User talk:Ockham/Wikipedia & Political Agendas

One of the quality problems with Wikipedia is that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/her own point of view thus then becoming a stated Wiki fact. These Wikipedian facts then become a promotional tool for political agendas. This then brings up all sorts of moral and ethical issues.

Wikipedia itself states that all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This neutral point of view approach, which is fine, seems to be disappearing from Wiki’s agendas. Content bullies are simply more and more moulding the articles. Controversial historical articles are becoming targets and are showing outright bias. If we use the Encyclopedia Britannica and BBC History as a yardstick for qualified encyclopedic work, certain articles in Wikipedia seem dated.

A series of articles are appearing on Wikipedia that are reflecting the propaganda of the former Communist Party of Yugoslavia. One would assume that this would be a problem, as matter of fact Admin at Wikipedia doesn’t have a problem with this at all. It is a disturbing phenomenon.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, certain historical factual information has come out into the open portraying the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and its leader Josph Broz Tito in a totally different light. It seems to be much more Stalinist in nature than the image that was portrayed to the people of Yugoslavia and to the West during the Cold War. Josph Broz Tito Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII oversaw some of the worst war crimes know to mankind. The notorious Bleiburg and Foibe massacres were two of these. There are books, articles (writtem by professionals) as well as TV documentaries (some were aired on BBC 4) in which people testified to the truth of these historical events.

The editors who wrote these articles, expressly the Dictator Josip Broz Tito are written in a child like manner. Actually the articles are very similar to a Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s. Additionally from the late 1960’s to the 1970’s, economic decisions that were made by Josip Broz and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, put the country in a disastrous political situation. Ironically the article on Tito does not even mention the fact that he was a Dictator or his Cult of Personality. None of this information is presented in a professional encyclopedic fashion and when qualified references are presented to prove otherwise, Wikipedia Admin meets it with silence. Why is this the case?

Hi! This is my first draft. Would love to have some input. I am afraid that the more I research this subject matter, the more disturbing it becomes. Since the early 90’s information concerning historical events surrounding Croatia are turning out to be similar to the history of the Soviet Union (massacres, ethnic cleansing, power struggles, political propaganda for cover ups of the truth). I am shocked that Wikipedia is not presenting this information in a scholarly way. These issues in Australia and in Croatia are now being more openly discussed. The University of Zagreb’s Ivo Goldstein, and other professional historians from Croatia, are already tackling these issues. Funny enough, the Croatian government is now paying compensation to former victims of the Communist regime. What a crazy world we live in. Regards Peter Z. 18:13, 29 September 2009 (PDT)

Mihailović

Britannica

"Having fought in the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and World War I, Mihailović, a colonel at the time of Germany’s invasion of Yugoslavia (April 1941), refused to acquiesce in the capitulation of the Yugoslav army. He organized the royalist Chetniks, who operated mainly in Serbia. He was appointed general in 1941 and minister of war that same year by King Peter’s Yugoslav government-in-exile.

"Both the Chetniks under Mihailović and the communist-dominated Partisans, who were led by Josip Broz Tito, resisted the occupying German forces, but political differences led to distrust and eventual armed conflict between them. Reports of Chetnik resistance in the early stages of occupation buoyed the Allies and made of Mihailović a heroic figure. Fearful, however, of brutal reprisals against Serbians, Mihailović came to favour a restrained policy of resistance until the Allies could provide more assistance; the Partisans supported a more aggressive policy against the Germans. Favouring the latter policy and confronted with reports of Chetnik collaboration (particularly in Italian-held areas) directed against the Partisans, the Allies switched their support from Mihailović to Tito in 1944.

"After the war Mihailović went into hiding. He was captured by the Partisans on March 13, 1946, and charged by the Yugoslav government with treason and collaboration with the Germans. Mihailović was sentenced to death and was executed in Belgrade in 1946. Although a U.S. commission of inquiry cleared Mihailović and those under his immediate command of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians. Following the breakup of communist Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, his former refuge in the Ravna Gora region came to be a focus of royalist sentiment."

Chambers' Biographical

Article Tito: "He contrived to discredit utterly the rival partisan leader, Draza Mihailović, in Anglo-American eyes and win support and arms and material solely for himself".

Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article begins Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general, now primarily remembered as a World War II collaborator.

User:Direktor reverts one editor with the comment "Reverting another defender of the Serbian nation... My Ustaše-like plans are so far functioning perfectly" [1]

Croatian editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PRODUCER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DIREKTOR

References

BBC UK/History by Tim Judah [2]

Tim Judah is a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Judah’s first jobs were at the BBC African Service and BBC World Service. He writes most of the Balkan coverage for “The Economist” but also works for the “New York Review of Books”, “The Observer”, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and others. He is the author of two books on the region: “The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia” and “Kosovo: War and Revenge”.

David B. MacDonald: Identity politics in the age of genocide: the Holocaust and historical [3]

C Michael McAdams : Yalta and The Bleiburg Tragedy[4]

Ivo Goldstein-Croatia: A History [5]

Ivo Goldstein is a Professor at the University of Zagreb & former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb

Encyclopaedia Britannica: Josip Broz Tito

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.

(Referenced from Encyclopaedia Britannica)