Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 13

Repression and violation of human rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there we go... nothing except the first source qualifies as supporting the claim that "human rights" were violated. None of the rest even mention human rights (the last source is just a quotation of a Slovene court decision, not the source itself, i.e. Sanduski does not "write" that - you're being deceptive). WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You are not qualified to render judgment on what does or does not constitute a violation of human rights, Silvio1973.
P.s. do not move around or edit my post. I wrote my first post in this thread before you posted the list. -- Director (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the sources above are all scholarly. And all refer to violation of human rights acted by Tito's regime. If you think they are not, you can abandon the discussion for the time being. I am pushing any edit in the article for the moment. Again, I want other users to join first. In view of the above sourcing it is justified to insert in the lede that repression and violation of human rights were used by Tito's regime. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@"And all refer to violation of human rights acted by Tito's regime." No. They do not. None except the first even mention human rights. You don't get do decide what is or is not a "violation of human rights". You've been editing this project for far too long to post arguments in contradiction to such elementary policies as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. -- Director (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have not said that they necessarily justify in the lede a mention (and actually I think they do) about the violation of human rights. They could easily justify another formulation. If this is your problem I have rephrased. However, what is your problem? I am not pushing any edit. Let's wait the other to join. If they don't, it means they are not interested. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well then please propose specific changes! I can not emphasize enough that this is not a debate club. What is your proposed change?? -- Director (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, I think there is enough to write in the lead that "concerns have been raised about the violation of human rights". And I want to listen what the other users think about this proposal. If this does not fly, consensus can arise for a different formulation such as "concerns have been raised about the repressive nature of the regime". Silvio1973 (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Lets boil it down.
  • #1 "Human rights were violated"
  • #2 "Tito repressed political opponents before the 1945 elections"
  • #3 This is useless, its a WP:PRIMARY quotation.
  • #4 "The UDBA detained people for longer than allowed by the Yugoslav constitution". Ok.. But that doesn't directly refer to Tito, and I can't see what it can be used to support in terms of general statements for the lede.
  • #5 "There was an identification paper that couldn't be negative or you won't get a job". Again, pretty useless.
  • #6 "There were hundreds of thousands of victims of the UDBA". This is suspect. Yugoslavia only had about 18 million people all told, and about 1,000,000 were killed in the whole of WWII. The idea that the secret police went about killing "hundreds of thousands" of people is patently absurd. The source appears very general, and I think the figure can be easily refuted.
  • #7 "Tito repressed political opponents immediately after WWII" (just like "#2") Yes, that's not really disputed.
  • #8 This is useless. The source is merely describing a court case.
So what you have is: "Tito repressed political opponents in the aftermath of WWII" (#2, #7), and "the UDBA was brutal" (#4, #6). In addition to #1 saying human rights were violated. Sources #3, #5, and #8 are pretty much useless: a statement by Tito (which is primary), something about an id that sounds vaguely bad (even though unemployment in Yugoslavia was minimal), and a description of a court case.
This is in no case enough to support a lede statement that "human rights were violated", in my personal evaluation. That would be egregious OR.. Other things, perhaps..
As regards the State Security Administration (UDBA), it should be noted that the issue is a complex one. As cited in sources on our project, while pretty nasty, the organization was nowhere near as repressive as the police in Eastern Bloc countries. The idea that it killed "hundreds of thousands of people" is patently ridiculous, and I have no idea what the source supports that with; that's an exaggeration orders of magnitude higher than any sensible figure I've ever read. Finally - the UDBA was controlled by Aleksandar Rankovic, not Tito directly. Aleksander Rankovic eventually became a political enemy of Tito, and was removed, with his organization curtailed significantly. -- Director (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
1) Source 6 speaks of hundreds of thousands of victims; this does not mean they were killed.
2) I never proposed to insert a statement in the lede affirming that human rights were violated. Far from that. I said that among historians concerns were raised about the violation (or alternatively the respect) of human rights.
3) Rankovic was removed when Tito realized that he had become too powerful (do you need this to be sourced?). For more than 15 years Rankovic and his police committed any kind of crime. Tito controlled the secret police and the party, even if not directly.
4) I made clear that if also other users disagree for a specific reference to human rights, I am open to a more general sentence such as "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns raised among historians about the repressive nature of his regime, Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." But now, would you mind give also to the others the time to join? Of course, if in a day or two they don't join we shall have to close the discussion the two of us.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is stopping people from joining the discussion, Silvio...
1) Its still suspect: the NKVD had "hundreds of thousands of victims", in a country of 200 million. Its ridiculous. I can't see any primary source and I have no idea how the figure was reached.
2) Alright granted.
3) That's all true, more or less - its just that UDBA actions need to be connected with Tito in the source, at least in some vague reference, for me personally to accept the statement as relevant.
4) That seems a fair composition.
-- Director (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I am having very limited time these weeks, that is why I haven't been active here. I just think that the sentence Silvio is proposing is fair given the fact that we describe his positive feedbacks about him and his regime, so it is fair to mention as well the various concerns and criticism some historians have been raising and that way the sentence ends up giving a balanced summary in the lead. FkpCascais (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Well, his regime was repressive and this is what the sources say. Written in the way Director suggests, things got somehow diluted. Also source source #1 should be included. Alternatively, and to over over-referencing, it could be discussed to use sources #1 and #9 for a specific statement about human rights to be inserted in the article but not in the lede. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
To say that the "nature of the regime was repressive" (which is what your sentence states) is an exaggeration and oversimplification, that doesn't have support in sources. What you posted were two refs that state Tito repressed political opponents in the aftermath of WWII. Its an OR stretch to therefore characterize the "nature" of "regime" as a whole as having been "repressive". You have not established that. What you did establish is that "repression" occurred, and that's how I modified your sentence. Its actually pretty generous(!) considering we don't qualify that the sources talk about repression in a specific period, the '40s.
Further, please note grammar errors:
"While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian [needs comma] and concerns [had been] raised among historians..."
-- Director (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a look at those sources about him beeing a benevolent dictator (there are not 200 of them, I got c. 30 results for my search). There is a source claiming that he was "seen by most" [10] in that way, one that he was "known by many" [11], and one that he was a "relatively benevolent dictator" [12]. I think that the word "many" is the most appropriate one. Would you agree to change the word "most" to "many"? Tzowu (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the regime was de facto repressive (at some extent), but not its nature. I also agree that saying that the regime was in its whole repressive it's a simplification. Still it should somehow explained that we refer to repression acted during Tito's regime (at least this is what the sources say). Also note the sentence contains two present perfects and one past perfect, hence for sipmplicity I suggest to replace the past perfect with a past participle. Finally, including Tzowu's comment, it gives: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns raised among historians about repression during his regime, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, Tito was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator" due to his economic and diplomatic policies." This sentence is already a compromise and it is well balanced. Adding concerns about repression is just repeating that it has been criticized as authoritarian, so leave the sentence as it is, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tzowu. Oppose "many": most of those sources just say flat out he was a "benevolent dictator". "Most" is a concession already in that regard, and I think its fine. Sourced and fine.
@Silvio: You're missing the point: you can't flat out say that the regime was "repressive" ("de facto" or "by nature", whatever distinction that is). You haven't established that, and it really wasn't (have a look at this extremely comical American tourism documentary :)). Secondly, you can't use terms like "regime", its loaded, unencyclopedic.
As regards stating that repression did occur - that's what I wrote: "concerns have been raised among historians regarding repression.."
Use whatever tense you like, just as long as its grammatically correct ("concerns raised" isn't; "are raised", "are being raised", "were raised", "have been raised", etc.. take your pick).
@Tuvixer. Perhaps we can merge the wwhole thing more elegantly: "While concerns regarding authoritarianism and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was 'seen by most as a benevolent dictator.'" -- Director (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"Historians have different views regarding Tito; while many agree on describing him as a benevolent dictator, others however raised concerns regarding the authoritarianism and repression of political dissidents."
Not sure how would it fit into it, but it wouldn't be bad idea also to point out that the repression and authoritarianism were more harsh at beginning and with time the situation became better and better. But it will possibly just complicate more. FkpCascais (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
That's really not a formulation that would fit where we're looking at. -- Director (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Director, I do not use the word "regime", the sources do. It was a regime, indeed. However, let's move to compromise. Repression was directed mainly to political dissidents but not only. So we have 2 options: 1) We specify that the target of the repression were particularly political dissidents or 2) we leave it plain. Instead of particularly, notably could also work.
@Fkp, what you suggest could work in the article but for the lede it's just too much. Doesn't fit IMHO.
@Tzowu, I agree for "many" instead of "most".
I suggest: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns have been raised about repression, particularly of political dissidents, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." or "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and concerns have been raised about repression, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator due to his economic and diplomatic policies." --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, of course, but its one of those words we generally shouldn't use - because its an encyclopedia. "Regime" just means "government", so Tito did have a "regime" strictly speaking, you could use the term for anyone ("the Renzi regime") - but the term is loaded with negative connotations (like "terrorist" or "murderer" etc.). Just use "government", it means the same.
You have not established that repression was directed against people other than political opponents. And even that at any other time besides the '40s. That's what you have from the sources you posted... Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a "political opponent" in some sense would be repressed... -- Director (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Ugh.. Its just a Google search for "Renzi regime", meant to illustrate the term just means "government" and can be technically applied to anyone - but that it carries negative connotations, i.e. is loaded. Just don't use it on Wiki.
Your sentence doesn't sound well. "Repression" is too vague and just sort of hangs in mid air.. which is because I composed the sentence to include a followup there (what repression, repression of whom?). Also, I will not deviate from sources and do not concede "many" instead of "most". No way.. -- Director (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Look, I've expressed my personal position, its such because its based on sources, yours and mine, not because I feel like it - and that's where I stand. I'm not prepared to "barter like we're at the bazaar" as people say over in ex-Yugoslavia. As in "you give me 'many' and you can qualify 'repression' of whom", etc.. no. "While concerns regarding authoritarianism and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was 'seen by most as a benevolent dictator'." -- Director (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that repression without something else is too vague, indeed I proposed repression of political dissidents. However, we are not alone Director. Tzowu raised a concern about the use of "most" instead of "many". I share such concern. @Tzowu, what do you think? Side note: it would be not "were raised" but "have been raised", because historians continue to discuss about Tito.--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read talkpage comments, I know we're not alone - and I replied to Tzowu. And I said I disagree with "many", based on the prevalent position in relevant sources. Two points:
  • If you read my posts you would know I replied to Tzowu, and presumably would not feel the need to point out his position to me. It seems to me you are once again not reading my posts, and I find it annoying and insulting that you would feel the need to point out to me that "we're not alone" as if I'm somehow not aware of that.
  • I don't know why you keep calling on and referring to other people, over and over again, in this discussion. The participants are here, if they want to comment - they can and will. I dare say they don't need you "looking out for them" constantly.
-- Director (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Director, I just want to give to the others the time to participate. For some reasons you want to close the matter immediately. Why? Tzowu proposed "many" instead of "most". You replied that you insist for "most". What about giving him the time to reply? Of course he has the right not to reply, but before assuming he did not want to, you might want to wait at least a few hours. Director, there's no rush. Let's give to anyone the time to participate. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Marek, I am perfectly conscious that I adequately sourced that human rights were violated (or at least that historians raised this concern). Sources #1 and #9 clearly speak of violation of human rights. I know that I conceding too much to Director but I have no alternative, unless other participants do not decide to join. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm not "flailing" at all :). This is controversial stuff - I'm being rigorous.
#8 The secondary source does not state his support for the verdict or any part thereof, merely quotes the findings of the court. That's primary, and therefore useless for our purposes. Uh.. "come on Marek"?
#6 The figure of "hundreds of thousands" is patently ridiculous. Its a general source, it makes a very vague offhand statement, I don't see any primary citation.. Its suspect. Such figures are extremely controversial - confirm it with another source. But more importantly: even if we were to grant the figure, that's material for the UDBA article, not for the lede here.
#3 That's my mistake, admittedly. I only read Silvio's quotation and thought both parts were Tito's statement. But even so, what are we supposed to use that for concretely? "The UDBA struck terror into the bones and hearts of those who disliked Yugoslavia!", what?
Violations of human rights is a very specific criminal allegation in international law. If its going to go into the second sentence of the lede of this article - it needs good support. Its not something to "summarize" with OR. That said of course - if there's good backing, I'll naturally support a mention of the issue in the lede. -- Director (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
patently ridiculous is your own original research. Who cares if it's a general source? What makes it "suspect"? That you say so? The numbers actually do line up with some other estimates, for example Rummel's, although they probably are at the high end of these. As far as #3, keep reading. It references Tito and the UDBA. Read the paragraphs before and the ones after. And what are we supposed to use it for? To cite the fact that "Tito's secret police instituted a campaign of terror aimed at Tito's opponents" or something like that.
"Human rights" is not just a legal term, it's a general set of principles. You are being needlessly legalistic here in an attempt to set a way-too high standard for inclusion. We can re-word it, so that it omits the phrase "human rights" but something about it has to be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with both the proposals of Director and FkpCascais, the only thing I wanted to change in Director's one was "most" to "many". There aren't a lot of sources that call him literally a benevolent dictator, and "he was seen by most" is referenced with only one of them. It's hard to tell how was/is he seen by most people (or just historians), but there certainly are many that see him that way. That is not contentious at all. Tzowu (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Marek, can you materially propose an alternative wording? My proposal was "concerns about the respect of human rights were raised among historians" looked to me well matching the 9 sources I provided, but for some reasons did not fly.
@Tzowu, "many" compromises well between "some" and "most". Director do you agree? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Obviously the secret police of Yugoslavia had "victims". What so POV about that? I don't know if hundreds of thousands is appropriate, but something about repression and use of this force by Tito belongs in there. You didn't like the statement about "human rights violations" because you claimed it was too specific and didn't meet some legal standard you invented. Ok, then we go with a general description of the same phenomenon and mention the secret police and its victims.
And yes the source pretty much does say "Tito's secret police instituted a campaign of terror aimed at Tito's opponents". It's called paraphrasing. And it's being done because you were objecting to the quote as a "primary source" and pretending that the author of the source does not endorse the quote. If you doubt the professionalism of the source, based on some original research of yours, take it up at WP:RSN, it certainly looks reliable. You're splitting semantic hairs and ... yes, flailing about, making excuses.
"As for Rummel - he has been discredited as a source on this project about twelve times now." - care to support this assertion with actual diffs? And I don't mean some diff where you or someone else expressed their own personal opinion, personal bias, or original research and tried to cram it down everyone else's throat. I mean, twelve discussions which have reached the WP:CONSENSUS that Rummel is a "discredited source". Now, I know that there's no such twelve discussions (in fact, if you look through WP:RSN discussions they pretty much say Rummel is fine but like any potentially controversial source should be attributed). Which means that I know that now you're just making shit up to get your way in this argument and in this article. Not nice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As regards "benevolent dictator", lets go by them as they come [13]

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

etc, etc... it goes on and on [14]

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

etc...

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

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


@Marek. We're talking about the legally-instituted police of a sovereign country. The detainees or prisoners or whatever were "victims"? It seems unencyclopedic, see WP:LABEL.
Nono, we are not conforming to my legal standards: we're conforming to Wikipedia policy. You're not gonna be the guy that "passes judgment" on what does and does not constitute "violations of human rights". Its that simple. Sources that don't even mention human rights will not be used here to support claims of violation of human rights. Those are all the "standards" of mine that I'm asking you to conform with.
As far as I'm concerned, talking about the udba in the lede is UNDUE weight, too specific. The body of the article - that's a different issue. Like I said, I'm for adding "repression of political opponents" in the lede..
No, that's called editorializing, "pretty much". In fact you're introducing a whole new historical event the source doesn't even mention: a "campaign of terror" of some sort, at some point. What the source says, exactly, is that "the OZNA struck fear into the bones of those who didn't like the new Yugoslavia". That is precisely what the source states, and that indirectly. A paraphrasing would be something like "the OZNA intimidated political opponents". So again, I can't agree to use sources that don't even mention any "campaigns of terror" - to talk about campaigns of terror. You can call that "splitting hairs", or "flailing" or whatever you like - I don't buy it.
By the way, and as a matter of fact, the OZNA is not the "secret police", its the security service.. counterintelligence. And what Tito said was "..utjerati strah u kosti onima koji ne vole ovakvu Jugoslaviju", referring specifically to the OZNA, not the UDBA. "Strah" is completely equivalent to the English word "fear", and can by no means be translated as "terror" [15] - which of course carries additional negative connotations, especially in a phrase like "campaign of terror". Which is to illustrate how far you've "paraphrased" us away from the actual sources. (The word for "terror" is - "teror", or perhaps "užas".)
Rummel? He's a joke. I myself am categorically opposed to any mention of him or his arbitrary nonsense. Or rather decamegagiganonsense.. Diffs? Sure, have a look at this, just for example. Indeed, your bringing him up makes me wonder if you've been reading too much of that sort of garbage..


@Silvio. Yes, your two sources on the UDBA are truly an impressive "amount"... Look, I'm not for mentioning the secret police at all in the lede. I'm not saying we should "ignore" it - insert that stuff in the body of the article, that's fine.
As for "benevolent dictator", I've laid out what the sources have to say on that. The only thing that could be UNDUE is using "most" - rather than just stating flat out that he was such. Further, the current formulation is quoted directly from a scholarly publication, whereas the only thing that uses "many" is some gambling story... I don't know what more to say on this topic. My position is "most", or we can follow the sources more accurately by getting rid of "most", and just stating outright that this guy was a "benevolent dictator". -- Director (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Director, the sources are not just two. I have linked to 9 sources (or 8 if we move out source #8) referring to the use of repression during Tito's regime. Some of the sources speak clearly of violation of human rights (#1, #8 and #9), others about the ruthless use of the secret police (#2, #3, #4 and #6) and the remaining about general repression of political dissidents. Mind well that more sources could be found, albeit I am not going to post others if we do not first make proper use of the already sourced material. Now, we need to find a synthesis to represent this material in the lede. And synthesis does not mean dilution, which it is what would be if we agreed to post your wording.--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@All, for the sake of order I have inserted the POV banner in the article as there is a serious discussion ongoing here. As soon the discussion is closed (the sooner the better) the banner can be immediately removed.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You referred to "sources pointing to the ruthless use of the secret police made by Tito". Those are #3, #4 and #6. So ok, three not two (#2 doesn't refer to the use of secret police). But never mind - it was an offhand comment.
In my view "repression of political opponents" is the appropriate synthesis of the material you presented. Its not dilution in any way.. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I genuinely do not understand your opposition to mention that the repression was made using the secret police. tito controlled the country using the party and the secret police. It is not undue at all that the repression of real or alleged dissidents was made using the secret police.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For several reasons. firstly, the "repressing" was done by both the OZNA and the UDBA, and the former was not the 'secret police'. Indeed, in the early years (which our sources emphasize), it was the OZNA (army counterintelligence) that did the repressing. Secondly, much of the "repression" in said early years wasn't necessarily done by either the UDBA or the OZNA specifically, but generally by the system and the party (as in the sources you posted that discuss repression, but don't specifically mention either organization). Thirdly, to go into the subject of the "how and why" of the repression, seems to me too much for the lede.. -- Director (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Director, Tu veux le beurre et l'argent du beurre! The various sources make clear that repression was acted by different subjects, at various levels and at different times. This is the reason why "concern about the violation of human rights" would be a valid synthesis. May be instead of human rights we could write civil rights? And detail more about the secret police in the article itself?
I suggest:"While concerns regarding authoritarianism, violation of civil rights and repression of political dissidents were raised, Tito was seen by many as a benevolent dictator". --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You're talking nonsense, Silvio. I don't even wear a beret.
If "repression was acted by different subjects, at various levels and at different times", then explain to me how "human rights were violated" is a better synthesis of that than "repression was acted", essentially. Fetchez la vache! -- Director (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

You didn't reply to my post, Silvio...
What? Its you who keeps upping the ante. You proposed a wording above, and people basically agreed (sans the repressive "nature" bit). And that's where I'm at now. The only difference is I formulated it so it fits better grammatically (which is obviously my secret way of diluting the info...). -- Director (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is huge and inappropriate POV. These were not just "concerns". His regime was generally known as dictatorship, even if it was much "softer" than other communist regimes.My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


You have ignored my input, and I was very clear. I am not going to be your idiot and go in circles. I have said that adding violation of human rights and so on is redundant because we have n the lede that it was authoritarian. Stop edit-waring and read what other users say. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@My very best wishes. The addition isn't bad, My very best wishes.. Its just a bit too much. There isn't enough support, in my opinion, to go with "violations of human rights" as the introduction to this article in the first part of the lede. We should go with Silvio1971's original suggestion (which he now rejects in hopes of pushing a bit more negative stuff), and refer to the "repression of political opponents". -- Director (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was mentioned in intro, but it was not properly described in the body of the page (which is a lot more important than the mentioning in intro), and this deserves significant coverage to describe the matter in depth, rather than to only mention "concerns". That was my point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. -- Director (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
In the beginning of this thread Silvio1973 provided nine good secondary refs telling not just about human right violations, but about KGB-style repression. Telling that these sources do not tell what they tell (as here) looks highly problematic to me. What exactly should be said about this is a separate matter. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. You can't convince me that sources not even mentioning "human rights" can be used to source the claim of "human rights violation". That is textbook OR, in my opinion ("..you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented").
That's what I'm talking about in that post: Silvio1973 was attempting to shore up the claim of human rights violation, claimed by the first source (which was brought up long before and acknowledged as relevant) - with sources that, far from not claiming human rights violation, do not even mention human rights. Do note that I acknowledged the first source as relevant in this regard (and that the last source was added some time after my comment).
Therefore, while your own perceptions of "problematicness" are not something I can address, be assured that I at no point "told that the sources do not tell what they tell". And once again: please keep in mind that the discussion is only heated over what should go in the lede. No one is attempting to keep reliably-sourced data out of the article... its just that interest seems to sort of peter out when it comes to actually expanding the place, rather than just quickly slipping in a political message into as prominent a position as possible. -- Director (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, one should follow the sources. If, for example, sources describe activities by Tito as political repression rather than "human rights violations", they should be described as "political repression" (which of course includes "human rights violations"). My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I've been saying. Not only do more sources seem to go with "political repression", but political repression also includes (as you say) the "human rights violations". Its also more descriptive and more precise.. If we're going to summarize Silvio's sources up there in the second sentence or thereabout, that's my choice. -- Director (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

OK, it's been two weeks now. I agree with the sentence proposed by Silvio above. Tzowu (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
No, thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Tzowu, I could post a modification and source it with many of the 9 sources I listed above, but I am unsure that such modification would resist. It looks Tuvixer will refuse whatever modification. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In English, please? I have no idea what you are proposing... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Silvio, you do know that Milorad M. Drachkovitch was the commander of chetnik youth brigades in WW2, right? Is That a valid "source", my Silvio? 74.107.72.208 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Josip Broz Tito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes

Here is a reference to a historian that personally accuses Tito of human rights violations. Gaborio (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM

Rommel is not a serious historian. He is a pseudohistorian. Yugoslavia in WWW lost total 600,000 people, mich of them killed by Germans and Italians and varioud colaborationist forces such as Ustasas. -- Bojan  Talk  01:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

POV banner

For some reason the POV banner has been removed, although the discussion is still going on. I am not particulary keen to keep the POV banner and would indeed have it removed immediately. But before an agreement to report the content of the sources I provided above about the nature of Tito's regime should be found. Several users (including myself) made proposals bur for some reasons none of them could fly. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand that Tuxiver is keen to removed the banner and so do I. But firstly we need to find a way to rephrase the lead. For what I can read in this talk page there is no agreement yet. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The POV tags ("banners") have been removed as there is no active dispute. The purpose of tags is not to make users feel better about not having consensus for the changes they want. Do not restore with regard to that issue under any circumstances. -- Director (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The dispute is active. Several users (Amongst them User:Tzowu, User:Volunteer Marek, User:My very best wishes, User:FkpCascais and some IP's, please check in archives 8 and 9) proposed to insert a mention concerning the violation of human rights during Tito's regime or alternatively a mention about the repressive nature of his regime. There was also disagreement about the sentence "seen by most as a benevolent dictator", because only one source supports the statement. Amongst the various options I proposed:
"While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian and several concerns about the respect of human rights have been raised, Tito is seen by many historians as a benevolent dictator". Some users are in favor, others ignored the discussion but reverted all changes.
Sources in support of the edit above abound. Even excluding disputed scholars, such as Rommel, I could find in a matter of hours the following ones:
1. At page 17 of "Accommodating National Identity" published by S. Tierney it is written that "human rights were routinely suppressed"[[[16]]
2. At page 460 of "Europe in the Twentieth Century", referring to Tito's Yugoslavia historian Pavlowitch speaks of "Stalinism without Stalin". Also he says that "His repression of political opponents rivaled that of NKVD in Poland in swiftness and scope". [[17]]
3. At page 56 of "Unholy Terror", John R. Schindler says that Tito proclaimed that the purpose of his secret police was "to strike terror terror into the bones of those who do not like this kind of Yugoslavia" and that "this was precisely what the secret police proceeded to do". [[18]]
4. At page 173 of "Tito's Communism", J. Korbel writes "The Constitution says the maximum detention period is three days. This clause has been violated a thousand times, but I do not know of a case where a Yugoslav citizen appealed against the procedure of the secret police. There is no lawyer who would dare act as counselor to a man who is on bad terms with UDB." [[19]]
5. At page 175 of "Tito's Communism", J. Korbel writes "The karakteristika has become an identification paper which the citizen never sees but which goes with him wherever he moves... Finished is the man whose karakteristika is negative. There is no hope for him to get a job."[[20]]
6. At page 1391 of "Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia,- Volume 2" edited by Bernard A. Cook, it's written: "Tito's secret police was modeled on the Soviet KGB; its victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands, including not only alleged German sympathizers but middle-class intellectuals, liberals and democrats".[[21]]
7. At page 352 of "East Central Europe : Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" edited by Milorad M. Drachkovitch, it's written: "This Stalinist phase of Tito's regime had four basic elements. First, the party gain control of the country using terror to cow its opponents."[[22]]
8. At page 183 of "Rights Before Courts", W. Sadurski writes: [no he does not, this is a Slovene court decision] "The name Tito does not only symbolize the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia... it also symbolizes the post-war totalitarian communist regime, which was marked by extensive and gross violations of human rights and fundamentals freedoms.". [[23]]--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
9. At page 37 of "No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations", D. Matas writes: "Human rights violations were observed in silence... It was not only that the wide list of verbal crimes flouted international human rights law and international obligations Yugoslavia had undertaken. Yugoslavia, a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paid scant regard to some of its provisions."[[24]]
It goes by itself that as soon consensus reached, the POV banner can be removed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
We've been over this. Ad nauseam. Drop the WP:STICK and accept you don't have consensus for your changes to the second sentence of the lead. -- Director (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, we discussed about that. And the most of the users actually agreed to modify the sentence in question. Feel free to check in the archives. However I have posted the modification and sourced it accordingly. To avoid over-referencing I have limited to only 3 sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Restart the discussion or remove the tags. -- Director (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am discussing. I desperately tried to discuss. Honestly, is it possible that in spite of all the sources provided you still believe the wording of the lead is appropriate? Also other users shared my concern (namely Tzowu and Volunteer Marek). --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose (per numerous arguments previously laid out). As do others. Is that all?
Let me make myself clear: you and I have talked about this at length. Your sources were reviewed, and were found wanting for what you wanted to push (namely some "terror" nonsense right in the start of the lead). Counter proposals were made. You failed to reach agreement. You don't have consensus for your addition. i will not repeat myself yet again on this or go around in circles with you. Unless you have something new to do or add, then rest assured the tags which have pointlessly stood on this article for the sake of your POV-pushing will be removed per WP:OVERTAGGING. If there's a revert war, then a report will follow. -- Director (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Director, the sources were not reviewed. For some reasons you do not like them, even if they state verbatim what it's proposed in my edit.

By the way, two other users (Tzowu and Volunteer Marek) agreed with my modifications. I believe there is ground to find a compromise. If you think that the compromise corresponds to ignore the content of the proposed sources, the usual (tedious) process of dispute resolution will follow to settle the issue. In the meantime please remember that removing sourced material and/or the tags is not appropriate. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Again? All this nonsense. The current lead is a compromise. I mean, we reach a compromise, and then in a couple of months silvio or any other yugonostalgic user with Tito obsession comes to this article and tries to push his own opinion. Nonsense. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the material posted is sourced. Reverting it without discussing is disruptive. However, I do not want to enter in any edit-war. If the consensus does not arise spontaneously a process of formal dispute resolution will be initiated. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Consensus about what? omg please stop with thin nonsense it is so boring. leave the banner and stop this nonsense, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

@Tuvixer: [25] Why it should be included? Take a note that the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL guideline says that every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox. Please, explain me why Tito is not "normal". 10:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I received no answer, I am going to revert that edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Orson Welles

I saw there is a slow burn edit-war going on over a quote in the lead. What on earth is a quote from Orson Welles doing in the lead? If it was Churchill, or some other world leader, but a quote from an actor? Seriously? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you are undermining a person, maybe just because you don't like what he said. He was one of the greatest. He was not only an actor and you all know that. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a view on Tito, I haven't really read enough about him yet. But you haven't answered my question. Why is a quote from Welles in the lead? I have no issue with the quote being in the article among other quotes from other people, I just believe that the views of an actor (great or otherwise) regarding Tito is not lead material. If there is going to be a quote in the lead, it should be from a respected biographer of him. Even a quote from Fitzroy McLean at a pinch. But Welles' view just isn't important enough for the lead. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that you missed my point. I was talking about Orson Welles. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are avoiding my question. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that you are avoiding my answer. But I will repeat. Welles was not only an actor, he was much more. You did not convince me that his quote is not relevant. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
At this point it's you who needs to convince everyone else, as it is becoming clear that there is no consensus to include this quote in the lead. A good place to start would be to explain exactly what the "much more" is instead of being vague about it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, you do not have consensus for this quote to be included in the lead, Tuvixer. Do not restore it. If you have an actual argument for its inclusion, offer it here. Any further edit-warring on this will be reported at the relevant noticeboard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is the quote removed from the article? Again do not engage in a edit war, please. Or I will be forced to report anyone who removes the quote from the article. No one has made any good arguments why the quote shouldn't be in the article. If you don't like that Orson Welles said that, that is your problem. Leave the article alone, don't remove sourced material from the article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It was being removed from the lead. I certainly don't have a problem with it being in the body. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, Welles is (obviously) not a notable-enough person to have his quote featured in the lead. And I wouldn't be annoying Peacemaker: he's an sforovac.. he'll kick your ass :). -- Director (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

iforovac, Director. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hahah.. I think most people in ex-Yu never got the difference :). -- Director (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
We were there first... ;-) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I may have to reconsider my cautionary remark: apparently the average Yugoslav is just about four inches taller than the stunted peoples of the australic regions... ;) [26] -- Director (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Just makes you a bigger target in a combat situation... ;-) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_9&oldid=1089600165"