Talk:Myth of Tito

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

POV and tone

This article is ridiculously POV, and the tone isn't encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a forum for political point-scoring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it you object to? Thanks, --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, discussion of this concept belongs in the Josip Broz Tito article. This should not be discussed separately, but as part of the overall evaluation and legacy of Tito. This is an extremely poorly written POV fork with unencyclopaedic tone. Secondly, it is based on extremely POV conceptualization and has a WP:FRINGE bibliography. Reinstating tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General remarks without identifying specific issues. Here is a list of authors/sources used in this article:

Mitja Velikonja - university professor
Alex N Draganich - academy member
Ljubiša Despotović - university professor
Mark Almond - university professor
Rezun Miron - university professor
Danko Popović - notable writer
Dejan Jović - university professor
Deutsche Welle
Stevan K. Pavlowitch - university professor
Balkan Insight
Aleksa Đilas - PhD of Sociology
Nevena Škrbić Alempijević - university professor
Kirsti Mathiesen Hjemdahl - Head of Research, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre
Dražen Nemet - professor of history
Ivana Peruško - docent on Zagreb university

Peacemaker67 will you please be so kind to point to source you claim is WP:FRINGE bibliography?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with unencyclopaedic tone. "Myth of Tito" is repeated no less than eighteen times, just in the lead! And a total of 48 times throughout what is actually a fairly short article. Talk about bludgeoning the reader... But back to the issue of FRINGE, let's just take the ridiculous polemic written by Ljubiša Despotović which is used eight times in the article, making up nearly a third of the citations. It contains more than a dozen highly dubious claims, for example, "it has never been established who he was, when and where he became a member of the party he ruled for life", "less was known about when and how the Moscow Comintern appointed him general secretary of its Yugoslav branch, the CPY", and "his alleged birthday on May 25". There is no shortage of reliable sources for these things: per his article, his origins are clearly laid out by the reliable books written by Swain, Vinterhalter, Ridley, Lee and West that are cited in his article; how and when and where he became a member of the CPY is made eminently clear by Ridley 1994, pp. 77–78; his appointment as general secretary of the CPY is clearly explained in Ridley 1994, p. 135; and Vinterhalter 1972, p. 43 and Ridley 1994, p. 44, clearly explain when his birthday was. I could go on, but it is clear this source is full of unfounded claims about well-known facts regarding Tito, all clearly intended to make Tito appear more mysterious than he was and bolster the "myth" concept. And that is just the most cited source. The tag is eminently justified just on that basis, and if this article survives, I will be culling it dramatically. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article is Myth of Tito. Every sentence is cited and directly related to this topic. There is nothing unencyclopaedic in referring to myth as a myth. If the name of the topic is too long, the abbreviation can be introduced (MOT).
This article does not mention any of "flaws" you found in one of 15 sources used in the article. You are wrong with your explanation because it has never been established who he was, when and where he became a member of the party he ruled for life is not resolved by his appointment as general secretary of the CPY is clearly explained in Ridley. Member≠general secretary. There is a scientific consensus about the discrepancy of Tito's birth date. Conclusion, you do not have arguments for your position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have misrepresented what I said, read it again. So, it is your position that a ridiculous polemic which contains over a dozen incorrect statements is a reliable source for this topic? I am not surprised, but you realise that competency is required on Wikipedia? If you can't see that this source is wildly unreliable, you really shouldn't be editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect.

Even Vladimir Dedijer who was Tito's official main biographer pointed to the discrepancy in dates of Tito's birth. Dedijer, Vladimir (1981), Novi prilozi za biografiju Josipa Broza Tita, Liburnija, p. 137, Čak i u školskim knjigama u Kumrovcu postoje različiti datumi Titovog rođenja.[Even the documents found in school in Kumrovec contain different dates of Tito's birth.].

You do realise you are quoting a forty year old biography and promoting nonsense Yugoslav conspiracy theories that have always circulated about Tito's birth? Again Swain, Vinterhalter, Ridley and West all agree he was born on 7 May 1892 in Kumrovec, and West even says Dedijer checked the parish register and it said 7 May. He goes on to say that Dedijer's book contains "puzzles, gaps and inconsistencies" that contributed to confusion. Ridley even says "Despite there being "not the slightest doubt" about the date and location of Tito's birth, many people in all parts of the former Yugoslavia give credence to various rumours about his origins". That is exactly what you (and Despotović) are doing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding when and how the Moscow Comintern appointed him general secretary of its Yugoslav branch, the CPY here is a source which supports it: Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (1992), Tito--Yugoslavia's Great Dictator: A Reassessment, Ohio State University Press, p. 23, ISBN 978-0-8142-0600-3, Simić. has. established. eight. different. versions given by Tito over the years of how he came to be appointed by the Comintern to head the KPJ.

Another example of your English comprehension issues. Tito himself may have given eight different versions of the background to his appointment (which of course are primary sources), but that doesn't mean there is any doubt about the actual facts of when and how he was appointed as General Secretary of the CPY. Geoffrey Swain, the author of a much more recent Tito biography than Dedijer (2010), in International Review of Social History Vol. 34, No. 2 (1989), pp. 253 & 261, clearly stated that "On 23 November 1939 (this is the "when" that Despotović falsely claims was not known), the Comintern Secretariat met and endorsed Tito's work (as acting General Secretary since 17 August 1937) since the decision of 5 January (1939, which was when Tito put his plans for the CPY to the Comintern). Tito's position as party leader was finally secure." Swain repeats the same information on p. 26 of his biography of Tito. This clearly explains how he was appointed, it was by the Comintern Secretariat on 23 November 1939. There may be different versions of what machinations occurred prior to his appointment, but there is no doubt whatsoever about when it occurred or how it occurred, as Despotović falsely claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding it has never been established who he was, when and where he became a member of the party he ruled for life, with Ridley you refuted your own position because he in current text of the article on Tito actually confirms that Sources differ over whether Broz joined the Communist Party while in Russia, but he stated that the first time he joined the party was in Zagreb after he returned to his homeland--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really need some lessons in English comprehension. There is a difference between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) which is the link, and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY). You might think all communists are the same, but reliable sources beg to differ. Ridley clearly says that there is a question over if he joined the CPSU while he was in Russia/Soviet Union, but clearly accepts Tito's statement that he joined the CPY when he returned to Zagreb. Thus, Ridley on pp. 77–78 mentions no confusion about the latter, so your supposed point is completely wrong. I have tweaked the linking to make this clearer in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Peruško - docent on Zagreb university. We can not check what scientific work speaks.
Dražen Nemet - professor of history. In this source Dražen Nemet don't talk about Tito. Here he talk [1]. He talking about the cult of personality who later became political myth. He mentions the positive facts on which this cult was based, as well as some others fact. For this cult of personality basis was private and other informations: he cooked a pig's head for the family, his adventures in the battle of Sutjeska, desant na Drvar(Raid on Drvar), relay of youth, pioneers, etc.

Where are positive and main foundation of this "myth" visible in the article?

"Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks" So in Yugoslav times we read about his cooking of a pig's head, adventures from the battlefield, historically no to Stalin, movies about him and at the same time we have "distort image of Chetniks"? So that there was no such "myth" we would have a true picture of the Chetniks, that is, we would know that they were in fact anti-fascists. Therefore, this is a one-sided article that is, a political pamphlet. Mikola22 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]