Talk:Tito

This page is full of grammar errors and factual errors. An editor corrected them but was twice reverted. His corrections seemed good to me, not that I am an expert.

If the reverts were because of perceived vandalism or pushing of POV, I'd suggest to only revert the relevant points, but make good use of his grammar and factual corrections. Leopeo 15:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

EDIT: maybe the editor's changes to the World War II article may be seen as ideological (?), but this is not the case in the Josip Broz article. IMHO, Leopeo 15:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)

That's true, but I don't have the time to go over all of it. Most of the edits are the traditional Comintern position, so I did a wholesale revert. Rob Smith 15:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I see you are questioning the political orientation of my edits. It's true that I tried to neutralise the article, but in no way write from a "Comintern" viewpoint. It's an overall accepted truth that chetniks collaborated with the occupator since the end of 1941 and performed ethnical cleaning in Bosnia and Croatia, as I pointed out in my sources. --Qwertz 09:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Then stop deleting the subhead, and the phrase, "Mikhailovitch, an Atlantic Charter ally, was shot by Tito as a traitor." Rob Smith 15:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Very well. Qwertz 08:13, 13 December 2007 (EST)

What did I do wrong now? Qwertz 08:29, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Is reverting the solution?

I really have no knowlege or interest in Tito's life, but it seems to me that the version RobSmith is opposed to corrects many mistakes, mainly grammar and factual. If he feels that it is a politicized version as well, could he or someone knowledgeable EITHER a) correct those (grammar, factual) errors by himself, OR b) instead of reverting, leave the changed version and just correct the parts he feels politicized? Greetings, Leopeo 10:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Precisely. I would also like to hear from RobSmith about which parts of the article are still controversial. As I said, my work was neutralizing the article and correcting the part about chetniks fighting for freedom. As I didn't get practically any information about what I did wrong, I would like to see either that the changes are accepted or that we debate over "the real role" of partisans and chetniks. Qwertz 15:16, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Cover photo

Why are we using a copyrighted book cover photo when there exists a nonfree photo at [1]? I don't see any commentary or parody on the specific book cover photo; rather, a photo of Tito like that seen at the link would be equally effective in enhancing the quality of the article. GregG 21:03, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

The Soviets in Yugoslavia

"The Soviet army never reached Yugoslavia" Cool story, bro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade_Offensive https://youtube.com/watch?v=QMbnMtGmCms (3:07) --User:Cnsrvpdsosethui

I changed it. However, (quickly) reading this article, it seems like Tito's forces played a larger role in the region in the war's last days. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

You've wrote another lie, which says that Tito established a dictatorship in the country, although in fact socialist Yugoslavia was never a dictatorship --User:Cnsrvpdsosethui

Not only did I not write it, but he was a dictator. That's common knowledge. He established a one-party communist state. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

That's a lie, because Yugoslavia in practice, I repeat, has never manifested itself as a "dictatorship." Tito's Yugoslavia had a lot in common with the United States, Yugoslavia had private property, there was free travel abroad (with the United States and some EU countries Yugoslavia had a visa-free regime), it was possible to watch and distribute erotic films / porn, it was possible to acquire weapons just like in Mexico or Switzerland, there was self-management of workers, and I'm not even talking about the fact that Yugoslavia was allowed to criticize communism, even if it was not so often. After all of the above, do you really think that Tito established a dictatorship in Yugoslavia simply because he had ruled for a long time and had only one ruling party in it? According to your logic, Finland was a dictatorial state because of Urho Kaleva Kekkonen (he was a president of Finland for 25 years), many "democratic" countries at that time had only one ruling party in power, and the United States has still only two political parties in it's goverment to this day. The only thing in which Tito's Yugoslavia was really autonomous is in the repression of nationalists and racists (just like the current US, irony), but anti-nationalist policies are far from being a factor of a "dictatorial" country. If you do not know the detailed history of certain countries, do not rush to call it "dictatorship" or "democratic", there's a big difference between dictatorship and anocracy.