK. The very title of this is POV. The article was entirely written by a single editor User:Sir Floyd. It does not cite another source which backs up the clear WP:Synthesis essay which this is. In fact the first three sources cited talk about titoism and totalitarianism separately not as clearly the same thing. This article is already longer than the Titoism article itself and so does not even cut it as a standard split, therefore it is basic content forking even when the POV is not taken into account. Polargeo (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of this should be merged to Josip Broz Tito. Although we do have an article about Titoism, this seems to be about the tyranny of the Yugoslavian dictator, rather than about a political philosophy.  If kept as a separate article, the title should be mentioned in tongue-twister-- try saying "Titoism and totalitarianism" three times and you'll see why.  Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor has already tried and failled to add some POV information to Tito and then even tagged Tito for POV. That is why this article was created. It is classic content forking designed to get this individual editor's POV across rather than by editing and expanding established articles. Moreover they have done this by creating their own POV heading rather than following any particular research thread, hence largely creating an article based around original research by synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept some of the criticism as valid. It is possible that the article could be transferred into other related articles. All the information is well referenced and factual. Please check for yourselves. Concerning POV in the Tito article, I don’t recall any such information. The information that I contributed to the article was referenced from Encyclopaedia Britannica and the BBC History which then was removed. Also, Ivan Stambuk can you please not go down the path of insults. You mention I have problem with issues! Very nice indeed. Are these the issues that Tito and his government acted as Stalinist post WW2. Please read European Public Hearing on “Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes". It is a government document. Here is the referenced link: European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008. Page 197. Chapter: Joze Dezman-Communist Repression & Transitional Justice in Slovenia (ex.republic of Yugoslavia). Sir Floyd (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. With a single editor, this article could probably be speedily deleted. Clearly this article is POV pushing and being used solely for the expression of one editor's opinion. Further, the title and all sections use incorrect capitalization; this is pure junk all around. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur with the above by Polargeo and Timneu22. WP:NOT clearly applies: these are the personal views of a single editor, who has created an article to promulgate them. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just all the rubbish that was discussed on Tito talkpage article to be removed collected on one place. Sir Floyd you really have . --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep! Valid topic! Comment: I must too admit that the article has problems. This is my first article of this kind and yes I had problems balancing Political science with the former Yugoslavian political repression after WW2.
 * Strong Keep- Valid topic, well written well cited, the tyranny of the Yugoslavian dictator tito is a very valid subject. Off2riorob (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you create a "Tito's Tyranny" article (LoL :). You're spending waaay too much time with (one of your closest frinds on Wiki) User:Sir Floyd, Off2riorob. You're deveolping some highly biased and unrealistic views about Cold War Yugoslavia... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, user sir floyd is one of my most respected amigos on wikipedia. There are as history states two sides to Tito and this is the other side, our article could do with at least a merge of some of this content. It is well written and as has been said below, the Tito article could use a bit of balance.
 * Delete - per Polargeo's arguments above. ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not a wikipedian and usually I don't read wikipedia, google drove me here and I simply couldn't avoid to have a few words to say. In ex-Yu countries, role played by Tito is still not settled properly. It was forbidden to have anything against ex-Yugoslav Communist Party or Tito, it was dangerous even to think about it. That surely was totalitarian regime. If wikipedia is "free" as its nickname proposes, you must have something written about it. However in ex-Yugoslav countries there is still a number of communist agitators and supporters (those whose family members were involved) who are pushed to political margins, their political "option" is dead and belongs to the past, they can no more be "better" than the others, so the only space they can occupy now are only some blogs and... wikipedia. These people above obviously belong to this group, being unwanted elsewhere they are desperately grouping here. Discussion you have here is their desperate "special war" against any negative information about their idol in the past. Don't let them to erase data about crimes committed by the Yugoslav communists and their god - Tito... just because they are quantitively predominant here - in wikipedia and here - in this discussion. Message to the Titoists: start to live in reality and in the present time. Bye 78.0.159.75 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to say "merge with Titoism" but then I re-read the article and I'm leaning on delete. Just as Titoism is all sweet and sugar, this one is indiscriminate mud-slinging, and basically unsalvageable. It cherry-picks various but completely disconnected crimes commited in (or by) Socialist Yugoslav state during 40 years of its existence; on the way, it mentions a list of Tito's villas, and ends with a EU political declaration proposed by Slovenia. Yes, the article on Titoism (or Tito) should need some re-balancing in favor of not-so-nice aspects of his rule, but this article is not even worth being a starting point for that. Maybe some of the sources are worth reusing, and that's all. No such user (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I've read it too. Yes, it's poor, but for another reason, in my opinion. It's not even 1% of what can be said. Too bad that articles in one "encyclopedia" depend on honesty and limited knowledge of the editors who are mostly kids. 78.0.159.75 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The very definition of WP:POV FORK. I can't imagine this article staying on Wiki with the current policy in place. This is quite simply and obviously an attempt by one user, User:Sir Floyd, to vent his frustration and bypass any NPOV standards he would have to follow on the Josip Broz Tito article, where he was more-or-less unable to push most of his nationalist fringe personal views (as can be seen on the article talkpage). (P.S. Beware of malicious IP sock votes :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hard to conceive of more obvious POV forking than this. POV forking is POV forking, regardless of the extent of sourcing. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am of the opinion that the consensus concerning "Articles for deletion/Titoism and Totalitarianism" is being tainted by the use of Meatpuppetry or Tag team. I've checked: . The recruitment of editors: User talk:PRODUCER, User talk:AlasdairGreen27 & User talk:Ivan Štambuk was done by User talk:DIREKTOR in order to sway consensus. The history of these editors concerning articles of the former Yugoslavia shows strong bias. They are indeed hard working Wiki editors and have a right to express themselves (of which I am a strong supporter) and probably think that they are the "good guys"  which is noble, but ...  history should be written as much as possible from a NPOV. Only then can articles be viewed as being more  encyclopaedic.

I've taken some time to read up on WP:POV FORK problems in Wiki articles. Titoism and Totalitarianism does have these problems but the information is factual and can be merged into other articles or maybe even re-worked. The former Yugoslavia did have an authoritarian rule and did conduct political repression on a grand scale. It is my belief that these facts should be represented accordingly. It seems in the process of creating the article I ran into WP:POV FORK problems. This was mainly due to my inexperience. Additional: If I have used the meatpuppetry  term incorrectly, my apologies! Sir Floyd (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious POV fork. Accusations of meatpuppery do nothing to make your case stronger. AniMate  03:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear AniMate, please, read the header of this vote. It's in English and it's written simpler also for no current speakers "It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate". We cannot change rules under our need. --Ilario (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi AniMate! You are a mate of User:DIREKTOR! Please don't take offence, but your contribution here makes my case even more stronger. See Ya!  Sir Floyd (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did DIREKTOR recruit me? I've made no secret that I follow both his and Alistair's edits, but I don't edit in the area and comment rarely. AniMate  09:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep! The current government of Slovenia and Croatia have confirmed all points... do you need some additional informations? I don't understand this deletion in consideration of quality of article and quality of data. Please read in detail WP:POVFORK and in detail: The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. There are many sources here and I assume that this fork is a consequence of a POV in another article because we cannot create a consensus on the sources, the sources are sources. All content must be merged in the main article to resolve the fork. --Ilario (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay so Sir Floyd couldn't get this stuff into the main article so he creates a new article. I don't think anyone disagrees the title of this new article has to go so therefore a delete is in order. The question then is should some of this stuff be merged. But by Who? Do we now say, "hey there you couldn't get your POV into the main article but now because you have spent so much time creating this POV fork we will stick your information into the main article"? No, it should be up to Sir F and his various IP supporters including User:Luigi 28 (better known as 12.21.16.9 in this discussion) and his Italian friends such as yourself who turn up out of the blue as it were to highlight which bits of information that should be in the main article and get them in there in a balanced way. When we are faced with such a heavy POV article and serious issues of synthesis then just dumping it into the main article helps nobody. Polargeo (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please specify this POV? Sir Floyd (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The POV is exemplified by the attempt to make Titoism and Totalitarianism one and the same thing by the synthesis of sources. It will be much cleaner to add some balanced information on totalitarianism to the article on Tito. Rather than to stuff this article into it as a merge. Polargeo (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo you didn't specify any references or sources?Sir Floyd (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay do any of the three sources you use individually support your first sentence "Titoism is a Totalitarian political system that was part of the former Yugoslavia"? This is very different from saying Tito was in some asspects totalitarian. You are saying what you want to say about Titosim and throwing in a few sources. Therefore your first sentence appears to be a synthesis of the sources or original research by yourself. The Sourcing for your second sentence is such a mess, including sources to wikipedia itself that it is not worth going into. Your third sentence is sourced to an online dictionary. Your fourth sentence is sourced to a summary of a book and this source does not even back up the statement or even mention Tito. I could go on explaining sentence after sentence why this article is a big pile of rubbish and should never be merged with a properly written article under any circumstances but that would be wasting everyone's time. Polargeo (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge I agee with Mandsford. This should be merged with Josip Broz Tito to create a good article.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't understand why there is no action taken about the evident recruit of meatpuppets. There are links to personal discussion pages (most of all discharged). This vote is not valid and I would see some action about that. Are there sysops in en.wikipedia? --Ilario (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very funny you are the meatiest of the meaty if that is the case. Popping up from it.wiki, the favourite new haunt of Luigi (who is voting as an IP in this AfD). Do you think the direct call to arms you made on Italian wikipedia to alert people to this AfD on en wiki is the way to do this whilst complaining about meat puppets on en wiki? Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read: "communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" it's in a public page and open to all point of view and to all comments. It's like to write in the Village pump. I have not posted in personal pages, please understand the difference. --Ilario (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Before trying to teach me the rules you should note that putting up a biased notice on it.wiki you are WP:Canvassing. If your notice had mearly notified a wide range of users about the debate, that would be different but in this case you have directly canvassed. Polargeo (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your point of view. In Italian community there are persons who can be supporters of your point of view (most of all 50%) and persons who cannot be, not all Italians have the same vision. I have not written the information in a page of a project which has got a single point of view or can be my supporters. I am asking to contribute to find the most shared solution for this article. In any case, I hope that you, to be neutral, take a position about what has been done by other users who has written in personal pages against a well-defined rule. If I am suspected, someone is already a killer of freedom. --Ilario (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with History of Yugoslavia. Some sections here and there could be entirely dropped or reduced to paragraphs (i.e. goli otok, franjo tudman and milovan djilas), but the article is generally well-referenced. The article could indeed be considered POV, as a collection of unpleasant facts about something, yet the correct way to resolve the POV is to dissolve the page in its context, not to purge it entirely. Noieraieri (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response above . Sentence by sentence this article can be ripped apart. It should never be merged. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't let all of the references fool you into thinking it is well referenced. A scratch under the skin of a few of these show so many instances of references not backing up statments or synthesis of references or just plain poor references. As the article goes on it also becomes more and more WP:COATRACKy Polargeo (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I now responding to another person who is here because of canvassing on it.wiki? Polargeo (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I did (read your comment), I did not propose to merge it with Titoism for exactly that reason. P.S. are you trying to refute my arguments because of my ethnicity? Noieraieri (talk)
 * I think you have valid points and therefore I have answered them. However, after the IPs, including one of a banned user, several people turning up due to canvassing could turn this AfD into a farce, which is why I asked the question. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I couldn't stop laughing after I read the article, although the its topic is very serious. The article is just a heap of rubbish. A dictionary reference (though, I would expect a book which particularly deals with Tito or communism) says that Titosim is the political, economic, and social policies associated with Tito. OK, no problem, but it seems that the author of the article does not understand what it me. Surprisingly or not, you won't find any word that talks about self-management or Non-Aligned Movement. Not single word. Titoism is certainly not what the author is trying to show us in bigger part of the article. Next, Tito residencies. I might understand anger due to nationalized properties that weren't belonged to the royal family, but still do not see what is problem with residences in state ownership. Every president has few. And finally, exaggerated or SF crimes? Ten concentration camps worse than Dachau? Where were they? Oh, dear, that comes from R. J. Rummel, that must be true. :) Few sources estimate that 100.000 POWs are killed (though it is very very big number for Yugoslav circumstances) killed POW, nevertheless, there are Truman's 400,000 to make article comical. I suppose he heard it from "reliable", but unnamed source. 24422 children were not in concentration camps as the author is trying to show! Those were transit camp for German people, they were sent for Germany. --  Bojan   Talk   08:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Bojan, in the same time I don't have had the effort to laugh after your comment because I judge you comment very dangerous for the freedom and for the same pilasters of Wikipedia. I don't understand why we must "comment" also the sources. In a complicated situation like this, where there are different points of views, I would apply the Occam's razor and not the Sophist's method. We have some pilasters in Wikipedia 5P, one pilaster is the Neutral point of view. This article put in evidence that there is another point of view different from your point, we cannot judge this point of view, it exists. We cannot judge who is the biggest persecutor in the history, if some important sources state that there is one, we report that there is one. What I see is that this discussion put in evidence that there is a point of view not limited to only one person but there is a group of persons and historians who has a different opinion from them who have written the article of Tito. What this means? That we cannot delete the other point of view (I would not that you accept the other point, but I would that you respect the other point of you like I respect your point) but that all point of view must be present. Read here "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (Neutral_point_of_view). If the article under deletion is not neutral probably the same article of Tito is not neutral and I assume that when this vote is finished and the content is not merged I can put my request of deletion of article of Tito because this deletion states that there is a POV which can be consequence of other content forking. --Ilario (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not to do with whether the Tito article is neutral. If it is not neutral then make it neutral by adding quality information on Tito's crimes but we should not simply force it to be neutral by merging a poorly constructed POV fork with poor sourcing or sources which don't back up the text into a better written and long established article. That is not the way to do it. Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot judge sources. There is an historical current that looks at Tito with a different point of view, it's not poor, it's not limited but it's widespread in a lot of occidental countries. What is happening in this moment is a content fork from Wikipedia and the other sources. I see in the article different sources (not only one source), a lot of these sources are university's studies. What I suggest you is to accept the existence of these studies and to be consciencious that there is the remaining part of the world that read something different from the point of view of the current article of Wikipedia. --Ilario (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Ilario, I'm wikipedian for 5 years and administrator for 4 years. I know very well what are 5 pylons of Wikipedia, what is (N)POV and what is POV-pushing. I pointed that there are half-truths, tendency to present Yugoslav prison camps in worse light than Nazi extermination camps (?!). --  Bojan   Talk   18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Bojan, I am wikipedian also for 5 years and administrator for 5 years and wikimedian for some years too. It seems to me a paradox that I have used the same approach in the Italian Wikipedia and I am judged filo-croatian but I have given to the persons with a different point of view the possibility to put in the Italian article their position. In any case I cannot accept that a source like this published by Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union can be judged like a poor and not relevant source. Please be kind that outside Balkans people think different. --Ilario (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I didn't forbid different point of view, but this doesn't change fact that the article has more problems beside pushing someone's POV. It is an essay, with half-truths, logical fallacies, association fallacies (Tito was member or associate of NKVD, NKVD did some terrible things - then Tito is evil, too), it doesn't discuss Titoism as another form of Marxism. The article is beyond repair, some facts are mentioned in various other articles - hence, there is no need for its existence. --  Bojan   Talk   19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Polargeo, Tito's crimes, as you put it, and the crimes done by Communist party of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Partisans isn't referenced very well, so the article doesn't work?

I think that "European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008" backs-up the article very well, has anybody read it? Then their are the others:
 * International Law Observer
 * Yalta and The Bleiburg Tragedy by C Michael McAdams/University of San Francisco, California-USA.

Presented at the International Symposium for Investigation of the Bleiburg Tragedy Zagreb, Croatia and Bleiburg, Austria May 17 and 18, 1994. Testimony-Eye Witness: etc. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BBC-History Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941-1945 by By Dr Stephen A Hart (Dr Stephen A Hart is senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst-England)
 * Lorraine M. Lees is an associate professor of history at Old Dominion University in Virginia, USA.
 * Anne R. Pierce Ph. D. Political Science from the University of Chicago. Independent Scholar & Author/USA
 * Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal.
 * Paul Hollander: Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963, B.A. London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Centre Associate, Davis Centre.
 * Dr. Ph. Michael Portman from the Vienna University
 * Sabrina P. Ramet/Graduated from Stanford University in 1971 with an AB in Philosophy, earning her MA in International Relations from the University of Arkansas, and her Ph.D. in Political Science from UCLA in 1981.
 * Joze Dezman: Slovenian Historian-Director of the National Museum of Contemporary History-Ljubljana (Slovenian) National Museum of Contemporary History- Slovenia
 * Mitja Ferenc: Slovenian Historian-University of Ljubljana
 * Australia's Four Corners
 * Internal Security of Former Yugoslavia - Mitja Ribicic
 * Physicist, Philosopher, Writer, Playwright, Peace Activist Humanist & former Yugoslav Partizan - Ivan Supek

Comment: Hi Bojan! You have made some errors in the above statement.

(a) You wrote: "stated 24422 children were not in concentration camps"  My sentence is: "their were 24 422 children in the camps in the former Yugoslavia in the late 1940s", but I see your point it's under the heading which is the problem. Thank you for pointing that out.

(b) That statement is sourced and named, please check: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal Page 66/Document page 182:

Note: This paper dedicated to the 60th anniversary of these tragic events represents a small step towards the elaboration of known data and brings a list of yet unknown and unpublished original documents, mostly belonging to the Yugoslavian Military and Political Government 1945-1947. Amongst those documents are those mostly relating to Croatian territory although a majority of concentration camps and execution sites were outside of Croatia, in other parts of Yugoslavia. The author hopes that the readers will receive a complete picture about events related to Bleiburg and the Way of The Cross and the suffering of numerous Croats, which is confirmed directly in many documents and is related to the execution of a person or a whole group of people and sometimes non-stop for days. (Zdravko Dizdar a Croatian Historian/Croatian Institute for History in Zagreb)
 * Statement in Croatian: "Tako je 18. I. 1946. u jugoslavenskimlogorima bilo 117.485 folksdojcera (58.821 žena, 34.214 muškaraca i 24.422 djece).
 * Transated: ...... In 18/6/1946 in Yugoslav Camps there were 117.485 folksdojcera (58 821 women, 32 214 men & 24 422 children).
 * More info on Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal in English: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's.

Note: The Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia (Slovene: Komisija za reševanje vprašanj prikritih grobišč) is an office of the Slovenian Government whose task is to find and document mass grave sites from the Second World War and the period immediately after it. It was established on November 10, 2005.
 * Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia estimated that there are 100 000 victims in 581 mass graves.

There is also Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Serbia (a former republic of Yugoslavia)


 * Below is information taken from European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008 Page 154 Milko Mikola/Chapter: Communist Concentration Camps & Labour Camps in Slovenia

It follows thusly:

4. Survey of concentration camps in Slovenia (a former republic of Yugoslavia) in 1945.

4.1. Concentration camps for members of the German national minority

– Strnišče near Ptuj

– Hrastovec near Sv. Lenart in Slovenske gorice

– Studenci near Maribor

– Brestrnica near Maribor

– Kamnica near Maribor

– Tezno near Maribor

– Teharje near Celje

4.2. Concentration camps for members of the Hungarian national minority

– Filovci in Prekmurje

– Hrastovec near Sv. Lenart in Slovenske gorice

– Strnišče near Ptuj

4.3. Concentration camps for members of the Slovenian Home-guard

– Teharje near Celje

– Škofovi zavodi in Št. Vid nad Ljubljano

– Škofja Loka

5. Survey of concentration camps in Slovenia from 1945 to 1951

5.1. Camps for forced labour – penal camps (1945–46)

– Kočevje

– Teharje near Celje

– Studenci near Maribor

– Brestrnica near Maribor

5.2. Camps for correctional labour – working groups (1949–51)

– Strnišče near Ptuj

– Kočevje

– Rogoza near Maribor

– Prestranek near Postojna

– Pšata near Ljubljana

– Inlauf near Borovec in Kočevsko

5.3. Camps for socially beneficial labour – working groups (1949–51)

– Strnišče near Ptuj

– Litostroj, Ljubljana

– Žale, Ljubljana

- Medvode

– Moste near Žirovnica

– Rajndol near Kočevje

– Ferdrenk in Kočevsko

– Škofja Loka

– Rajhenburg

End of Survey


 * Harry Truman (the President of USA) would have his sourses-CIA.That statement is back by two references, please check with the article.
 * Frank Waddams was a British Government representative, it's in his statement. If R. J. Rummel got Frank Waddams statement wrong, then it's a problem, but at this point in time it seems genuine (If it's wrong I'll stand corrected).
 * Finally, Bojan could you please read what I have written below. Also could you not go down the path of insults such as heap of rubbish. I would kindly ask you to remain civil. Thank you! Sir Floyd (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whey you say concentration camp, first association are Nazi extermination camps. Something like that never existed in Yugoslavia. --  Bojan   Talk   11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the above! It's in the European Public Hearing on Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes (European Commission/Slovenian Presidency). It is they who are saying this. Plus, the Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar. Bojan their are many different types of concentration camps. Sir Floyd (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: According to Webster’s Dictionary, the political, economic, and social policies associated with Tito is called Titoism. These political, economic, and social policies were part of Yugoslavia. Here are some of the political, economic, and social policies of this government: These policies are political repression and are backed up with References. Polargeo are you saying that these references don't back up the above statement. Sir Floyd (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Abuse of national sentiment to carry out racial and class revolutionary projects;
 * Cult of a great leader, who permits his fanatics to murder, steal and lie;
 * Dictatorship of one party;
 * Militarization of society, police state – almighty secret political police;
 * Collectivism, subjection of the citizen to the totalitarian state;
 * State terrorism with systematic abuses of basic human rights;
 * Aggressive assumption of power and struggle for territory.
 * Mass killings without court trials.
 * I am analysing your article per wikipedia guidelines. I am not analysing the politics. Polargeo (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough!, politics aside (& wikipedia guidelines) for now. Do you think the references back up the above statement? Yes or no, please! Sir Floyd (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think they do, so no. Many of the references only mention Tito in passing. Many of them most certainly do not back up the "theme" of this essay. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The whole statement above is taken from: European Public Hearing on “Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes". Here is the link: European Commission/Slovenian Presidency of the-EU 2008 Page 197. Joze Dezman: COMMUNIST REPRESSION AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE IN SLOVENIA

Another Example on page 53:

4.2.2. fake trials

''In June 1945 group trials began against actual and imaginary opponents of the Communist system, particularly against representatives of cooperatives, banks and the economy. The authorities carried out numerous trials (Božič, Rupnik/Rožman, Bitenc) to compromise representatives of political opposition and the Catholic Church. Following the Soviet example, in summer 1947 the Slovene Party staged a great Stalinist political trial, the so-called Nagode trial (named after the first accused, Črtomir Nagode) in which 15 people were accused of treason and spying for Anglo-Americans. In May 1947, the Slovene secret police, the UDBA, arrested 32 highly educated intellectuals. Among them were Črtomir Nagode, Ljubo Sirc, Leon Kavčnik, Boris Furlan, Zoran Hribar, Angela Vode, Metod Kumelj, Pavla Hočevar, Svatopluk Zupan, Bogdan Stare, Metod Pirc, Vid Lajovic, Franjo Sirc, Elizabeta Hribar.''

More examples: ''In the greater part of this paper, the author deals with individual repressive measures that Communist rule imposed in Slovenia in the period from the end of the war in 1945 until the beginning of the 1950s. In this period, the Communist authorities in Slovenia implemented all the forms of repression that were typical of states with Stalinist regimes. In Slovenia, it was a time of mass killings without court trials, and of concentration and labour camps. Property was confiscated, inhabitants were expelled from Slovenia/Yugoslavia and their residences, political and show trials were carried out, religion was repressed and the Catholic Church and its clergy were persecuted. At the beginning of the 1950s, Communist rule in Slovenia abandoned these forms of repression but was ready to reapply them if it felt threatened. Thus the regime set up political and show trials against certain more visible opponents later. In the case of an “emergency situation”, even the establishment of concentration camps was planned in Slovenia in 1968, where around 1,000 persons, of whom 10 % were women, would be interned for political reasons''. Page 161
 * COMMUNIST REPRESSION Of “INTERIOR ENEMIES” IN SLOVENIA


 * Mass killings without court trials:

(a) ''The Communist repression in Slovenia reached its peak in the first months after the war ended in 1945 with the carrying out of mass killings without court trials of so-called “national enemies”. As already implied in the term “killings without a court trial”, these were killings carried out without any proceedings before a court and without establishing the guilt of the individual victims.''

(b) ''This happened despite the fact that military courts existed in those times in Slovenia that could judge alleged perpetrators of war crimes and other criminal acts in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on Military Courts of the Supreme Headquarters of the National Liberation Army and POJ (Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia – PDY) of 24 May 1944. According to this regulation, which was still applicable during those times, only military courts were competent to issue death sentences. By implementing killings without a court trial, the Slovenian Communist authorities also grossly violated their own regulations on criminal justice.'' page 63

(Note: Commission on Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia estimated that there are 100 000 victims in 581 mass graves)

Additional:
 * Cult of personalty: Discontents: Post-modern and Post communist’ by Paul Hollander:

''“Virtually every communist system extinct or surviving at one point or another had a supreme leader who was both extraordinarily powerful and surrounded by a bizarre cult, indeed worship. These cults although apparently an intrinsic part of communist dictatorships (at any rate at a stage in their evolution are largely forgotten today.” “Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Sung, Enver Hoxha, Ceascesu, Dimitrov, Ulbricht, Gottwald, Tito and others all were the object of such cults. The prototypical cult was that of Stalin which was duplicated elsewhere with minor variations.” Page 337. (I text bold Tito so it is easier to read)''

Paul Hollander: Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963, B.A. London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate, Davis Center
 * Dictatorship of one party: The League of Communists of Yugoslavia was the only legal party. Other parties were banned. Read the “CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA”, adopted by the Federal People's Assembly April 7, 1963, at http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia_1963.doc


 * Other sources used: Hrcak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia by Mr Dizdar's Scientific Journal - An Addition to the Research of the Problem of Bleiburg & Way of the Cross. This paper dedicated to the 60th anniversary of these tragic events represents a small step towards the elaboration of known data and brings a list of yet unknown and unpublished original documents, mostly belonging to the Yugoslavian Military and Political Government 1945-1947.


 * Keeping Tito Afloat by Lorraine M. Lees: Tito Afloat draws upon newly declassified documents to show the critical role that Yugoslavia played in U.S. foreign policy with the communist world in the early years of the Cold War. The Truman administration sought to "keep Tito afloat" by giving him military and economic aid.

The article is about authoritarian rule & political repression in the former Yugoslavia. Authoritarian rule & political repression are government policies  of a Totalitarian State. These are just some of the political, economic, and social policies that were part of the former Yugoslavia, backed up by sources. These policies are often referred to as Titoism (The term was coined during the Tito -Stalin split/check) There are other policies that are associated with Titoism, that are better know, but the article is about political repression in the former Yugoslavia. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal essay cum rant, beyond even what is considered a WP:POVFORK. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.