Changes

{{Cquote|''Sorry but your #1 (non-local) is the definition of WP:BIAS (speaking of locals - Dizdar is quoted in the article - I've actually downloaded his paper and what he says doesn't resemble what his research is being used to support here), and your #4 is very debatable since everyone (and by "everyone" I mean scholars both in the region and abroad, the general public, history textbooks, popular media and the like) consider Tito to be synonymous with Yugoslavia, the country where he was the ultimate authority on all matters, including being the country's prime minister, president, defence minister and/or commander-in-chief. When they talk about Yugoslavia's accomplishments they call them "Tito's accomplishments" and when they talk about atrocities they talk about "Tito's atrocities". Insisting that reliable authors must provide proof of his direct involvement in something is in direct opposition with WP:OR. Tito is synonymous with the regime he led for better or worse just like Hitler is synonymous with Nazi Germany or Ante Pavelić with NDH or Nicolae Ceausescu with communist Romania. That's what Slovenian Constitutional Court's ruling said, that's what historians say and that's what the public thinks. The only difference is that his fans focus only on regime's good things and his critics on its bad things. But nobody opposes the idea that it was all him. But the issue remains that this article does not touch on any negative thing at all. So how is a reader going to make sense of the court ruling?''}}  

{{Cquote|''Sorry but your #1 (non-local) is the definition of WP:BIAS (speaking of locals - Dizdar is quoted in the article - I've actually downloaded his paper and what he says doesn't resemble what his research is being used to support here), and your #4 is very debatable since everyone (and by "everyone" I mean scholars both in the region and abroad, the general public, history textbooks, popular media and the like) consider Tito to be synonymous with Yugoslavia, the country where he was the ultimate authority on all matters, including being the country's prime minister, president, defence minister and/or commander-in-chief. When they talk about Yugoslavia's accomplishments they call them "Tito's accomplishments" and when they talk about atrocities they talk about "Tito's atrocities". Insisting that reliable authors must provide proof of his direct involvement in something is in direct opposition with WP:OR. Tito is synonymous with the regime he led for better or worse just like Hitler is synonymous with Nazi Germany or Ante Pavelić with NDH or Nicolae Ceausescu with communist Romania. That's what Slovenian Constitutional Court's ruling said, that's what historians say and that's what the public thinks. The only difference is that his fans focus only on regime's good things and his critics on its bad things. But nobody opposes the idea that it was all him. But the issue remains that this article does not touch on any negative thing at all. So how is a reader going to make sense of the court ruling?''}}  

----

----