Changes

Josip Broz was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader and was the main decision maker in military and political matters. During the Cold War he was portrayed to the people of Yugoslavia and to the West as a hero.He was considered to be by many, one of the prominent Eastern European Balkan Dictators of the Cold War era. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, '''factual evidence''' has emerged that his regime was responsible for executing mass murders, arrests and torture. The worst of these events was the notorious Bleiburg and Foibe massacres. After World War Two, Tito and his comrades set up KGB/NKVD style police units (UDBA & OZNA) and unleashed terror in the former Yugoslavia on a grand scale. The terror campaign lasted for about twenty years until the regime introduced reforms in the 1960's.

Josip Broz was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader and was the main decision maker in military and political matters. During the Cold War he was portrayed to the people of Yugoslavia and to the West as a hero.He was considered to be by many, one of the prominent Eastern European Balkan Dictators of the Cold War era. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, '''factual evidence''' has emerged that his regime was responsible for executing mass murders, arrests and torture. The worst of these events was the notorious Bleiburg and Foibe massacres. After World War Two, Tito and his comrades set up KGB/NKVD style police units (UDBA & OZNA) and unleashed terror in the former Yugoslavia on a grand scale. The terror campaign lasted for about twenty years until the regime introduced reforms in the 1960's.

Is Wikipedia taking on a darker tone? Where are the ethical and moral issues involved in creating a feel good article about a man who played a major role in these historicial events? How many more articles are being written within Wikipedia that are just the point of view of its Editors? This is not '''encyclopedic'''  work.

Is Wikipedia taking on a darker tone? Where are the ethical and moral issues involved in creating a feel good article about a man who played a major role in these historicial events? How many more articles are being written within Wikipedia that are just the point of view of its Editors (political, in this case).  This is not encyclopedic work, pure and simple.

 

Is this type of phenomenon happening with other articles. Quite possible!