Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

While some criticise... many see...

Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), why did you undo my revision of "many" to "some"? Do you prefer changing both pronouns to "many"? 207.216.153.13 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

the source actually says "most", which is what I have now changed it to. If you want to discuss Shapiro as a source for this, that is fine, but it is not ok to change what sources say to suit your POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Most" of whom? Historians? Yugoslavs? Of which republic? Foreigners? Based on what data or evidence? To my knowledge the source does not address any of this, but only asserts the claim in passing. The source itself is not a scholarly source, and the authors are not historians. The only description I could find of the authors online was the following:

Health education consultant and author Susan G. Shapiro lives with husband Ronald Shapiro, a foreign business development consultant and lecturer, in Silver Springs, Maryland.

This does not mean their statements should be treated as false, but it does mean they should be treated as statements of opinion, with individual attribution, until supporting reliable sources are found. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Academic_consensus:

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

207.216.153.13 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Endorse IP's comment--Teo Pitta (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Promoted to "sergeant major" at age 22 ?

This rank is anglo-saxon, but didn't exist in the Austro-Hungarian Army. What was the rank he was actually promoted to ? (Seems rather unlikely to be promoted to a - supposedly meant - senior NCO rank after short period on a NCO school) ... --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

probably Stabsfeldwebel, but West, Swain and Ridley all use the term. OTOH, Vinterhalter says sergeant, per note f. But when three-quarters say sergeant major, that is what we go with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

it seems quite a nonsense, unreliable info. Do you really think somebody can be promoted to such senior-rank after a brief stint with NCO school. Btw., anglo-saxon authors should pay some respect by giving the original rank denominations first, so that the reader can put it in some order. This way: "promoted to Stabsfeldwebel, roughly the equivalent of Sergeant Major". Alas, this "information" seems not serious at all. And this supersoldierly-man Broz, promoted like a Rocket, was, on the other hand, put in jail at Petrovaradin around the beginning of the war in 1914 ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• see this Austro-Hungarian casualty roll Nr. 332, page 8, December 10, 1915 Name: fits, Regiment: fits, Birth-year: fits, Status and year: fits, home-place: maybe, at least his home "zupanja" ! --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, cut out the POV nonsense and bring some reliable sources like the ones used in the article. Otherwise, I suggest you do something else with your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The information that Tito was ever promoted to a so-called austro-hungarian "sergeant major" is not that credible, at the end of the day...I mistrust this anglo-american authors, you might call "reliable sources", claiming that ! --2001:A61:2A79:7A01:2473:F808:1A1C:1CE4 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. I couldn't care less who you distrust, they are reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The time cannot be wasted. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remove "Not to be confused with" tag.

Why there is "Not to be confused with Jozef Tiso" tag here? I don't see how or why Josip Broz Tito would be confused with Jozef Tiso, it even sounds completely different. During the WW2 they were at completely opposing sides. Please remove the tag, it confuses the verified historical significance and difference between the two persons (just see the references on both articles).

Fair enough. I have wondered about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead's POV sentence

It's confirmed in previous sections: sentence While some criticise his presidency as authoritarian and compare him to the brutality of Stalin, many see Tito as a benevolent dictator is POV for most of users who post an opinion in this page! I will introduce Rummel's sources and others in the body of article and later we can change lead's POV sentence.--Forza bruta (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User-admin Peacemaker doesn't understand what POV means: I restore valid material well sourced by Forza Bruta. --Passando (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Forza bruta's edits were a copyright violation, which are taken very seriously on WP. If you restore them, I will report you. The source is WP:TERTIARY and needs discussion in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User Peacemaker, you are administrator but can not make what you want for your confrontational behaviour against user Forza Bruta, who is correct and valid editor: in fact Forza Bruta changed words of enciclopedia and translated source of important English historian! User Peacemaker, I and other users discuss here since past years for neutrality of this article and you remove reliable sources! I can report user Peacemaker for disruption and persistent POV pusher who defends only falsified sources!--Teo Pitta (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYVIO and look up “close paraphrasing”. Competence is required on WP. As I have said, I am happy to discuss possible wording here on the talkpage using reliable secondary sources, but edit-warring copyvio or closely paraphrased material into the article will just result in a block. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User-admin Peacemaker you are violating the wiki's rules and do not explain why: you removed two sources for no valid reason. You also don't want to collaborate: stop this destructive attitude and respect those users who improve the text with other sources. Regarding the encyclopedic source, you have been invited to change the words by user Forza Bruta in edit summary and regarding Jasper Ridley's source you do not provide a single word. I request to you the collaboration: you can put the sources with words chosen by you. The correct section's title is Presidency and dictatorship because Broz was a dictator. I remember to you: it's possible to put exactly source's words but in QUOTE form and I can restore encyclopedic source as QUOTE.--Passando (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am violating nothing. It is not my job to fix someone else's copyvio. You claim that is the correct section title, but have not gained consensus here after discussion using reliable sources, you have just made a claim that is the case. It is just your opinion at this stage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

We must respect WP:COPYVIO issue, explained from editor Peacemaker67. As for information that "and ordered execution of Mihajlović and the inprisonement of Archbishop Stepinac fact I don't know why it would be mentioned in his "dictatorship". He is not blame for actions of some others persons from that period(whether they are guilty or not) and the court is from that state and people, not from Tito. Mikola22 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again I propose this format of section and sources

[Historical debate]

[Criticism]

Democide

Broz is accused of democide by important historians. [1]

His presidency was been criticized as dictatorship which made dramatical bloody repression, supported by OZNA and UDBA, and several massacres of POW and civilians after second world war, such as Bleiburg, Tezno, Yazovka, Kocevski Rog, Macelj, Backa, Foibe massacres, etc.

In the years following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a number of historians have stated that human rights were suppressed in Yugoslavia under Tito, particularly in the first decade up until the Tito-Stalin split. Broz Tito's autocracy organized huge system of concentration camps and prisons such as Borovnica concentration camp, Goli Otok, Sveti Grgur, etc. On 4 October 2011, the Slovenian Constitutional Court found a 2009 naming of a street in Ljubljana after Tito to be unconstitutional. While several public areas in Slovenia (named during the Yugoslav period) do already bear Tito's name, on the issue of renaming an additional street the court ruled that:

The name "Tito" does not only symbolise the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia from fascist occupation in World War II, as claimed by the other party in the case, but also grave violations of human rights and basic freedoms, especially in the decade following World War II.

Ethnic cleansing

Tito has also been named as responsible for ethnic cleansing.

He is accused for systematic eradication of the ethnic German (Danube Swabian) population in Vojvodina by expulsions and mass executions following the collapse of the German occupation of Yugoslavia at the end of World War II. [2]

During his tenure as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, the Foibe massacres happened: the killings took place mainly in Istria during and shortly after World War II from 1943 to 1949, perpetrated mainly by Yugoslav Partisans..

The estimated number of people killed is disputed and varies from hundreds to thousands.

The report by the mixed Italian-Slovenian commission describes the circumstances of the 1945 killings as:

“ 14. These events were triggered by the atmosphere of settling accounts with the fascist violence; but, as it seems, they mostly proceeded from a preliminary plan which included several tendencies: endeavours to remove persons and structures who were in one way or another (regardless of their personal responsibility) linked with Fascism, with Nazi supremacy, with collaboration and with the Italian state, and endeavours to carry out preventive cleansing of real, potential or only alleged opponents of the communist regime, and the annexation of the Julian March to the new Yugoslavia. The initial impulse was instigated by the revolutionary movement which was changed into a political regime, and transformed the charge of national and ideological intolerance between the partisans into violence at national level. ”

It has been alleged that the killings were part of a purge aimed at eliminating potential enemies of communist Yugoslav rule, while others see the main motive for the killings as retribution for the years of Italian oppression and others point out Tito's political aim of adding the Istrian territories as far as Trieste and the city itself to the new Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia . In fact the ethnic map of the area could potentially be a decisive factor in a treaty of peace with Italy.

Nowadays, a large part of the Italian Left acknowledges the nature of the foibe killings, as attested by some declarations of Luigi Malabarba, Senator for the Communist Refoundation Party, during the parliamentary debate on the institution of the National Memorial Day: "In 1945 there was a ruthless policy of exterminating opponents. Here, one must again recall Stalinism to understand what Tito's well-organized troops did. (...) Yugoslav Communism had deeply assimilated a return to nationalism that was inherent to the idea of 'Socialism in One Country'. (...) The war, which had begun as anti-fascist, became anti-German and anti-Italian."

Undue enrichment

Broz is accused of undue personal enrichment by fraudulent gains, which impoverished Yugoslav State's public property; [3]criticism heaped on Broz Tito's lustful lifestyle: from 1974 he had 32 official residences, one of the ten richest men in the Balkans, a communist who lived like a king. [4] Broz Tito constructed huge personality cult around him.

[Favourable]

Journalist and writer Shapiro asserts: ...All Yugoslavs had educational opportunities, jobs, food, and housing regardless of nationality. Tito, seen by most as a benevolent dictator, brought peaceful co-existence to the Balkan region, a region historically synonymous with factionalism. Some historians report his successful diplomatic policies and reputation as popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad, and he was viewed as a unifying symbol, he was very popular among the Yugoslav citizens.

I am ready to accept all your counselsTeo Pitta--Teo Pitta (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources used here are not appropriate for a historical subject. A collection of oral histories? A political psychology text? Hit jobs by his political enemies and alleged victims? We need to be using biographies of Tito and academic historical texts about Yugoslavia under Tito, not this stuff, which is clearly chosen because it is largely negative. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User Peacemaker, I can put a long list of reliable sources with numbers of alleged killed victims under Broz Tito's political power: Rummel's books and a lot of others historians. If you like Shapiro and this dictator, you see related source in subsection [Favourable] in totally extension and Shapiro is not a professional historian: in neutral format alleged historian Shapiro's sources stay in article's body and not in lead for rubbish propaganda! And if you persist in your POV blatant support to this benevolent dictator in your opinion with persistent disruption-elimination of valid sources, I will start a dispute: no problem.--Teo Pitta (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Teo, my counsel is this: you can put some sources in other sections but your format is correct and that source of the author Shapiro must be in the section Historical debate or Evaluation.--Forza bruta (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Go right ahead. In any dispute you will get shredded on a community drama board, because you are clearly POV pushing and not abiding by the Wikipedia pillar of writing from a neutral point of view, which is all I am insisting on (as well as no copyvios). Your sources are inappropriate, as I have pointed out. They are completely unacceptable for an article on a controversial figure like Tito, and have obviously been chosen to paint him in a negative light. You claim Shapiro is not a historian, but use non-historians yourself. A gobsmacking double standard if there ever was one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User Peacemaker, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know the books, that denounce the crimes ordered by your benevolent dictator that you want to pass off as a guy criticized by three only historians cited in lead with manipulation-falsification: I know those books and they use words dictator and dictatorship but not authoritarian presidency. However, my proposal is very simple: in lead it is sufficient to explain that Broz was a dictator, then all the other sources must be moved, including sources which are often personal opinions of payed characters like probably mister Shapiro.--Teo Pitta (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Go and read some quality biographies of Tito, that look at his whole career in detail and draw conclusions, not some drive-by comments by non-historians. You are wasting your time here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User-admin Peacemaker, you are a bizarre dude because you pretend the discussion, but now you declare: we waste time. Surely we discuss for a consensus among users who edit in article and we discuss about proposals by editors. I endorse Teo Pitta's proposal: in lead we put just term dictator because Josip Broz was a dictator and we put other sources in section 'Evaluation'.--Passando (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We put in what the reliable sources say. Not the outcome of cherry-picking some weird conglomeration of non-history books that mention Tito in passing, but actual quality biographies and studies of the man that look at him in detail. As I've already said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Beloved Peacemaker, a mass of historians accuse Broz Tito for massacres in actual quality biographies and studies of the man that look at him in detail but the problem is your POV of your personal political vision! I propose to change quickly the focussed sentence because great number of historians criticize this dictator for his crimes and other users edit on article in neutral direction but you and user Tuvixer persist in rollback of neutral changes.--Passando (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence "While some criticise his presidency as authoritarian,[6][7] and compare him to the brutality of Stalin,[8] most see Tito as a benevolent dictator.[9]" is clearly a complete joke, especially by saying "most," which is clearly a weasel word. This is the English Wikipedia, so does it mean most of the English speaking world? Or does it mean most of the world? Or simply most of Yugoslavia at the time? Or most of Serbia today? This is nonsense, and should not be in the article at all. "Some" is also a weasel word, does it mean some historians, or some of the citizens at the time, or some of the citizens of Serbia today? Some of whom criticize him? Again, this is absurdly ambiguous and needs to be refined.Bill Williams (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with user Bill Williams: the sentence is absurd and L.O.L.=lot of lies! I propose this form: "While great number of historians accuse his dictatorship,[6][7] and compare him to the brutality of Stalin,[8] some other historians affirm how most see Tito as a benevolent dictator.[9]"--Passando (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would support something like ""Although many historians criticize his dictatorship as authoritarian,[6][7] others see Tito as a benevolent dictator, and he was a popular figure in Yugoslavia.[9]" Bill Williams (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see sufficient good quality evidence that supports the use of "many" (Andjelic is a general text on B-H, and McGoldrick is a general text on national identity, neither are detailed examinations of Tito, so "some" seems better based on the existing citations), but otherwise this looks fine in the short term, Bill. The reality is that, as I have said above, these assessments of Tito need to be based on the consensus of the long-form biographies of Tito like Auty, Barnett, Pavlowitch, Ridley, Swain and West (plus Maclean and Dedijer who are probably both quite biased), not on "drive-past" assessments by authors of general texts on far wider subjects. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, I'll just make it "Although some historians criticize his dictatorship as authoritarian,[6][7] others see Tito as a benevolent dictator, and he was a popular figure in Yugoslavia" because that's still an improvement over the current sentence that states "some" but doesn't even say "historians." Bill Williams (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Lovely Bill, you have forgotten the source comparing Broz to Stalin: this source is important because brutality was used by both dictators! Furthermore see sources listed by previous editors in this talk, including archives, and you can read a long list of historians who stigmatize Broz after his dictatorship and massacres ordered by himself: in fact, numerous historians accuse Broz Tito for related brutalities!--Passando (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Stalin is one of hundreds of dictators throughout history, so I don't think the comparison has any relevance. Why not bring in a source comparing him to Mao? It is an unnecessary comparison considering the two became enemies. Bill Williams (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I see this has been restored. There clearly isn't a consensus here for its inclusion, so I've reverted. Start a RfC for a wider community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Tito's note to Stalin

Grover Furr presents evidences against the only source on the existence of such a note [5]. In short, Roy Medvedev write inconsistently a distorted tale in The Unknown Stalin and other books but provide no evidence supporting it. He said to have heard Aleksei Snegov partially remembering some letters in Stalin's desk, he may have read more than 20 years back.

Please correct me or correct the article. Uspec (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The only "correction" required is that you need a reliable source for this criticism of Medvedev. The website actualhistory.ru has nothing that indicates it is a reliable source. It actually reads like pro-Stalin propaganda, seeking to emphasise minor differences in wording to claim that the letter did not exist. If you can produce a reliable source for this questioning of the letter, we will include it in the discussion alongside and in contrast to what Medvedev says. In the meantime, I have removed the tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"...throughout his life, Tito was poor at spelling" - citation needed!

Early life, Pre-World War I: "As a result of his limited schooling, throughout his life, Tito was poor at spelling". CITATION NEEDED!

Good grief, the citation after that material covers that material. Not every sentence has to have a separate citation.

WHERE does it say that throughout his life Tito was poor at spelling, in that citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I wait an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don’t you read the pages of the book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

YOU have read it? I am not an editor on Wikipedia, YOU are. YOU have read it or not?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve read it, it is mentioned on page 5, and I added it to the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

And if an English historian wrote it, should we believe him? I've looked it up, I found he knows Russian, but does he know Croatian? And even better than a Croat (Tito)? Did he studied Tito's letters in detail and come to the conclusion that he was not writing correctly? Or how? Even Wikipedia mentions how the American "experts" from the NSA made fools of themselves by concluding that Tito didn't speak Croatian like a Croat, but like a Polish or a Russian, only to find out later that it was the very dialect spoken in Tito's native region. It is simply not plausible that a man who spoke Croatian, the other languages of the Yugoslav republics, German, Hungarian, Russian, Czech and a little Polish, would not spell his own native tongue correctly. It's not credible. And it is not clear how this English historian came to such a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

We need reliable sources for what goes in articles. This has a reliable source. Unless you have a contrasting reliable source, this discussion is over from my perspective. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"We need reliable sources for what goes in articles." My point exactly!

Please read WP:RS. If you think Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Swain [6] or his publisher I.B. Tauris are not reliable, then post at WP:RSN and get a community opinion. If you accept they are reliable then WP:DROPTHESTICK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that what Swain says is "Tito’s schooling was meagre, attending school for just four years; those who worked closely with him noted in later life that he could never spell correctly." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The vision of the Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Swain is a simplistic one. Three aspects need to be considered:

1) Tito came from a mixed family (Croatian father, Slovenian mother);

2) Different languages spoken in the same region, even before the formation of Yugoslavia as a state;

3) The foreign languages that Tito spoke.

In this article: https://www.bbc.com/serbian/cyr/balkan-52798109, the historian Markovic summarizes the situation (far too complex for an English historian) like that:

"As for the weaker knowledge of the Serbo-Croatian language, Markovic reminds that, formally speaking, Tito's mother tongue was Slovenian.

After all, the language spoken in Kumrovec during his childhood was not literary Croatian. And later, his languages ​​got mixed up, which still happens often to guest workers today". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.54.2 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point we have a reliable published source (Swain) versus speculation by an IP editor. It doesn't seem like much of a contest. Doremo (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. At this point, we have an English source (Swain) versus a Serbian historian (Markovic), who know better the realities of the land.

Quite right Doremo. IP, you are wasting your (and my) time here. You haven't read Swain, yet you think you know better than he does. In the preceding sentences he points out that at age eight, Tito's Slovene was better than his Croatian. I don't know what your problem is with this, and frankly I don't care. As you appear uninterested in engaging with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, this is the last I will be commenting on this thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Predrag J. Markovic, doctor in historical sciences from the Belgrade Institute of Contemporary History.

"As a result of his limited schooling, throughout his life Tito was poor at spelling" is one thing. "Tito's Slovene was better than his Croatian" it's quite another. Don't make him look more uneducated than he really was.

Just signing this so the bot archives it. There is nothing to do here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Again disruption

Again disruption versus three sources restored by me and already discused in past. The source regarding Churchill's opinion about Josip Broz was in lead of article during last six years an I simple moved it at appropriate position: where meeting Churchill-Broz has citation. Other two sources are from an encyclopedia and from Broz Tito's biography by Jasper Ridley, who is important historian and he has article in wikipedia. To remove reliable sources inserted by me is blatant disruption against wikipedia rules. Forza bruta (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ll respond to this later today. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's get into this:

• Firstly, the "great Balkan tentacle" quote is not placed in time (ie Sebestyen doesn't say when Churchill said this, was it before 12 August 1944 or after that date?) At the end of the war, Churchill referred to Tito in this way when ordering the British commander in Italy to seize Trieste, "this Muscovite tentacle, of which Tito is the crook." This is quoted in Churchill's Road to Victory, 1941-1945. But that was well after this. By including this quote here, you are clearly trying to add undue weight to Churchill's supposed negative view of Tito at the point that he met Tito. Churchill obviously dealt with all sorts of people he didn't always speak well of. The quote isn't supported by the Vladimir Petrović source from Annales, so by placing the quote where you did, you have incorrectly attributed the quote to him as well as Sebestyen. Perhaps because his book is so broad, Sebestyen himself gets facts wrong, as he says on the same page that 30,000 Slovene Home Guard and Ustasha troops were being held by the British as prisoners of war in Austria. This is contradicted by Tomasevich (2001, p. 774) who states that they were not accepted by the British as prisoners of war. This isn't some minor factoid, this is critical to whether their return to Yugoslavia was lawful or not under the laws of war. An error of this nature is concerning. Regardless, even if he is accepted as reliable on this matter, he does not say when Churchill made this statement about Tito, so it cannot be used in the way you have used it (to set the scene for the 12 August 1944 meeting).
• Secondly, infoplease is a tertiary source, and its use is subject to the tertiary source fallacy because it is an "argument to authority". WP uses secondary sources for a reason. It is also logically flawed. For example, a planned economy and nationalisation of industry do not necessarily mean that Tito was leading in a dictatorial manner, which is what your edit says.
• Finally, in general Ridley is fine and the quote is accurate, I have used him in this article myself for pre-WWII biographical information. The words you have used appear on page 462 of the English version published in 1994 by Constable. But you have been very selective in the quote (again clearly in a bid to add undue negative weight). Ridley goes on to say the constitution "granted all the citizens of Yugoslavia the fundamental freedoms of speech and the press, and exemption from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment...".

So, taken together, your edits a) incorrectly attribute material to a source that does not support the material, b) attempt to add undue negative weight in two areas, and c) involve the use of a tertiary source which has obvious logical flaws. Happy to discuss any of the above, but bring policy, not your opinion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Three sources.

• 1 Regarding first source, you are confusing and contradictory in your hypothetical logic but I propose to move this source in section "Evaluation".
• 2 Regarding second source, I don't understand what you want by me because I reported content of source and you can collaborate with me changing words.
• 3 Regarding third source, you can add words about Yugoslav constitution which was imitation of Soviet Union's constitution.

Furthermore user Vipz removed two reliable sources in Italia Brigade (Yugoslavia) without intervention in related talk because his favourite sport is disruption against sources, which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito: I propose to move that sources from "Brigade" to here in article of "Broz Tito", who ordered foibe massacres.

If you consider my proposals and you want collaborate with me, we can find an agreement, but if you want only sources of propaganda without sources which affirm crimes made by dictator Broz Tito, I will request a mediator starting a dispute.--Forza bruta (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

tito was a leader and we have to stop calling him a dictator it is biased Victory to the UAW (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read what I have written. I'm not interested in you giving me permission to add things. That isn't how this works. You need to explain, using Wikipedia policy, why this material is appropriate to be added to the article. ie why you have incorrectly attributed the quote to Petrović, why Sebestyen is reliable on this issue, why inclusion doesn't give it undue weight, why you put the quote where you did, and how you would word it if it was moved to an Evaluation section. Also why we would use a tertiary source that clearly contains important errors of fact. Also what additional words you would consider might be included to place Ridley's quote in context. If you don't want to explain the above, I don't do mediation, so you will need to use an RfC. I suggest you read the guidance on writing a neutrally worded RfC, as I think you might struggle with that given your clearly negative views about Tito. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably we can find an agreement but considering single source by single source. I propose to put in first sentence of section "Evaluation" these words: Historians criticize his dictatorship as bloody and brutal, comparing him to the brutality of Stalin,

References

This is only first step.--Forza bruta (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Historians? You mean one historian, Sebestyen. This will need in-text attribution, and will need to be balanced with the views of other historians. We will need to look at what the wider academic sources say about Tito in this respect and formulate words that reflect the academic consensus as well as any significant varying points of view. We certainly aren't going to add what you have suggested as a representative summary of Tito in reliable secondary sources. For example, how many historians compare his brutality to Stalin? How many criticise his rule as brutal and bloody? During what period)s) of his rule? Etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Many historians but I can not put twelwe names and surnames with related sources in first sentence of section "Evaluation". Four historians are sufficient in that position: they are Sebestyen, Rummel, Pirjevec and McGoldrick, who now is present in first sentence of focussed section. Source is this: Joze Pirjevec, Italian edition 2015 "Tito e i suoi compagni", Einaudi editore, Torino; chapter "La vittoria", section "Anno 1945: il massacro" page 204 The merciless showdown against the "counter-revolutionaries" which cost the lives of an unknown number of people, between seventy and one hundred thousand, was long a taboo in Yugoslavia and found no echo in the West. Instead, merciless showdown was praised by Stalin, an event that made Josip Broz's collaborators proud. During a meeting with a Polish delegation, the "owner" of the Kremlin criticized the Warsaw authorities for their laxity versus the opposition forces, citing Tito as an example: he is a smart boy because he has eliminated all his opponents. Other source of Rummel is this http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM and source of Sloven government according to important Sloven historians https://web.archive.org/web/20111004145243/http://www.mp.gov.si/fileadmin/mp.gov.si/pageuploads/2005/PDF/publikacije/Crimes_committed_by_Totalitarian_Regimes.pdf "Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes". Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Retrieved 26 December 2019. p. 156. Source is this Most of the mass killings were carried out from May to July 1945; among the victims were mostly the “returned” (or “home-captured”) Home guards and prisoners from other Yugoslav provinces. In the following months, up to January 1946 when the Constitution of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was passed and OZNA had to hand the camps over to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior, those killings were followed by mass killing of Germans, Italians and Slovenes suspected of collaborationism and anti-communism. Individual secret killings were carried out at later dates as well. The decision to “annihilate” opponents must had been adopted in the closest circles of Yugoslav state leadership, and the order was certainly issued by the Supreme Commander of the Yugoslav Army Josip Broz - Tito, although it is not known when or in what form.--Forza bruta (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You have mentioned four historians, Let's break that down:

• Pirjevec is a credible Slovene/Italian academic, so his views on Tito should certainly be reflected in the article. No doubt there is an element of Slovene national distress over the killing of Slovenes by the Yugoslav army and OZNA in the immediate aftermath of the war, and it would be reasonable to expect him to reflect some of that in his work, but his view is important, if potentially biased. But what does he say about Tito? That quote can't be used to support the statement by Sebestyen that Tito was "as brutal as Stalin". He doesn't even use the word "brutal" he says it was a "merciless showdown". A "showdown" is a "final test or confrontation intended to settle a dispute" according to the Oxford dictionary. He doesn't compare Tito with Stalin at all, what he says is that Stalin praised Tito for eliminating his opponents. If he is talking about the killings of collaborationists at the end of the war, Tomasevich (using Vladimir Žerjavić's numbers) says this is about 70,000. 100,000 seems far too high a top figure. But even accepting that, he just doesn't say in that quote what you are attempting to cite him to support. Where is the comparison with Tito? Where is the observations about his rule being brutal and bloody? How much of his rule? All of it? While relevant to this article, and he should be used in it, Pirjevec does not support the quote you have used from Sebestyen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Rummel's methodology used to generate democide figures for communist regimes has been heavily criticised, and as have the figures themselves. An example includes a journal article by Tomislav Dulić (himself a respected academic at the Uppsala University in Sweden who specialises in Holocaust and genocide studies (specifically about the Tito's Slaughterhouse chapter (9)), in which he states that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito's Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. Dulić also criticises Rummel's data methodology used for his estimates. Given the weight of criticism of Rummel's data work generally, and specifically with regards to Yugoslavia, I doubt he can be used for much here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• The Slovenian government inquiry needs to be taken with a grain of salt. All inquiries conducted by politicians have an end in mind, and we are far better off using secondary academic sources. What about Tomasevich, Pavlovich etc? Dulić himself? Also, what works by McGoldrick are you referring to? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All the objections reported by you are invalid because you cannot criticize a source when another source denies it: the neutral version must report all sources that contradict each other, but we must report what historians have stated in their books and historians normally contradict each other, but not you decide the historian who is right, nor can you decide in which position of the text the sources should be stay. I think to request third opinion but I'm not sure if the third opinion is the right choice because other users have intervened as can be seen in the history of the changes in the article, but they do not intervene in this talk probably because they have short time for contribute on wikipedia.--Forza bruta (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

my 2c: the third opinion could be helpful because it might bring users to the topic who aren't normally engaged. Sometimes a look from the outside might open paths which aren't seen by those who are too immersed or too specialized. Lectonar (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Lectonar, but I don't think there is a substantive question for a 3O to consider. Fb is trying to use sources to support things they don't actually say. Verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia, but Fb seems to think it doesn't apply to them. What is a 3O going to decide, that verifiability doesn't apply to Fb's edits? They can't do that. Fb needs to accept that verifiability is an absolute requirement on WP, and they cannot use a source to say something the source itself does not support. If we can't even get that clear, this is pointless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In the end, yes, that's what they would probably say...but then it will have been said by someone not too engaged. We are on content dispute grounds anyway, as AndyThegrump has pointed out in the ANI tread about User:VIPZ, and it has at least brought FB to the talk-page here. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's incredible how many WP:NPA violations are being tolerated with this user. Even here, they're avoiding to counterargument reliability and undue weight objections posed by Peacemaker67 by making ad hominem, probably unaware how consensus works on Wikipedia. -Vipz (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact it is a content dispute that has been dragging on during at least ten years with over twenty users involved, who putting in and removing sources from each other among themselves on article: the last section here down is discussion about other source! I propose to put the tag of "disputed article" in top of text for advice other users, who can intervene in this talk page. Obviously I consider also "third opinion" as suggestion by admin Lectonar and "request for comment" too.--Forza bruta (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree. This is not a content dispute. It is a dispute about whether sources have to actually support what is in the article cited to them. You appear to think they don’t. That is not about content, it is about verifiability. You said “historians” support those words, but have been unable to show any historians other than Sebestyen who support such language. No 3O or RfC is going to conclude that you can ignore verifiability. It is s core content policy of WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

i second that notion Victory to the UAW (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not add confusion and contradiction in your discussion as you have already done but you keep focus on historians reporting the mass killings ordered by dictator Broz after the end of war: focussed crimes are considered crimes against humanity under communist regimes and mass killings under communist regimes; in first linked article you read the source n. 31 which is the one I showed you above: it clearly accuses the dictator Broz. In second linked article you read about Yugoslavia too because under Broz's dictatorship mass killings were ordered by Broz. You know historians cited by me and you know their reports regarding mass killings: very well and you can report these sources in article and you can put where you want in text. I do not pretend to put sources in positions fixed by me in text but simply I demonstre to you that important historians affirm and report about mass killings with various numbers of victims according to various historians and we report in article these various numbers.--Forza bruta (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources inserted by you are reliable sources and we can find a kind of way to correct format for article.--Passando (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Who? are they reliable historians no because you made them up Victory to the UAW (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I would like to comment on a matter of unreliable sources in the article Josip Broz Tito, Language and identity dispute. As a matter of fact, the sources (Footnotes: 251 & 252) "Nova Srpska politička misao" (New Serbian political thought) and "svedok.rs" (witness.rs) are not reliable because they are far-right-oriented sources which contradict many historical facts and fabricate the facts that suit their way of thinking. Darrad2009 (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you identify which material you feel is inaccurate/contradictory in the cited sources? The sources appear to accurately quote or closely paraphrase material in Matunović's and Dinić's books, and the books exist. Or are you instead objecting to Matunović and Dinić? Doremo (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, Matunović's and Dinić's books exist, but there is nobody to remove them and I don't feel competent to question the reason for that. I believe that one of the reasons is that books are goods which bring money.

The main point is that the entire article is based on "hearsay" facts. Not a single statement refers to any credible source and I'll single out two of them:
(1) Mr Vlahović, referring to information from the War Archives in Vienna, "believes" that the real Josip Broz was indeed born in 1892 in Kumrovac, and died in April 1915. as a soldier of the 25th regiment of the 42nd home defence division of the Habsburg army. in the battle in the Carpathians. If he cites information from the War Archive, then he should also cite the archival material from which he got that information!

(2) "Raif Dizdarević, Tito's longtime confidant and one of the last heads of state under the rotating presidency system of the former Yugoslavia, (was trustworthy, but he was never close to Tito to the extent that he could enter his private rooms actually, he lived whole his life in Sarajevo) claimed that Tito held a copy of Josip Broz's 1915 death certificate, which was found in a black suitcase after his death." Note to the second sentence:

Dizdaravić wrote: "In his study in the White Palace, Tito kept some documents in a small safe deposit box. Among them was a copy of Broz's death certificate. It was issued by the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of the Army in 1915, and it was a list of soldiers who died or disappeared - including Broz".

Common sense tells me that no one in their right mind would keep any incriminating documents in their suitcase! Why would he keep them? If he really had them he must've known that they could destroy him if they were discovered! It doesn't take much intelligence to see how reliable the source is!

As far as I remember, in the BBC series "The Death of Yugoslavia" Raif Dizdarević did not mention any of the things stated in this source! Just in case, I'll try to watch it again.

Anyway, these are just two examples because every quote in the article has the same form. Darrad2009 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The material you mention / object to is not in the WP article. The WP article appears to use the source accurately to confirm authentic material. Doremo (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I would kindly ask you to read it again; I took material from the WP footnote 251 [] where the author Vladimir Jokanović refers to Aleksandar Matunović, but the mentioned article was written by Vladimir Jokanović and titled: "Tito's life remains an enigma" and was published in the far-right wing newspaper "Nova Srpska Politička Misao" (Journal of social theory and political research). Darrad2009 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Darrad2009 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

The only information in footnote 251 is "Vladimir Jokanović (3 May 2010). "Titov život ostaje enigma". NSPM." The material you mention / object to is not in the footnote. Doremo (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But it is in the article named "Titov život ostaje enigma". Darrad2009 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You are objecting to content somewhere else on the internet, not to content on Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Although the veracity of the content is questionable, I am not objecting to the content itself but to the source which carries the content, namely the newspaper "Nova Srpska Politička Misao"! That source is unreliable! Darrad2009 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

To quote Political Science in Central-East Europe: Diversity and Convergence (2010, p. 261), "In 2001 the editorial board [of NSPM] decided to modify the journal's profile by emphasising its website content, designed for engagement in current political affairs... Although after 2001, the journal continued to come out in hard copy format and covered several topics of interest for political scientists..., it essentially turned into a vehicle for the promotion of the political ideology of the national conservatism and support for political parties that embrace this ideology." I would say that anything published by NSPM (especially on its website, but also in its hard copy journal) since 2001 is potentially unreliable, probably unreliable if on the website, and only reliable if in hard copy on an individual basis. The editor of NSPM (while he is an academic) has also been a politician up until recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is confusing; you said: "I would say that anything published by NSPM (especially on its website, but also in its hard copy journal) since 2001 is potentially unreliable, probably unreliable if on the website", but NSPM still remained on the website footnote 251. What is the way to remove it? Darrad2009 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 is the text from NSPM correct or not? Pixius talk 11:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darrad2009 If the content matches the book it is based on, this is not the fault of the NSPM, nor the reason to proclaim it as unreliable. Pixius talk 11:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

However, the user has not removed the sources in article and he is discussing here: instead the sources inserted by me have been removed without first discussing above in this talk page.--Forza bruta (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your content and sources have been objected to immediately, whereas the sources and content discussed in this section have been inside the article for quite some time. -Vipz (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong because the rightly added sources should not be removed after two minutes nor after two months nor after two years without valid reasons demonstrated in talk page: you must learn from the user who started this section.--Forza bruta (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"... communist revolutionary, statesman, and later a dictator"

@Doremo: there's no doubt numerous RS can be found to support the perception Tito was a 'dictator', that is not the issue here. I'm not sure whether there is a manual of style related to this, but you can notice numerous articles of traditional 'dictators' do not stack this perception/characterization together with general facts in the very first sentence, but rather opt to properly elaborate on it down the lede: e.g. Fidel Castro, Chiang Kai-shek, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha. No one reading past the first sentence is going to miss this. -Vipz (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. The edit summary ("well it says ...") implied that the edit had been made because the source was not explicit enough. Doremo (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doremo: do you intend to integrate those sources there (with/without rewording)? -Vipz (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. I'll also change (the laudatory) description statesman to (the neutral) politician, and recast the "benevolent" bit to reflect the sources. Doremo (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

please also add a leftist perspective such as some reject his categorization as a dictator 142.54.9.83 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the 'leftist' perspective is already covered by labeling him as 'benevolent'. -Vipz (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Now I have read it. I don’t personally believe putting “later a dictator” in the first sentence has any issues as a general description of his rule. But I am fine with describing it in other paragraphs too. However, I have also noticed that fascist dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini have been described as dictators in the first sentence. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The leftist “benevolent dictator perspective” does not reject the dictatorship narrative. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As for Joseph Stalin, it is stated in the first paragraph that he was a dictator. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@LeonChrisfield: there are many points-of-view among academics on a 'general description of his rule' and simplifying it to a 'later a dictator' is devoid of any context, is not WP:PROPORTIONAL and I'd say is WP:UNDUE. On top of that, also what I said about stacking perceptions with general facts. You can compare these articles to their equivalents on the professionally edited Encyclopædia Britannica, then reevaluate when and how proportionally balanced (to academic consensus) is it to describe each individual subject as just 'dictator'. –Vipz (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Vipz, vipz vipz...

@Vipz You think I haven't read your user page? I know exactly what you're trying to do, I don't want to waste time on ant-fucking around the words "Some scholars".

As much as you would wish him to be, Druže Tito is no perfect saint. Wikipedia is not an altar. His crimes, controversies must be covered.

If you are ignorant on what happened to the Germans of Yugoslavia, I advise you to educate yourself on the subject instead. If you know it well but are trying to sideline it... shame on you. Synotia (moan) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I repeat what I told you on my talk page: in the case I am mistaken and you are interested in writing a section/article about human rights under his rule, I apologize for the blunt greeting and look forward to collaboration. --Synotia (moan) 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: when I told you to "establish consensus on the talk page" I did not mean "post another blatant provocation" like you did here, on your talk page and in all revert summaries. I told you what to do and it's up to you to do it properly. Don't expect me to 'collaborate' with you if by collaboration you mean 'ignore all the personal attacks, accusations, and provocative and inflammatory comments made along the way'. –Vipz (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I told you what to do and it's up to you to do it properly.

wtf? Who are you to talk to me like that? Moreover I don’t know what you’re talking about.

I talk to you like a Titoist, you talk to me like a dog. Great. Synotia (moan) 19:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For the third time, I offer you apologies and to work on the article together to include Tito’s more controversial side.

if you don’t want to, that’s fine, but please don’t selectively obstruct me with baseless WP:POV allegations. Synotia (moan) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Captions need to be succinct. Usually, there should not be more than three lines of text in a caption. Captions are not entrefilets—insertions of additional "interesting" facts to serve as examples. They are not supposed to provide context for the prose, by providing extra specificity. Rather, the image provides illustration to the prose, the prose provides relevance and context for the image, and the caption is there as a mere necessity: only to bridge a possible gap between the prose and the image, to make it more certain that the reader will benefit from the illustrative function of the image. The image is not an illustration to the caption; it is not subordinated to the caption. Rather, the image is subordinated to the prose, and the caption is subordinated, very much so, to both the image and the prose. My suggestion is that you add what you think is missing in the prose, to the prose, and not insert a whole unsourced paragraph through a functionally false caption. —Alalch E. 20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

NKVD Officer?

In and category below it shows, it says that Tito was a nkvd officer. If its true? there's no evidence of that in the article itself Ataman (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

He's been accused of participating in the killing of leading Yugoslav comrades, such as Milan Gorkić. This biography is faulty. TheUzbek (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason why I edited this wikipedia page is because what I edited looks more correct in my context of my edit in this wikipedia page.

the reason why I edited this page will be revealed. 2601:243:1A00:6E30:802F:5D48:5540:AA9D (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It is duplication of information already there or is not important enough detail for the lead. Don't re-add it please. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

but why? He should have been called leader of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by being considered as the prime minister/leader of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And I promise I will make my edit correct and I will stop editing. So please let me do that and if my edit looks good enough or has good info that I make it look more good enough then I will stop editing. 2601:243:1A00:6E30:42E:A16F:23B8:4EAA (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead section contains only the most important general facts about Tito. Additional offices are covered later in the lead section and in the infobox. –Vipz (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But can i be allowed to edit to say that he was the leader/prime minister of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia so that way it doesn't look like he became the leader of Yugoslavia in 1953? 2601:243:1A00:6E30:7461:9837:8F5D:D14E (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Or can you do that for me please? 2601:243:1A00:6E30:7461:9837:8F5D:D14E (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There, I mentioned his prime minister office in the first lede paragraph. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ok. Cheers to you. 2601:243:1A00:6E30:B072:99CA:5C53:F802 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation section, why is a Law professor quoted as a source?

On the Evaluation section of the article, it includes a statement by Dominic McGoldrick. I did some research into who he is, he is a law professor. https://law.yale.edu/dominic-mcgoldrick. Is he really qualified to make this statement? He is not a historian or political scientist. Logimite (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A publication by a legal expert is an appropriate source for information about legal matters (human rights). Doremo (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)