Changes

* [[Bleiburg Massacre and Wikipedia#Aleksandar Rankovic|Aleksandar Rankovic]], the Interior Minister and the head of the military and secret police of Yugoslavia at a Belgrade meeting stated: {{Cquote|''Through our prisons has passed between 1945 and 1951, 3 777 776 prisoners, while we killed 586 000 enemies of the people.''  <ref>[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7laAd_LLA6YJ:www.hic.hr/images/komunisticke-zlocinci-nisu-antifasizma.pdf+Zločina+počinjenih+od+strane+totalitarnih+režima+su+izvješća+i+postupak+Europske+javne+rasprave+u+organizaciji+slovenskog+predsjedništva+Vijeća&cd=4&hl=hr&ct=clnk&lr=lang_hr&source=www.google.com  Communist Crime is not Antifascism] Released on International Human Rights Day, 10 DECEMBER 2008. On behalf of the participants in public meetings Maja Runje, a member of the Steering Committee- Zagreb (p. 19). Article is in Croatian: ''KOMUNISTIČKI ZLOČINI NISU ANTIFAŠIZAM POVODOM MEĐUNARODNOG DANA LJUDSKIH PRAVA,10. PROSINCA 2008. U ime sudionika javnog okupljanja Maja Runje, članica Koordinacijskog odbora Kruga za trg10 000 Zagreb, Jurjevska 47a (str. 19)'' </ref> Taken from ''Politika'', Belgrade/1 February 1951 (p.1) }}

* [[Bleiburg Massacre and Wikipedia#Aleksandar Rankovic|Aleksandar Rankovic]], the Interior Minister and the head of the military and secret police of Yugoslavia at a Belgrade meeting stated: {{Cquote|''Through our prisons has passed between 1945 and 1951, 3 777 776 prisoners, while we killed 586 000 enemies of the people.''  <ref>[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7laAd_LLA6YJ:www.hic.hr/images/komunisticke-zlocinci-nisu-antifasizma.pdf+Zločina+počinjenih+od+strane+totalitarnih+režima+su+izvješća+i+postupak+Europske+javne+rasprave+u+organizaciji+slovenskog+predsjedništva+Vijeća&cd=4&hl=hr&ct=clnk&lr=lang_hr&source=www.google.com  Communist Crime is not Antifascism] Released on International Human Rights Day, 10 DECEMBER 2008. On behalf of the participants in public meetings Maja Runje, a member of the Steering Committee- Zagreb (p. 19). Article is in Croatian: ''KOMUNISTIČKI ZLOČINI NISU ANTIFAŠIZAM POVODOM MEĐUNARODNOG DANA LJUDSKIH PRAVA,10. PROSINCA 2008. U ime sudionika javnog okupljanja Maja Runje, članica Koordinacijskog odbora Kruga za trg10 000 Zagreb, Jurjevska 47a (str. 19)'' </ref> Taken from ''Politika'', Belgrade/1 February 1951 (p.1) }}

A felow Wikipedian Editor finds something is not quite right with the article:  

A fellow Wikipedian Editor finds something is not quite right with the article:  

{{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?''}}  

Another felow Wikipedian Editor finds somethings just don't add up:

Another fellow Wikipedian Editor finds somethings just don't add up:

{{Cquote|''The problem is that DIREKTOR is seeing his highly biased version that he defended by all means in all these articles being replaced by correct interpretations of sources, thus all the panic now. A way to demonstrate this highly biased approach by him can be confirmed by his insistent way of describing the issue purposely as "obscure". After all we are dealing with a major resistance movement in the entire region, that, yes, did had its difficulties trough-out the war. But DIREKTOR seems unable to separate his personal feelings here... and that is a BIG problem, joined by his highly manipulative and rude manner of discussing these sensitive issues. A clear disruption in my view, but unfortunately and amazingly, DIREKTOR has been forgiven always because of some strange reasons...''}}

{{Cquote|''The problem is that DIREKTOR is seeing his highly biased version that he defended by all means in all these articles being replaced by correct interpretations of sources, thus all the panic now. A way to demonstrate this highly biased approach by him can be confirmed by his insistent way of describing the issue purposely as "obscure". After all we are dealing with a major resistance movement in the entire region, that, yes, did had its difficulties trough-out the war. But DIREKTOR seems unable to separate his personal feelings here... and that is a BIG problem, joined by his highly manipulative and rude manner of discussing these sensitive issues. A clear disruption in my view, but unfortunately and amazingly, DIREKTOR has been forgiven always because of some strange reasons...''}}