Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Native name in SC Cyrillic

A couple of days ago, the subject's name in Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic was removed by editor @Andro611 from the infobox on the basis that Serbo-Croatian was in fact not the subject's native language. This relies on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language, or in this case, as if it was not acknowledged as such during the subject's lifetime. Languages spoken by Tito are documented in a paragraph in § Family and personal life. Tito claimed Serbo-Croatian as his native language. Specifics about his accent or native Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language are other topics that need not be discussed here. SC Cyrillic writing of Josip Broz Tito's name should be returned to the infobox. –Vipz (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

His native name is the same as his name in English, so this parameter would have been unnecessary but for the fact that in his native language two scripts are used, and when his name is written down in the non-Latin script it is no longer the same, script-wise. Therefore, using this parameter to record the native name in the aspect in which it differs from English is consistent with the purpose of the parameter. I agree with Vipz. —Alalch E. 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.

Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.

Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.

Is wikipedia true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks Platipusica (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I see it now, the infobox is using this: native_name = {{nobold|Јосип Броз Тито}

The native_name is not and can not be on Cyrillic. Platipusica (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Vipz for the reasons stated above. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. Doremo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a few things to unpack here. I removed the Cyrillic not on the presumption that Serbo-Croatian is not a single language nor was is about the “Kajkavian dialect being a supradialect under a wider language vs. its own language” which was a topic brought up by @Vipz in this diff. I removed based on the simple fact the Cyrillic script was never used in Hrvatsko Zagorje where Tito is from nor in Slovenia where he was raised. It was used neither before nor during his life and implying he wrote his name in Cyrillic in his native language is absurd. Why not add it to Tuđman's infobox? Or the Herzegovian Ante Pavelić? Both of whom were more Serbo-Croatian than the Slovenian-raised and descended Tito ever was. Pavelić was from a Serbian majority village, surely Serbian was spoken there.

Secondly, extending Cyrillic to Croat-majority Croatia is a pars pro toto logical fallacy. Even language unitarists did not try to impose Cyrillic on Croatia. Croatia in Yugoslavia had its own variety of Serbo-Croatian called “hrvatskosrpski” or Croatoserb which was exclusively written in the latin alphabet and ijekavica. This wasn't some fringe linguistic nationalism, this was state policy done by unitarists themselves. After 1967 the scholarly consensus in Croatia was that Croatian was a separate language precluding any potential use of Cyrillic in the future, nevermind the fact that it wasn't even used anywhere among Croats prior to 1967.

To write Tito's native name in Cyrillic because some parts of the Serbo-Croatian sprachraum (not his birth place!) use Cyrillic is akin to writing Beijing-born Xi Jinping's native name in Portuguese because one specific part of China, that is Macau, uses Portuguese. Andro611 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic script is far more pertinent to Josip Broz Tito than any other leaders you mention. Tito is notable not for being born/raised in Zagorje, Croatia or Slovenia, but for leading a country whose primary language had two official, fully equal scripts, Latin and Cyrillic. Were Tito to have presided over only one republic in federal Yugoslavia that did not use Cyrillic, perhaps this would not be the case, but he presided over the whole country straight from the headquarters in Belgrade, SR Serbia. –Vipz (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Pavelić presided over a country with a similar percentage of Serbs to Tito's Yugoslavia. Your point over where he presided from and his notability is irrelevant. The infobox asks for his name in his native language. Not the language of the country or place he ruled from. Tito was raised in an environment that used and still uses the latin alphabet exclusively.

This is Tito's own personal diary. Written in the latin alphabet. This should be conclusive proof that his native writing was indeed the latin alphabet. Andro611 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Stalin's native language was Georgian, but we also present his name in Russian Cyrillic in the "native name" field. The Cyrillic form of the name should be returned to the infobox. Doremo (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

False equivalence. Stalin was born in the Russian Empire where the dominant and official language was Russian, and the infobox also includes Georgian in the native name field. Tito was born in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia where the official language was never written in Cyrillic. The Cyrillic name should most definitely not be returned in the “name in native language” field. P.S. There already is a Cyrillic rendering of his name in the first sentence of the lede. I am not opposed to including it in the article, but it simply does not belong in field “name in native language”. That's not how you write his native language. Andro611 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic form in the infobox should be removed as it was not "his native language". I see the exact thing happening with Tesla's name.

Looks to me that Barack Obama was born on Hawaii, and I see no Ōlelo Hawai official language representation of his name. Hence, we have a double standard here imo.

Here is a paradox, there is a Serbian wiki page, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Јосип_Броз_Тито, which does not contain any Latin form on the infobox. Same for Никола_Тесла.

Is wikipedia true to itself or driven by some unknown drivers of the universe? Thanks 120.16.158.148 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vipz the relevant criterion here for inclusion is the answer to the question - is an average English reader going to commonly encounter the topic's name in this format / script, would it help them to have it noted here? As there is a body of work written in Serbian Cyrillic about him, it's fair to say it's possible that they'll encounter it, so we should keep it. There is a much larger volume in Latin scripts (both English and Croatian), so the real nuance here is whether this is worthy of inline WP:LEAD placement or should it perhaps be in an annotation so it doesn't clutter the initial sentence. MOS:LEADLANG is applicable here, but it's a matter of editorial discretion whether this label and text is clutter or not. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked the article history and I see the Cyrillic spelling has been in the lead for several years now. It should stay unless we can identify complaints from an average English reader to this effect. Note average English reader, not the average Tito supporter or detractor. --Joy (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not the supporter or detractor but the observer of the Cyrillic spelling used on English Wikipedia.

There can't possibly be two major World figures with presented native name on Serbian Cyrillic, both born in Croatia, unless there is some interest in this presentation.

I am with @Andro611 on this one. Platipusica (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, there's a body of scholarly work about both of these people written in Serbian Cyrillic, because both of them are indeed closely associated with a non-English language (per Manual of Style), and there has been a lot of interest in them among authors who used this language and alphabet. The distinction between Latin and Cyrillic scripts here may mean something you you and cause you to think of a (nefarious?) interest in this presentation, but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader, to whom it's presented in parentheses or in notes. --Joy (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

And, to reference applicable policies, WP:Due weight applies here. Arguments should be based on that, not on assertions of some sort of a conspiracy. --Joy (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also to remind everyone, the actual rendering of the infobox "native_name" parameter does not annotate the value as such to the readers, so readers aren't even informed that this string of foreign letters is a "native name". This argument sounds like it's for meant for editors who see that parameter name, but those are a small minority of readers, and Wikipedia is writtten for the readers first. --Joy (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Then we should change the parameter. I would not object to the use of another parameter that does not denote the Cyrillic as his native name. Andro611 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andro611 Maybe review the template {{Infobox officeholder}} formatting for options. Note that formatting like <small> probably needs to be reconciled with MOS:SMALL, which explains how normal infobox text is already smaller, so if you change this subheader, measure the outcome for readability first. --Joy (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joy, interesting read. Particularly "but it's immaterial, as it means comparatively little to the average English reader".

Any yet, the " due weight" suggests using Cyrillic, but at the same time it means little to the average English reader?

To remind everyone, the Serbian Cyrillic wikipedia exists for Tito. It does not contain any representation of his name on Latin characters, but it does contain a Latin translation of the same page where this is a significant information in the same infobox we are discussing here:

Порекло хрватско

translates on same Latin page to:

Poreklo hrvatsko

I would strongly suggest to include this information on English wikipedia below nationality. This would be the same as on Serbian Cyrillic wikipedia and I think it would be right and acceptable choice.

@Vipz and @Andro611, would you support this? Platipusica (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And of course, @Joy might also support this, while standardization of the native name parameter is resolved. Platipusica (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joy: I'm not opposed to removing lead sentence clutter by putting native name stuff into annotations. As for the infobox, annotating or even outright removing inscriptions of the person's name in a closely associated language — this is not conventional practice.

The native name parameter needs a standardization at a Wikipedia-wide level. I'm not aware of a biography that presently denotes native name languages in the infobox (cf. Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, Xi Jinping, etc.), none inform readers what these strings of foreign letters represent. Another issue is the need of using {{nobold}}; if the standard practice is having native name text in biography infoboxes non-bold, then the template should not bold it in the first place.

Were it to become a new practice, it could be denoted for Josip Broz Tito as Јосип Броз Тито (Cyrillic). –Vipz (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (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)

Further reading

Maclean, Fitzroy (1980). Tito: A Pictorial Biography. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-044671-7. is pure hagiography. it likely does list the bare bones facts and has lots of photos, but even though its from a western mainstream publisher, its entirely pro tito, so not a balanced account. i question whether it should be in further reading, and i would question its use as a source for this article. i havent checked to see if it was used. (user: mercurywoodrose) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)