Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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. +[1] 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 [[2]]. 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. [3]

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)

No, asking a question is not childish. Asking the same question again and again is childish. Ok? I am not your idiot who will obey all your commands. I have said, but it seems that you do not read what i write, that it would be ok for me to include "He presided over the implementation of the self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries.", nothing more. The administrators have said that you Tozwu and other users can't make changes to the article and have to put them on talk and discuss them here. So you have to go to them about that. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What same question was asked by me? You really don't understand anything, from the beginning of this you are aggressive, infantile and act as this is your article that no one else can edit before they pass your standards. You also provide no explanations for anything you do (because there's no meaningful reasoning for it, of course) and disregard what others are saying. Btw the administrator was commenting the edits of Silvio.

Me and Director had discussed the edits, we managed to agree on something and add both the economic growth and decline in the lead. Need I remind that you didn't participate in the discussion? I must say that I've never seen a user here on Wikipedia that asks for a discussion on a talk page, refuses to participate in it and then ignores everything that is written by other users. I also don't expect you to understand this, you'll just keep bragging about "no consensus". Tzowu (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop insinuating. I did participate in the discussion. Everyone can see that. Director said that you have to wait for my opinion. And you can,t remove sourced text. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I support "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, followed by a decline in the late 1970s.". Ok? Lets stop this now? -- Director (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that is now in the Article. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Passando's proposal

This is my proposal for introduction:

---

He was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980.[5] During World War II he was the leader of the Partisans]. He gained international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.[14]

He was General Secretary (later Chairman of the Presidium) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939–80), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav guerrilla movement, the Partisans (1941–45).[15] After the war, Broz Tito and his titoist followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship: he was the Prime Minister (1944–63), President (later President for Life) (1953–80) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). From 1943 to his death in 1980, he held the rank of Marshal of Yugoslavia, serving as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav military, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA).

Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from 1943 to 1991–92. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he was also the first (and the only successful) Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony. A backer of independent roads to socialism (sometimes referred to as "national communism"), he was one of the main forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement, and its first Secretary-General. He supported the policy of nonalignment between the two hostile blocs in the Cold War. In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. He remains a very controversial figure in the Balkans.

---

I am waiting comments and suggests: in next days I will propose section -Criticism-Passando (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The introduction is just fine as it is, so nothing should be changed. Don't start the discussion all over again, ok? See up here, on the talk page, that we have/had the discussion about the introduction. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of silly and offensive titoist propaganda is basic job: dictator's promoters tell tall stories with unwarrantable and unreliable sources in actual article's head; titoist economic expansion and economic boom are [boom boom fakes] and funny lies. Passando's proposal is acceptable article's start: I suggest to mention captivity in Russia and participation in soviet and stalinist affairs. All you consider this point: the same promotional sentences, in provisional actual version's head, are also in various article's sections, therefore organized propaganda appears sure! If, in provisional actual article, there are reliable sources relevant dictator's few good opinions by some historians, we can put these sources in section called [Historical debate] with two parts called [Criticism] and [Favourable].Teo Pitta (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The current introduction suffers is IMHO of a basic issue: does not reflect the content of the rest of the article. More precisely does not contain any reference to any criticism. Indeed does not even mention anything about Tito's internal policy or that under Tito Yugoslavia political system was one-party. For the sake of clarity I want however to stress that except the introduction this article is globally sufficiently balanced and well sourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Teo Pitta

Please Teo do not engage in a edit-war, and make your point on the talk page, ok? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Teo added tag in correct manner: I reported this situation to adminsPassando (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu

@Tzowu please do not engage in a edit-war. You have the talk page where you can make your point. But you need a consensus to change the article. Try to work on a consensus here, please. As stated above, you can not change the article if you do not have the consensus, so please show good faith and discuss your problems here and try to work on a consensus, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I'll draw it for you Tuvixer yet again. The blue selected text is sourced, the red underlined text is not sourced. "Domestic and foreign policies" is a wider encompassing wording that the current one which is not sourced and is opposed by other sources. Tzowu (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is great that you have stopped edit-warring. :) Now read the discussions, you can find the if you scroll up. There has been achieved a consensus. You will see. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to read that from a user that never entered an edit war on this or other pages. The "consensus" (its interesting that you call it that way, because you would still oppose that if it wasn't for director showing up) was not to keep "succesfull economic..." in the sentence I changed. Now what is your problem with this change, besides that it was made by me? Tzowu (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please read the above sections. We can't start the dispute all over again, that would be idiotic. So please read the above sections. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

:D OK, please give me quotation where in these sections above was agreed that "due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies" should stay.Tzowu (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to consider creating a RfC. You clearly need some wider input. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a RfC really needed for such a small edit in wording? It doesn't even change the meaning of the sentence, it's just more neutral. Do you agree with it? Tzowu (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking you should RfC anything mildly controversial with this article as a circuit-breaker from the edit-warring, not just this one issue. I'm butting out of this, I don't know enough about Tito, especially post-war. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was finished..? What's going on now? -- Director (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, we have to discuss every word, comma and full stop. The current sentence is "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, 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." Since Tuvixer doesn't want it to be removed, I'm proposing a change from "due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies" to "due to his domestic and foreign policies". It's in my opinion more neutral, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence and also gives more hits on google books [4] [5], while the current version gives only results for publications based on Wikipedia. Tzowu (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing is quite clear. As things are now, Tzowu's edit corresponds more to the source than the version Tuvixer rolled-back. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is funny how you guys are starting a dead discussion like it never happened. That is sad. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That is true, Silvio. Of course, we still have no explanation in why a sourced edit is reverted and an unsourced one is left. Tzowu (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer, I am also surprised. Perhaps Tuvixer can give us an explanation. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks that Tuvixer can revert edits in less than 10 minutes but it can take more than a week to have an answer. Tuvixer, can you please explain why you keep reverting Tzowu's edit? --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the discussions, you can find them if you scroll up. I am not going to explain again to everyone who does not read the former discussions. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I did read the discussion but can't find a valid reason for your edit. Your edit clearly misrepresents the source. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, we are not mind readers. Can you quote the part of those discussions that you think denies the right to remove an unsourced sentence and replace it with a sourced one? Tzowu (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-Aligned Movement

Why do you want to remove that sentence? --Tuvixer (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's redundant. In the first paragraph it says: "He gained international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with...", then in the fourth "he was one of the main forces behind the Non-Aligned Movement, and its first Secretary-General. He supported the policy of nonalignment between the two hostile blocs in the Cold War."

There's no need for it to be in there twice. The broader problem is that the lede is too long and badly organized. Per WP:LEDE, the lede is supposed to summarize the article. In particular, there's too much biographical detail in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much detail and as I already wrote above the lede currently does not summarize the article. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Volunteer Marek is not familiar with the practice on this article that was imposed because of some users who want every sentence in the lede to have a citation. Volunteer Marek, because of that you have to present the changes on the talk page first. You understand?

The ledge is too long? I mean, is the ledge of Winston Churchill too long, or is the ledge of Franklin D. Roosevelt too long? It is not too long. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

First, it's "lede" not "ledge". Second, I don't care whether the lede of Winston Churchill or FDR articles is too long or not, this is not an article about WC or FDR. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Third, don't talk down to me with this "you understand?". I've been on Wikipedia for eight years longer than you have. Fourth, the tag I added - and one which you removed without discussion - provides useful links to the relevant guidelines. Here they are again: WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:LAYOUT: The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. And obviously cutting out redundant info - which is the part you completely failed to address in your response - is what one would hope would be a non-controversial way to cut it down. Fifth, I don't see anything about established practice or any kind of sanctions/restrictions imposed on this article, although I figure there's a couple of Balkan-related ArbCom cases that might be pertinent. Regardless, there's no presumption in favor of existing version on Wikipedia and there's no tyranny of the status quo. Wikipedia articles are improved via editing and the making of changes. You cannot hold an article hostage (see WP:OWN) by insisting that even the most trivial changes be discussed first (and judging by above discussion, then engaging in obstinacy and obfuscation in an attempt to make sure these discussions go nowhere).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of citations in the lede, ideally the lede should have no citations. The lede is a summary. So if the info which it is summarizing is cited in the main text, it doesn't need to be cited in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Please stop edit waring. You do not have the consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. If you do not have the consensus you need to work on one. Please stop changing the article and try to work on a consensus, don't be a bully, please. You need to discuss this on the talk page. And yes I know its not "ledge" the browser auto-corrected me. And definitely the lede is not too long. You can't ignore the facts. I really don't know why are you saying that. Please can you explain, because you can't ignore the fact that WC and FDR have even longer lede. So please explain what do you want to change, and we can then work from that. Also you can ask for a 3O. That always went really well on this article. :) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, you can't accuse others of edit warring when you yourself have violated the 3RR rule by making four reverts in less than 24 hrs. Add to that your recent blocks for edit wars on other articles. You also appear to have a misunderstanding of what WP:CONSENSUS is. It does not mean that one person - you - gets to hold an article hostage, especially in violation of Wikipedia policies or resisting even non-controversial changes. And again, I don't care if WC and FDR articles have longer ledes. That's something to be discussed over there. I've pointed you to the relevant guideline, WP:OTHERSTUFF and here I am doing it again.

My edits are self explanatory. I've removed redundant info from the lede. I also think there's too much unnecessary detail about where exactly he got sent, whether he was the sixth, fifth, seventh or the eightieth child etc. which simply does not belong in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And why did you have to be so mean? You could have explained it very well. Please, you are not familiar with the other users who are trying to vandalize the article. You can see that the lede has 18 citations, that is all because those users are asking for all the sentences to be cited, but when they make changes they do not provide the citations. You can understand why I am being cautious. In my country Croatia, there is a rise of right wing nationalist fanatics and they pay some users to edit Wikipedia and spread their propaganda on the internet. You can also see the tensions in the nearby Macedonia and it all can escalate in a horrible event, orchestrated by the same people who are behind those users. Are you ok with the current version of the lede? Tnx. There is really no need to remove the information that he was born in Kumrovec. Maybe you do not understand that because you are not from Croatia, but that information is very important. Also why did you remove that he was the only successful Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony? And why did you remove that he distinguished himself, becoming the youngest Sergeant Major in the Austro-Hungarian Army of that time? It is even cited. The current formulation is historically incorrect. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes Marek, user Tuvixer has been holding this article hostage. The user reverts any edit and also insists in replacing sourced material with unsourced one (please see previous section on this talk page). Silvio1973 (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You guys have been proven wrong so many times and you are still trying to change the article. Please, stop this. Now tozwu has seen a chance to change the article. But I will not pass. Why you guys don't ask for a 3O?? Are you afraid of it? Please stop terrorizing this article and follow the rules of Wikipedia. Your fanatical idea to cite all sentences in the lede is insane. Please leave the article as it is, ok?

It is symptomatic that you are only trying to change the lede. Why is that so?

The lede is not too long. If that is so then almost all are. xD Please stop terrorizing the article and engage in a constructive discussion here on the talk page. do not insult other users and please do not ignore what other users have been saying. Ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer, you should really not come here calling names. You have already crossed the line and there is already enough on this talk page to make you reported and possibly blocked. Please stop accusing your fellow editors of fanaticism and political extremism and change your general attitude. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is possible to have a compromise here. By looking to this set of edits done by Tzowu, I think the removal of "successful" at the "successful economic and diplomatic policies" is OK because successful is a vague word, however I am not so sure about replacing "economic and diplomatic policies" with "domestic and foreign policies" is correct. I would prefer to leave "economic and diplomatic" since it is sourced and more specific. Then regarding the family and A-H army I am OK that the part is shortened, its not a big deal. Regarding the part leaving Cominform, I do think the fact that he was the only one to have succeded in leaving is important, although it would be preferable to have it in prose and not in parentheses. What I oppose is the first addition regarding the "human rights being routinely suppressed". Tito was a dictator, and despite the wording being sourced, I don't think there is consensus among historians about such strong wording, and it doesn't seem to belong to the lead but rather in the article body. FkpCascais (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair comments Fkp. Yes, Tito was a dictator. Not the worse one and possibly his dictatorship was one of the mildest during the XX century. Still his one was a dictatorship and in this sense a mention about human rights has its place in the lede (and it's sourced). You say that it might not be consensus among historians about "human rights being routinely suppressed". I agree but is there consensus among the historians about him being considered "by most as a benevolent dictator"? I don't think so, but this sentence is in the lede. However, instead of "human rights being routinely suppressed" I propose "Concerns about the respect of human rights raised among historians".Silvio1973 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fair. FkpCascais (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But what human rights? I mean, today human rights are suppressed every day, and no one calls Obama or Merkel a dictator. It should not be in the lede but in the text. Every country in the Cold war had human rights suppressed. And no one is saying that he was not a dictator. The country needed a dictator to make essential reforms and he was successful. He modernized and industrialized Yugoslavia and ended illiteracy, he also kept Yugoslavia together and made it one of the most important actors in the world theater. Defying Stalin, and so on, balancing the position, Non-Aligned Movement, and so on. He was the most important person in the history of our nations and the most important person to come from Croatia, and always such unique figures, call them leaders have a good side and a bad one. In this case the good side prevails. He turned a agrarian country stuck in the 19th century to a modern 20th century socialist federation that had influence across the globe. And if you ask someone that had lived in Yugoslavia, 99% will tell you "if Tito was really a dictator then I want a dictator, it was better than than it is now", and that is a fact. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

He had all those positive aspects, but we cannot ignore he was ruthless against his adversaries... Goli otok, domestic nationalists, Ustaše, Chetniks, monarchists and pre-WWII burguesie, Italians, Germans, then internal opposition in the CPY, etc. Ends up being correct to cover all those aspects. FkpCascais (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We all agree Tito was a dictator, and he was - but certainly of the "benevolent" variety. Many sources use that term (just have a look, I count about 200 sources), I don't add such things to leads of articles if I can't defend them well.

As regards concerns on human rights, I've no doubt historians have raised such concerns, but do they warrant mention in the lead? Such statements will need to be lavishly supported in order to warrant inclusion into up there. In my opinion, however, no such things is warranted: scholarship is chock-full of positive appraisals of Tito's reign, and the matter regarding "violations of human rights" is very much disputed along the left-right divide (both in the local public and in scholarship). It falls into the category of him being a "controversial" person - and a statement along those lines is imo the best way to represent all that in the lede.

As food for thought, when we talk about Goli, (the prison for Stalinists, with Stalin's army at the border arming for invasion), lets recall President Obama still has Guantanamo running, and yet we wouldn't have "violations of human rights accusations" up there in the lead, would we?

P.s. I certainly disagree that the lede is "too long". Its not my lede, mind you, what I wrote eons ago has been jumbled about pretty badly and expanded considerably, but in terms of size as such - its not too big. It could be tighter, I'll grant, but its really not too long as such. -- Director (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, it is very likely Tito was the "best" possible product of the communist ideology. It could also be discussed if the use of a ubiquitous secret police and the violation of human rights were functional to preserve the unity of the country and to avoid the rise of the Stalinism in Yugoslavia. Indeed this is not the point. The point is to understand if the concern raised by historians about the respect of human rights during Tito's dictatorship deserves to be in the lead. I think that with proper wording is deserves to be in the lede (give a look to the alternative formulation I propose), because the amount of sources in support is very simplistically to large to be ignored. Concerning the other modifications you made to the article I do not see why the reference to his grade in the military service should have room in the lede (but this is a minor concern).Silvio1973 (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director, not surprisingly you have reverted my alternative formulation on the ground that a reference to the human rights in the lede is undue. Well, it is not because the amount of sources in support is very large. I do not want to reduce this discussion to a dispute between you and me so let's see what the other users think before piling the sources.--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I'm not interested in our personal opinions and theoretical appraisals of Tito. All such comments in my post above refer to points made by sources, and a great many at that. I don't care if he was "the best possible product of communism" or whatever. Lets none of us waste each-other's time on such vapid debates.

There very well may be a few sources here or there that accuse Josip Broz Tito of human rights violations. So lets see what they say. You listed Tierney p.17 as your source. Page 17 can't be accessed, so can you please quote exactly what the author states?

However, just so be clar, one source (even if you did list it twice for some reason [6] :)) will not suffice to convince me personally that a statement like "concern is raised among historians about the respect of human rights" is warranted in the second sentence of the lede (also please bear in mind that your addition is badly worded grammatically). You say "support is very large"? Well then, show us please. Because I've not seen it.

My final point is to make sure sources alleging human rights violations do indeed talk about Tito being complicit, at least in terms of some vague connection. -- Director (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ilarious. One source does suffice to affirm that he was a "benevolent dictator"? For some reasons one source is sufficient to sustain some posts but not others. Again, before starting with the sources I want to see what the other think. And for the records I do not mind what you think about Obama and Guantanamo, so if you want the discussion to be focussed on sources do not start diverting it yourself. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And again that same problem that always comes up with you, Silvio1973: you don't read (and/or understand) talkpage posts. You just don't. I can't speculate whether its your difficulty with English or whatever that causes that - but it renders discussion with you extremely difficult, and your involvement generally disruptive. Kindly read my first post in this thread. -- Director (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, don't speculate. Let's wait the others joining the discussion.Silvio1973 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. You don't read talkpage posts (for the umpteen-millionth time), which is disruptive... We're in agreement that speculation as to why is ultimately irrelevant. -- Director (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you silvio and users like you always have to edit war?? If you see that your edit has been reverted or contested can't you stop editing the article and present your case on the talk page? Please do that, that is constructive, edit war is not. Please join the discussion and be constructive and read what other users write. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this is what we are doing. Opposely to you Tuvixer, I have not reverted my edit but I am discussing and opened the discussion to the others. You have less than 1,000 edits and already been blocked twice. Indeed with what you wrote on this talk page you could have been reported already.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, that's more irrelevant gibberish and non-responses from Silvio1973. I request that he bring forward the other sources from the "very big support" he claims he has, wherefrom we might move forward.

He has done none of this (but has instead demonstrated that he did not read or understand my first post in this thread: specifically, he talks about how its unfair that the "benevolent dictator" statement needs only one source - in spite of my linking directly to about a dozen other sources (and probably much much more) that use the term to describe this person).

I myself am absolutely NOT going to consent to the introduction of allegations of human rights violations into the second sentence of the article(!) without a proper body of support in sources. In fact the whole thing should probably just be represented with a statement (or perhaps even paragraph) on Tito's controversial nature as a historical personality, and nothing more. -- Director (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My English is excellent Director. No-one is asking you to consent to the introduction of such allegations without proper sourcing. And clearly a discussion will need to have place first. Indeed, a discussion had place yesterday and only after a reference to the human rights was entered in the lede. Again, there's no rush. Let's first give the chance to the users to participate because this is not our private discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah.. you're Shakespeare reincarnate.

And you're placing the cart before the horse. People can only "get a chance" to discuss - if there's something to discuss in the first place. This isn't a forum. Either you have "heap big support", and we have something to discuss (and can have input from others etc) - or you don't and we have nothing to discuss.

In other words, what do you want people to comment on? You've posted nothing... Are you looking for some kind of philosophical debate on Tito? You proposed a change - support it, and support it well (as you say you can), or there's nothing to talk about. -- Director (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Director, we need more people to join the discussion. This can be only a good thing. However, if in day or two the discussion remains restricted to the both of us I will start posting some sources. And yes, there are a lot of sources confirming the violation of human rights during Tito's Yugoslavia. This is not surprising, how could a one party communist dictatorship sustain itself without the use of some repression? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

*sigh*... Again, you're just not reading what's written, and aren't responding.

Without you supporting your proposal (and supporting it well) - there is no issue, that people might "join the discussion". You proposed a change. You said you can support it well - you did not. Had you supported it, we would have had something to discuss (and yes, in that case, the more people join the better). But you did not.

In short: without sources, there is nothing to discuss. There is nothing for people to "join". This isn't a debate club. -- Director (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is already to discuss. You reverted a number of edits and I would like to know what the other users think about this. Let's give some time to get some feedback about your reverts.Silvio1973 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mhm.. Instead of providing all those sources, which you claimed you have (but clearly don't), you hope others will arrive to support your edit and push it that way. Nothing new there. It was stupid of me to expect an honest, source-based discussion from you. "There is already to discuss" is illegible, btw.

For the record, I reverted #1 your edit, and #2 some of the changes to the third paragraph of the lede, which deals with early life. The rest are valid changes in my opinion. -- Director (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)