Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Neutral POV?

This article seems overwhelmingly flattering to Tito with hardly any objective criticism at all. It would be greatly enhanced if it wasn't so clear pro-Tito and had a balanced POV that acknowledged his shortcomings and didn't focus on how "beloved" he was. 64.134.71.74 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An advert, indeed. Added a tag and will report further. --No qwach macken (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Again this.. Fellas, I have no objections if you post an NPOV tag on some concrete, source-based grounds. On the other hand, a declaration of "I think this is too positive (based on what I heard)" is not a valid basis to tag an article. The point of tagging is to suggest ways in which an article may be improved.

The Macedonian issue is one of the many rotten fruits that comes from Tito's rule. It has still a great impact on the countries on the Balkan peninsula. Also history has show one thing - even if a dictator comes with peace on the top of a country (Hitler for example was elected democratically but we all saw how that turned out), he doesn't stay there for long without war. The mere fact that Tito and Stalin were for some period of time "pals" (before the obsession for power didn't get between them) speaks for itself. Let's not forget about Goli otok, who was operational from 1946 to 1956. Tito was elected for a prime minister in 1953. I am not saying that the article has to be subjective but there are plenty of historical documents that prove that Tito was not such a saint as this Wiki article describes him to be. One more thing - if Tito successfully united the Yugoslavian states why did so many problems appear right after his death and led to its dissolvement? Those problems were things that were bubbling under the surface for tens of years and if they were NOT present then the death of a single person be it a leader or not should NOT have had such a great impact.Rbaleksandar (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please post specific objections and/or edit proposals (or just do the edits) with regard to NPOV, and support them with reliable sources. Else the tag will not stand for long.

Furthermore, please note that the "Historical criticism" section is not to be expanded, but rather dismantled into the main text of the article (per previous GA style recommendations). Please post any additional "criticisms" into another section. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Riight.. I thought as much. Removing tag, at least until some constructive source-based rationale is provided. -- Director (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This article does NOT have a neutral point of view.

The following terms are used in describing Tito and his policies: effective, statesman, benevolent, successful, popular, unifying, peaceful, highly favourable, distinguished, economic boom, brotherhood. And that's just in the introduction!

Then in the body of the article, we find anecdotes of his courage, leadership, and successes. We read that "Tito sought to improve life" and we find a long section on the awards he received.

Fine. If those things are true, say them.

Can we also mention the large numbers of political or ethnic killings under his command? that Tito imprisoned those who criticized him? that many people risked their lives to flee his country?

I'm not pretending that Tito did only bad things. So don't pretend that he did only good.

108.232.2.70 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Naturally so, and noone could possibly object to such an article improvement (though I don't know how many people "risked their lives" to leave Yugoslavia when the country had a reasonably open border throughout most of its existence.. tourism you know). But please don't write "work orders" for other users. If you have something to introduce, go ahead. -- Director (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

obviously this text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! Why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism?Passando (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

Most of this comment is tl;dr and not on point. For example, Penn and Teller are totally irrelevant to this page and the edits in question. Somehow your comment doesn't even appear to address the distinction between "religion = atheist" (which is not in the article) and "religion = none (atheist)", which has quite a different meaning. If you could try to make a comment that is on topic and to the point, that would be great. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you couldn't be bothered to read even the first paragraph of my comment, which clearly said " 'Religion = None (atheist)' is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but 'Religion = None' is unambiguous.", directly contradicting your assertion that my comment "doesn't even appear to address the distinction between 'religion = atheist' and 'religion = none (atheist)'". Let me know if you have any disagreement with what I actually wrote. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I beleave we may have two different points here. I agree with Guy Macon that not having any religion is not automatically same as being atheist. In this specific case, what matters here is what sources actually say Tito was. Then, all this drives me to another much broader issue, which is Why do we have the religion included in the infobox of politicians anyway? Is it that important? I wouldn't mind having this discussion at some wikiproject about biographies in general and the inclusion of religion, or not, in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely or with any other solution that cannot be read as implying that atheism is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Guy Macon imposing his "quotes" as a source for this particular change, and I consider his method (including the pontificating edit summary) to be offensive to those that hold no beliefs. Nevertheless, for the idea that atheism is a religious belief to stand, we would have to decide that a. religion is in the infobox fields for a reason that is superior to having no belief, and b. that the person concerned had no belief. I challenge WP to get serious on a. because many people have no belief, and that does not make them atheistic, it just means they have no belief. I take his point, but in my view, the WP:WEIGHT would have to be with whatever is in the reliable sources. If that reflects that the person in question had no belief, that doesn't make them an atheist, it just means they had no belief. THAT is what should be reflected in the infobox, not religion, belief. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. More personal attacks. What a shock. Did not see that one coming. Have any of you ever considered just talking about what should and should not be be in the infobox instead of talking about me? I'm just saying.

There is a basic problem with your "beliefs = X" suggestion. Some members of some religions object to it. See Creed#Christians without creeds, where you will see that "belief = Unitarian Universalist" would be objectionable to some Unitarian Universalists. Meanwhile, it does not satisfy the objections of those atheists who strongly object to anything that implies that atheism is a religion. They would object equally to anything that implies that atheism is a belief as opposed to being the lack of one. Your suggestion does open the door to things such as "belief = Quartermaster Creed", "belief = Bushido" or even "belief = Ghosts". I am not sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion = None would be optimum choice. As it's not assertive and may prevent disputes over sources.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Religion = None", removing the religion entry entirely, or with any other solution that does not imply that atheism is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not suggest the field should be "belief". Please read my comment again. Or not. Any chance we could just remove the "religion field from this infobox? There doesn't appear to be any consensus on what would go there in any case. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to read your comment again when your comment is unclear. Reading an unclear comment again does not make it any clearer. You wrote "THAT is what should be reflected in the infobox, not religion, belief" (exact quote). Are you now saying to retain the "religion =" on the left but to put something other than a religion on the right? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, or more generally? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

His internal policies successfully maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation

This sentence requires sourcing. Indeed some scholars consider that during the period Yugoslavia existed, ethnic hate increased because different (and opposed) ethnic groups were forced to stay together. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone might as well add some sources and statistics that will shed a light on how can an economic policy that results in such high inflation and unemployment rates, economic emigration, balance of payments deficits and debt be called successful. +[20] Tzowu (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It states the period in which there was no high inflation and low unemployment rates. You can not compare the western modernized societies and their economies with the illiterate and primitive societies of Eastern Europe and Balkans. Considering the human material and comparing the economy before 1945 and after 1989 with the economy in that period it is obvious it has been more than successful.

Ethnic hate rose in the period after the death of Tito and especially after 1989 and during the war. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write that he was a bastekball player, an IP wrote it and I removed that, and stop acting as some moderator. Of course I'm not comparing SFRY to western countries, but to other socialist countries of eastern Europe. Compared to them Yugoslavian socialism was also an utter failure. GDP per capita was among the lowest ones, unemployment rates were the highest in Europe, around a million workers were employed abroad... and I'm referring to the 1970s, not 1989.

Anyway, let's start with those citations that confirm this, where are they? "Such successful diplomatic and economic policies allowed Tito to preside over the Yugoslav economic boom and expansion of the 1960s and 1970s." and "...seen by most as a benevolent dictator (Most?? Come on...), due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies". Tzowu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember writing that sentence eons ago, and as far as I can remember it was sourced within the context... Now the whole lede has been jumbled up and switched about and now it looks kind of awkward (and repetitive). If I recall it was placed within the context of the successful policy of workers' self-management.
Tomorrow I'll rewrite the thing, bring in some additional sources.

"Seen by most" is directly sourced. The overall success of Yugoslav economic policies is something for which you can be buried in sources.

And just as an aside to Silvio - it would be great if you kept your absurd, two-bit, cockamamie personal ideas about (ex-)Yugoslav nations to yourself just for once. There's a whiff of that Mussoliniesque, condescending, "Slavic barbarians" vibe you like to spout off so often. And why is this thread all the way up here? -- Director (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start with the burying, cause currently there isn't a single one in favour of it, and (from the sources listed in the article) one that states "At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos." Even John R. Lampe has the late 1960s and 1970s listed as "Yugoslavia descending". Tzowu (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Yugoslav economy is one of near-continuous success, even breakneck growth - up until the slump of the '80s... And a POV focusing solely on the '80s, completely ignoring the "Yugoslav economic miracle" of the previous decades - is not something anyone will be getting away with.

I already feel as free as a mountain bird, thanks, but I do have a social life so this'll have to wait, like I said, until tomorrow. Be there or be square! :) Cheeriebye -- Director (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bad our emigrants in Germany, Austria, Switzerland... weren't informed about the "miracle". Or the United States that sent food aid to this El Dorado of the Balkans up until the 1960s. Or the bureaus of statistics that recorded a continuous growth in debt (OECD Economic Surveys: Yugoslavia 1987, p. 16) and unemployment (Susan L. Woodward: Socialist Unemployment: The Political Economy of Yugoslavia, 1945-1990, p. 377). Even its GDP per capita was much lower than, for example, Czechoslovakia.

The problem with socialism is that you just can't live on humanitarian aid, debt and remittances of guest workers forever. And, well, make Star Trek episodes. Tzowu (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Emigrants were also part of the plan for economic growth. They went to work in Germany, make some money and return here to spent it. They went to work in Germany so unemployment did not grow. That was also the idea of Yugoslav socialism. Funny for some, but it worked. xD --Tuvixer (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly it was around 5 or 6 billion $ worth of remittances, and unemployment (as the guest workers were counted as employed) didn't grow as fast with them working abroad. It's funny cause it's sad. :( Tzowu (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why are you so obsessed with unemployment. There was no unemployment in Yugoslavia, everyone who wanted to work did have a job and even those who did not want to work had jobs because they were not fired. Emigrants were necessary so that the system would work. Ask your friends who are unemployed which system would they like more, and you will always get the same answer.--Tuvixer (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a myth, of course it had unemployment. In 1980 it was 13,8% (not counting those that worked abroad). First country below it in Europe was Spain with 11%, all others had it under 10%. From 1973-1979 SFRY averaged a 12,23% unemployment rate, again the highest in Europe. Ireland was second with 7,3%. From 1965-1972 it was 7,9%, the second one was also Ireland with 5,3%. If we add guest workers as unemployed then these rates go up to 20% or even over it. Tzowu (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Director, use your energy (and your time) to provide sources instead of directing personal attacks to your fellow editors (come on, try to grow, :)!). More seriously: if you want the sentence to stay it has to be sourced. Boldly sourced. In view of the catastrophic events marking the life of the Balkans in the 90's it is relevant to source if Tito's policies were beneficial of not to unite or not the different nations forming Yugoslavia. In the meantime I have been looking for sources [[21]]. A brief perusal of this valuable source will make clear that ethnic hate existed already during Tito's dictatorship and did not rose abruptly "out of the blue".

From the source above: Far from being the great unifier, Tito pursued many policies that eroded unity. In a simplistic, Marxist-Leninist manner, Tito saw nationalism as "bourgeois ideology" and national conflicts as caused by "capitalism." So after the war, with the "bourgeoisie" defeated, he did little to combat nationalism and forge unity. While a common Yugoslav school program was created, cultural exchanges among Yugoslavia's six republics were not intense and with time became rare. No university for all nationalities was created, nor was there a policy of encouraging students to study outside their republics. It was rare for a Croatian professor to teach in Belgrade or a Serbian one in Zagreb. When the media did advocate all-Yugoslav ideas, it was an exception to the rule. This cultural and intellectual autarky of republics helped preserve the traditional nationalisms of various groups.

Concerning the "success" of Tito's policies it would be sufficient to speak about the huge debt Yugoslavia owned to the IMF to show such success.

@Tuvixer. For which reasons (to quote your words) "Ethnic hate rose in the period after the death of Tito"? Don't you have the doubt that such hate was simply repressed (or somehow strongly controlled) during Tito's (mild) dictatorship? Such ethnic hate does not raise in a matter of years. And I am very serious in writing the last sentence. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an interesting situation. Asking for a discussion on talk, then leaving it without giving any reasonable explanation for the reverts, and then reverting everything while asking for another discussion on talk. I'll repeat what I already wrote, "Anyway, let's start with those citations that confirm this, where are they? "Such successful diplomatic and economic policies allowed Tito to preside over the Yugoslav economic boom and expansion of the 1960s and 1970s." and "...seen by most as a benevolent dictator (Most?? Come on...), due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies""

Tuvixer, you said "Citations are provided." OK, maybe you didn't read it correctly, WHERE ARE THEY? These are the listed (unpaged) sources, on what page can I read any of it?

Lampe, John R.; Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country; Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-521-77401-2

Ramet, Sabrina P.; The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918–2005; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-253-34656-8

Michel Chossudovsky, International Monetary Fund, World Bank; The globalisation of poverty: impacts of IMF and World Bank reforms; Zed Books, 2006; (University of California)

And why are you removing the sentence "in which human rights were routinely suppressed", it is directly sourced on page 17 of Tierney, Stephen (2000). Accommodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Tzowu (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to explain his actions, you are trying to change the article and by the most biased manner. You have even changed the text that has been sourced, changing it the way you think things were giving no source that supports your statement. That alone is the reason for a ban. But I did not ask for you to be banned. I said that I will warn you if you continue to break the Wikipedia rules, and so I did.

So everything that is cited is going to remain the same.

Yes, he was seen by MOST as a benevolent dictator. His funeral attended state representatives from almost all countries in the world. To be precise from 128 different countries out of 154 UN members at the time. That was more than 4/5 countries in the world. Also the Secretary General of the UN, Secretary General of the Arab League, Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Parliament attended the funeral. The largest funeral in history at that time. So "by MOST" is a powerful statement. From Prime Minister of UK Margareth Thatcher to bishop Achille Silvestrini from Vatican.

So please stop. You can not change facts and you CAN NOT change history. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There, I knew it, you are reverting it because it doesn't suit your views about him. No, that is not a reason for a ban. I know that you don't like the truth about this dictator, which is obvious from the constant threats, but you should check the rules again. I did explain every change I made and gave my own sources, while again you failed to provide a citation from those 3 unpaged sources about the "successful economic policies", although you said that "citations are provided". You also didn't explain the revert of "in which human rights were routinely suppressed", which is sourced. The "benevolent dictator" nonsense is another issue, but you didn't just revert that change.

I'm not surprised that someone who thinks that there was no unemployment in Yugoslavia also thinks that his funeral was attended because the foreign politicians liked him, cause he was popular. Yugoslavia just lost its "Dear Leader" and the funeral was just another chance for the two blocks to test their strength on a country that was on crossroads. And, newsflash, lots of dictators had far bigger funerals.

Now, once more, give me a citation from these sources that the locksmith's economic policies were successful and that it was a reason that everyone loved him: Tzowu (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lampe, John R.; Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country; Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-521-77401-2

Ramet, Sabrina P.; The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918–2005; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-253-34656-8

Michel Chossudovsky, International Monetary Fund, World Bank; The globalisation of poverty: impacts of IMF and World Bank reforms; Zed Books, 2006; (University of California)

It is obvious that you are biased. You have called him "locksmith" which is a term used by right wing revisionists in Croatia, intended to discredit Josip Broz Tito.

It is obvious that you do not have the consensus. So you can not change the Article.

You have changed the text that has been cited, the text in the books, you have even changed that just to create a sentence that is acceptable to your political ideology. Don't be driven by ideology. You can not change the text that has been cited and sourced, just the way you like it. Do you understand that? Leave it be. Wikipedia has strict policies for those who vandalize the articles.

Three sources are not enough for you? What is wrong with you?

This is now over. We all have seen your real face. I really don't understand you and other right-wing fanatics who edit articles about the Left. Really, why do you do that?

As for the funeral, I was not talking about number of people present but about the number of foreign delegations. That was indeed the largest funeral, attended by statesman from more than 4/5 counties in the world. More than 200 delegations, and so on, and so on. Even Jon Stewart was talking about the funeral a couple of weeks ago. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

obviously this text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! Why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism?Passando (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

After all the threatening you now decided to forbid me from editing this article? Who are you to tell anyone what they can and what they cannot edit? Who do you think you are? Are you so brainwashed with propaganda that it clouded your mind? Calling him a locksmith is revisionist? Well it was, a few decades ago I would go to jail for this, in the "good old days". I believe that the work camps in Slavonia and Vojvodina for Volksdeutschers after the war where tens of thousands of people died discredit him far more than that.

2 weeks you can't answer a simple question, you can't find the citations you talked about in these three books because they aren't there, you can't explain why you removed the part about human rights violations which is sourced because there is no meaningful explanation, all you can do is rant and avoid a normal discussion. Now tell me who is biased here? Tzowu (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not forbidding anything, just stating the obvious. You have vandalized this article driven by your political ideology. If I call for a Wikipedia administrator to see your edits we all know what would happen. You have called Tito a locksmith, you are saying that I am brainwashed, what is next? This is not the vocabulary for Wikipedia, thin is an encyclopedia, not a club. You have changed the text of the article that has been cited, what is wrong with you? You have not changed the source but just the text so that it complies with your political ideology, ignoring facts and sources.

You can find 10 sources from 10 different books and authors written by right wing fanatics, even a source that says that Tito was the Satan himself. And that 10 sources would have no weight compared to a single source from a normal and sane person.

You have multiple sources and still there is a problem, well if there is no problem in the article then there is a problem with the editor who has vandalized this article for weeks now. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You should for start read what vandalism actually is here on wikipedia, or more preciselly what is not vandalism. I also can't believe that you still don't understand that the text I deleted is unsourced, and not only unsourced but opposed by both my own sources presented above, statistics and other articles on Wikipedia. OK, I'll draw it for you, maybe that will work. So the blue selected text is sourced (together with the "seen by most" claim that is challenged), the red underlined text is not sourced. [22]

Also, does this represent a prime example of a desirable vocabulary on Wikipedia?:

"This is now over. We all have seen your real face. I really don't understand you and other right-wing fanatics who edit articles about the Left. Really, why do you do that?" Tzowu (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, lets get this debate club to wind down. I saw this was going into vague territory and decided to keep out of it, but its still going on?? People, this is just Silvio's standard, pointless commenting on "Balkan barbarians" destined to kill each-other forever, for goodness sake - don't give him the satisfaction.

Why is an NPOV tag in the article? What specific issue is being challenged? The title sentence, as it stands now, is indeed problematic. Yugoslavia did enjoy significant economic success, terms such as "Yugoslav economic miracle" and "Tiger of the Balkans" being coined, but of course this is a complicated issue, and there were ups and downs. A Yugoslav "economic boom" is unquestioned, but of course it was followed by a slump during the late '70s and 80s (I'm generalizing)... ironically going on the upward swing in the last couple years.

The bottom line is that the connection between the economic success Yugoslavia enjoyed (in the decades wherein it did), and Tito's popularity (which is itself referenced and pretty much indisputable), isn't sourced. I'm certain I did source it with something... but its now gone apparently and I can't find it in the archives. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok.. The original sentence read "Such successful diplomatic and economic policies allowed Tito to preside over the Yugoslav economic boom and expansion of the 1960s and '70s.^[15][16][17]". That refers to policies of Non-Alignment and Market Socialism respectively, and the thing was sourced... The key thing to note is that the sentence made no claim as to his popularity being caused by this or that, merely that he presided over them. This was changed later by someone, I don't know whom and I don't know why.. It seems I didn't source the connection (which is probably why I couldn't remember the source :)), and made no claim of a connection. -- Director (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that it's complicated and problematic, I know that you can find sources that will praise its economy, and you probably know that I can find sources that claim the opposite, which is why I removed the mention of economy from the lead in the first place. Why insist on such biased sentences? If we can't agree on not mentioning the economy, let's at least make it neutral, that the economy had its ups and downs, not that it was a miracle unprecedented in modern times. Something similar to this: "He implemented a self-managing system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. The system had periods of economic growth and recession." Tzowu (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Britannica (a tertiary publication summarizing numerous reputable secondary sources better than we could hope to emulate in our wildest dreams) says it best in the least words imo: "under the new system, remarkable growth was achieved between 1953 and 1965, but development subsequently slowed". The original purpose of my sentence was to point to said period as a period of Tito's rule, i.e. his introducing the "new system", and the "remarkable growth" the country experienced as a consequence. I don't think removing this now could possibly be seen as NPOV.

In my opinion, however (and the opinion of several sources I could cite), the "negative" of the "slowing" of development can't be compared to the positive effects of the boom. I mean, that was a boost of such magnitude (truly massive economic growth stats), that us natives can't look out the window without seeing its effects... And what achieved this? It wasn't Kardelj's workers' self management nonsense (which did more harm than good), it was the break with Stalin and Non-Alignment. Tito's diplomacy. -- Director (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I also like Britannica :), but it is very critical about Tito and Yugoslavia, look at the whole paragraph:

"Under the new system, remarkable growth was achieved between 1953 and 1965, but development subsequently slowed. In the absence of real stimulus to efficiency, workers’ councils often raised wage levels above the true earning capacities of their organizations, usually with the connivance of local banks and political officials. Inflation and unemployment emerged as serious problems, particularly during the 1980s, and productivity remained low. Such defects in the system were patched over by massive and uncoordinated foreign borrowing, but after 1983 the International Monetary Fund demanded extensive economic restructuring as a precondition for further support. The conflict over how to meet this demand resurrected old animosities between the wealthier northern and western regions, which were required to contribute funds to federally administered development programs, and the poorer southern and eastern regions, where these funds were frequently invested in relatively inefficient enterprises or in unproductive prestige projects. Such differences contributed directly to the disintegration of the second Yugoslavia."

Yugoslavia had growth when everyone had growth, it had a somewhat higher percentage of GDP growth because its starting point was low, but it had more severe consequences on its economy when the rest of the world was in recession, very much felt in the 1970s oil crisis. Already in the 1970s it had high unemplyoment and inflation levels with debt increasing by 20% yearly. Another citation from his page on britannica:

"The irony of Tito’s remarkable life is that he created the conditions for the eventual destruction of his lifelong effort. Instead of allowing the process of democratization to establish its own limits, he constantly upset the work of reformers while failing to satisfy their adversaries. He created a federal state, yet he constantly fretted over the pitfalls of decentralization. He knew that the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others could not be integrated within some new supranation, nor would they willingly accept the hegemony of any of their number; yet his supranational Yugoslavism frequently smacked of unitarism. He promoted self-management but never gave up on the party’s monopoly of power. He permitted broad freedoms in science, art, and culture that were unheard of in the Soviet bloc, but he kept excoriating the West. He preached peaceful coexistence but built an army that, in 1991, delivered the coup de grâce to the dying Yugoslav state. At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos."

Look at the numbers from 1980 and compare them to other countries in Europe. An "empty treasury" and the highest levels of unemplyoment and inflation in Europe means you did something wrong. Seriously, don't you see a non-neutral point of view there? Tzowu (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Now lets be clear, I most certainly don't think Tito was some kind of messiah and I don't think Yugoslavia was eden on earth... There were ups and downs, both corresponding to general trends in the world economy... I really, really don't want to get into these vapid debates here for the fifty-millionth time.

The sentence was originally introduced to make note of Tito's presiding over the Yugoslav economic boom. I have no problem mentioning the economy also suffered a downturn in the later years... I think its a good idea to just get the original sentence back, and be done with this. Or d'you wanna balance that out with something? -- Director (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the workers self-management should be mentioned, so this would be my proposal:

"(in 1951) He implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries, which brought economic expansion in the 1950s and the 1960s and a decline during the 1970s." Tzowu (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So do you agree with this or not? If I add it Tuvixer will revert me the next second. Tzowu (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tzowu: I wanted to give him the chance to add input. And I think he's perfectly in the right to revert non-consensus additions (especially with regard to Silvio's butchery).

The problem with the sentence is that it states the economic expansion, and decline, were caused by self-management.. I don't think either is really true. Self-management was really an insignificant flop, its market-socialist economics that caused the boom, combined with the diplomatic situation after the Tito-Stalin split.

But I do agree that we should mention self-management, because of the effect it had on the lives of the Yugoslav population. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this: "In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. A turn towards a model of market socialism brought economic expansion in the 1950s and the 1960s and a decline during the 1970s." Tzowu (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, more-or-less... How about "He presided over a move to market socialism that brought..."

Lets wait until Tuvixer returns, though. There's really no hurry.. -- Director (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:, are you ok with the proposed formulation? -- Director (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that anything more should be added to the lead. Maybe just "He presided over the implementation of the self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries." --Tuvixer (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care :). Either formulation seems neutral and fine to me. -- Director (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Would this suit everyone? "In 1951 a self-management system was implemented that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. Tito presided over a move to a model of market socialism that brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s and a decline during the 1970s." Tzowu (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore the original "Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" and a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad" in the first section and replace the last one with "In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. A turn towards a model of market socialism brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s and a decline during the 1970s". It can't be more neutral than this, at least for the views about the economy. Tzowu (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you can't make changes to the article without a consensus. Ok? I and other users have said that no changes are needed. You can see that and you know that. So please stop. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What other users? You are the only one complaining about literally everything even after I and director agreed on a neutral formulation. What possible problem can you have with this change? What bothers you now? Tzowu (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Director does not care. And he said that you have to see what I have to say about it. You have asked this question before and I have given my answer. Then you asked the same question again and I have ignored you. Stop acting like a child. You do not have the consensus, so please stop. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"and I have ignored you" :D, you should really look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I'll quote it actually:

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

Does not engage in consensus building:

a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

If asking a question is "childish", then how would we call your actions? You are ignoring my questions, ignoring what me and Director discussed, reverting everything while you don't even explain why, your behavior is basically: revert - "no consensus" - "go on talk" - "no". Tzowu (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator"

Sourcing the sentence Tito was seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" with one single source is equally smart and improper. It makes use of a single source (possibly reflecting a fringe position) to push a POV. I am going to modify the text but clearly the sentence should stay as it is only if it can be sourced properly or alternatively completely removed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to make changes to the Article, please first present them here, because we have a huge mess created by Tzowu, as you can see. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one who is doing a mess, and for such a sentence in the lead section you should have more than one dubious source, Silvio1973 is right. Tzowu (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

obviously this text is full of citations made by titoist supporters and article is heavily polluted by sources manipulated and mystified by people who probably act in agreement with each other! Why titoists did remove section regarding historical criticism?Passando (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

other titoist opinion in section -Legacy-The court, however, explicitly made it clear that the purpose of the review was "not a verdict on Tito as a figure or on his concrete actions, as well as not a historical weighing of facts and circumstances" but sources claim exactly opposite!Passando (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

again in section -Legacy-Tito has also been named as responsible for systematic eradication of the ethnic German (Danube Swabian) population in Vojvodina by expulsions and mass executions but this is a crime and not legacy!Passando (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to read simple:Josip Broz Tito for to start a total rewriting of this article! Accusations of historians are several very much and not 2 or 3!Passando (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is obvious, the whole text is biased. Just look at the words that are used in the lead: "effective, statesman, benevolent, successful, popular, unifying, peaceful, highly favourable, distinguished, economic boom, brotherhood", and when someone tries to change it and make it more neutral a faithful follower shows up to protect His Majesty. Tzowu (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tuxiver, you need more than one (doubtful) source to sustain in the lead the affirmation that Tito was seen by most as a "benevolent dictator". This is obvious. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How is a book written by Susan Shapiro and Ronald M. Shapiro dubious or doubtful? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement is directly supported by at least two separate, high-quality, scholarly sources; one with the exact wording as is used (and many more can of course easily be found [23]). Silvio's disregard for sources is an old issue that I won't go into again. He has repeatedly seen absolutely no problem in attempting to advance his personal views, over and over and over again, above referenced scholarly positions. Based on nothing but a lot of his pointless talk. It can go on forever, its best to just cite WP:V and ignore this sort of trolling.

(Passando is, needless to say, a sock without a shadow of a doubt. "Titosim" is an economic ideology, not political support for Tito. The term is only used as such in Italy among right-wing loonies.) -- Director (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Director, @ Tuxiver, you need more than a lonely source to sustain your arguments. Please mind here no-one is removing your edit, but merely this has been tagged and a discussion called for. I am confident this discussion can be closed in a matter of hours but please aknowledge a discussion has been logged and untill the matter not solved do not remove the tag. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@All, I have proposed a slightly different formulation as a first attempt to find a compromise. No-one here discuss the reputation of Shapiro as a source; the discussion, indeed, is that the aforementioned source is used to support a general statement. I hope you all see the difference between the two things. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tuxiver, it looks you revert all edits but not yours. As it looks you are not interested in discussing, I will file a 3RR if you keep reverting. An administrator will decide who is forcing a POV. You can write that some sources consider Tito as a "benevolent dictator" but cannot pretend citing one source that this is believed by most. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is not acceptable Comment

Editors are reminded that edit warring is not acceptable on this article or any other. Please see WP:EW. You will note that 3RR is a "bright line" for blocking but blocks may come earlier based upon administrative discretion. I hope you will work out your issues on the talk page and cease disrupting this article. Thank you. JodyB _talk 18:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

EW is unacceptable. Indeed, I do not understand why Tuxiver and Director keep reverting my sourced edits. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, clearly the only way to proceed is to post a 3O or a RfC. Laborious but in this precise instance unavoidable. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

3O posted on removed sourced edit by User Tuxiver

I have right now posted a 3O request concerning this contested section. User Tuxiver continues to threat me of EW but does not really explain why my sourced edit is not acceptable. I hope this 3O will convince him to join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• 3O response: When inserted material is contested and removed it stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include. The source you provide is not currently online or you formatted the link wrong, in any case we cant see if it supports the material you want toinclude. I think it would make sense if you could quote the source here so that we can see what it actually says. Secondly the material you are inserting seems to be both problematic in the sense that it is clearly controversial and that it is someone's opinion that is presented as a fact about what Tito did and believed. If it should be included it probably requires in line attribution to who ever wrote the article that you are citing. But given the controversial nature of the statement it would be better to find a better source, preferably academically published, to write about what Titos views was on the continued integration of the Yugoslavian nation. So, I agree with Tuxiver that the material is problematic and should probably not be included in the form suggested by Silvio1973, and that edit warring to keep it in is a bad idea.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source now works. And I am in favour of discussing a different way to insert the material in question. For this I need Tuxiver to join the discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I have said that the source does not work. Now when I see the source, I see it has been taken out of context and misquoted. Again, you are vandalizing this article. We had a discussion for days. Saying that I do not participate in the discussion is a lie. Everyone can see my posts on the talk page. Now you are introducing a misquoted source that is not from a book, which is a example of vandalism and a violation of a consensus and practice on this article that the lead should be sourced from books. I will say again and again and again that you are vandalizing this article. Please stop. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, the source says verbatim what I wrote. I have however reverted to your edit to show my good faith. Can we discuss now? Also because if my source is out of context, your current version is not sourced at all so I do not see where is the improvement with your version. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It does, but you didnt format it as a quote, so including it like that would have been plagiarism. Secondly the source is a summary of a book by Richard West that makes a revisionist argument that contradicts the established view that Tito maintained peace, saying that rather he personally benefited from maintaining division. That argument can perhaps be included, but it cannot be stated as fact. You would have to rewrite it in a way so that it is clear that this is Wests argument, and that it is not universally accepted. You will also have to cite West himself and not a secondhand summary of his book.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You got the 3O you wanted. Will you now please stop? Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, you need to start to engage in meaningful dialogue, as well. Tellingsomeone to stop is not dialogue and it is not respectful. You also falsely accused Silvio of vandalism. Step up your game, provide some better sources and strive to form consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, you posted an entire unsourced section but pretended my text is controversial. Also pesterised my talk page without any reason. I have no problem in reformatting my edit, indeed I would be happy doing so. But you just revert to your edit and accuse anyone else of vandalism.Silvio1973 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been disrespectful. It was not my intention. The article about Winston Churchill has in the lead only one source, the article about FDR has 4, the article about de Gaulle has 5 and the article about Tito has 19. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Or is it a pattern? Where have I "posted an entire unsourced section"?

Manus, do you really think that a consensus can be achieved with Silvio1973 on the other side? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources are not required in the lead, this is because the lead should only summarize the rest of the article and all information included in the article should already be sourced in the body of the article. SO yes, you are right, the amount of sources in the lead is excessive and it suggests that there is a problem with the rest of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuxiver, please stop this play. I have rephrased my edit. If you are not happy you can change it and we can discuss, but try to do more than just reverting (and please stop pestering my talk page). Yes, the section just before my insertion is unsourced. Your apologies are accepted. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't ignore what manus wrote. Read again what he wrote. He was very clear. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:1

Of course Tuxiver has reverted without discussing. So typical. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You should probably start discussing before adding this material. Your new phrasing is just as bad as the previous one, it stats Wests opinion as fact and implies that all other scholars are mistaken.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus I Agree, I should have discussed before. Indeed I have exactly the same problem with the section of the lead affirming Tito was "seen by most as a "benevolent dictator" due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies and a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad. One source is used to imply that the most of scholars say the same. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Manus wrote and I quote: "When inserted material is contested and removed it stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include. " That is his first sentence in this talk page. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The opinion of West, does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the body in a discussion about Tito's view on the ethnic divisions. And it has to be explicitly attributed to West.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen.. Silvio doesn't care about BRD. His addition absolutely must go in, stated as fact, without qualification, in the first sentence probably - because he agrees with it. Its got some half-baked link behind it, donchaknow: its "sourced", therefore its absolutely accurate, regardless of whether its revisionist tosh or not. Its "so typical" of Balkans barbarians to disagree with this perfectly logical position, and demand that he discuss it before engaging in another of his edit wars.

On the other hand, when something he doesn't agree with is supported by several scholarly sources (see above thread), then we must be civilized and accommodating, we must "compromise" with him and his own personal appraisals of the accuracy and reliability of a half-dozen scholarly publications (listed complete with direct quotes). As if those aren't worth considerably less than the bytes they occupy on Wikimedia servers...

Folks, I've been here over and over again. This is silvio's mo. I've pointed him to WP:V and other policies over and over again - he just doesn't care. If he's ever to contribute on this project, the need to follow the most basic guidelines must be impressed upon him somehow. Otherwise there's no point even talking to him: he just won't accept your position. He'll simply conclude that he must add several more coats of sycophantic slime to his often-barely-intelligible posts. -- Director (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is West's opininion and deserves to be in the article, although perhaps not in the lead. Director, you should really learn to discuss the edits and not the editors. If you were less confrontional no doubt I would listen more to your arguments as I do listen to those of other users. Concerning this article I am not the only one user affirming it is POV.

@Tuxiver, I hope we can discuss about this. Being blocked both of us a second time would be not good idea. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You know I thought it was the height of arrogance for someone to presume one's opinions should count as counterweights to scholarly publications, but you've managed to go beyond that. Not only do you think your irrelevant opinions are something we must "discuss" and bother around with - you also think they're shared by the entirety of the Western world. They're the "Opinions of the West" xD. Now I guess we know why you're so important: you're the respresentative of the West... against "Easterners", I can only presume? :)

I'll repeat once again: your opinions are worth considerably less than the bytes they occupy on our servers. They concern no one but yourself. Goodbye. -- Director (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Director, once again: comment about the edits and not the editors. It would make everything much smoother. BTW, funny to read that you still divide the world in "Easterners" and "Westerners"... Are you aware that since Tito's departure a few things happened on this planet? :) Silvio1973 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be surprised you're making fun of me for something you actually did ("it is West's opininion [sic]") and I parodied, but frankly - you do that often, and the only thing that shocks me is this time I can understand you while you're embarrassing yourself. -- Director (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard West is the author Silvio is wanting to include... Oh man, this is good stuff a la Seinfeld :D FkpCascais (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes.. yes it is [24] :D Al sta ti stvarno pratis moje komentare, il sta?

But there's a reason I misunderstood his meaning: its completely in line with what he usually comments (as in the "ex-Yugoslav barbarians" being opposed to the "peaceful countries of the West")... -- Director (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahah :D No I follow many discussions regarding our region, this one I followed ever since the thread about the "benevolent dictator". I also know a bit of your concerns regarding Silvios view of barbaric Yugoslavs. No problems, keep on, regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

This article is constantly manipulated by a titoist gang with which it is impossible to find an agreement: the ongoing dispute requires the intervention of administrators! We have not reason to discuss with titoists who edit on blatant commission! I have already alerted an administrator! I suggest to titoist gang don't insist because we honest users are in superior number!Passando (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Up there in the talk you can see the discussion. Calling someone by names will not do any good, you need to try to work on a consensus, not insult users. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando, I would suggest you heed Tuvixer's comments. If you have issues, be very specific and the editors will discuss it here. Do not come here calling names. JodyB _talk 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

dear JodyB I consider Tuvixer and PRODUCER obvious Director's sockpuppets and Passando's version only a provisional rewriting: in this discussion you can find all comments against titoist POV by 1.000 users and Tuvixer made edit war against Silvio1973Teo Pitta (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Teo JodyB is an administrator. Listen to him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

reported case of titoists in ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulated and mystified sources--Passando (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Passandro, do not remove sourced material from the article again. You will not edit war. If you wish to create a criticisms section then bring your sources together and we will discuss them on this talk page. Second, stop accusing editors of being Titoists. It will not work. Come here with a respectful attitude and a scholarly approach and you will be welcomed. Take a moment to breathe and settle down. JodyB _talk 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)