Talk:Tito street decision in Slovenia

Needs Clarification on How it can be unconstitutional to name anything if its done by a popular assembly

It seems to conflict with the following: "In Slovenia power is vested in the people. Citizens exercise this power directly and through elections, consistent with the principle of the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. "

This one to: "It shall provide for the preservation of the natural wealth and cultural heritage and create opportunities for the harmonious development of society and culture in Slovenia. " Is not the Tito period a part of slovenian cultural heritage? If not, what is? Considering Slovenia has not been an independent nation since the early Medieval Times and before that was under the control of Rome. It has then been ruled over and/or been part of Austria, Germany and Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia in its form as the Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs or Yugoslavia as the Socialist Republic. In all three examples (Austria, Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia) the Slovene republic was a clear and distinct entity quite autonomous and developed its culture in the framework of the nation. If a communist is a dictator, what then is a king? And should all statues of (in some peoples opinions) authoritarian men in terms of national leaders, kings, barons and what not be removed and their names desecrated? Did not kings of Emperors of Austria and independent governors of Slovenia suppress Slovene national movements? Did not the king of Yugoslavia do the same? Did they not violate human rights, bar large portions of the people from the quasi-elections that existed based on their wealth or status? Did they not grant privilege to the nobles and thus relegate the normal people to second class citizenship? (Among other things of-course, they did plenty of good things to I am sure)

Anyway I see nothing in the constitution that would forbid a local democratic assembly to vote to name a street after Hitler if they so god forbid wished. It is even clearly written that they have these rights under the Self-Government part of the Constitution. http://www.us-rs.si/o-sodiscu/pravna-podlaga/ustava/?lang=1 81.170.157.91 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've sent an email to the constitutional court of Slovenia asking them to clarify this for the purpose of the article. Hopefully they will reply. Please do the same regardless if you support or not the decision so that we can have an objective wiki. Thanks. 81.170.157.91 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be sure to post the letter here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is late, I know. But I never recieved a reply from them despite a polite and well written letter. That's very sad. 81.170.157.91 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Article

The decision is highly important, because it is the for the first time that the highest national court legally evaluated Tito, his work, and his image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topjur01 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is an important decision which would be a fine addition to the article on Josip Broz Tito, please take note of STA's report here which says the court explicitly stated that

"The ruling also says that the purpose of the review was not a verdict on Tito as a figure or on his concrete actions, as well as not a historical weighing of facts and circumstances, but the evaluation of the symbolic weight of his name from the perspective of constitutional principles".

Basically this means that the ruling just confirmed that the number of people who might be offended by Tito's name is big enough to be taken into account when naming streets and that some of the things he stood for are incompatible with Slovenia's modern constitution. That's the reason why they said that naming a street after him in 2009 is against the constitution, but keeping previously named streets and squares from the Yugoslav era are allowed (as the constitution was different back then). Timbouctou (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I just can say that such stupidity only in Slovenia you can find...I don't think that Tito has been perfect,but by any means Tito has more importance to Slovenia than all your constitutions in next 500 years under Brussels dictatorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.24.32 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

This court ruling may seem to warrant a separate article from the Slovene perspective, but on the whole all its worthwhile aspects can be (and already are) covered effectively in a couple of sentences in the Josip Broz Tito article. Even if we place all that aside, as is pointed out above, this article omits significant information with regard to the ruling's wider impact and presents the issue in an unbalanced way, which, taking into consideration the controversial nature of the "legacy" of the Yugoslav dictator, leads one to believe it was written with prejudice and a political agenda. In short, it would benefit Wikipedia's coverage of this, on the whole frankly unknown and minor event, to have it included in the main article, where it can be more easily described and with with (more) balance. WP:N may well apply. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it merits inclusion in Josip Broz Tito, but the problem is that the target article has the same problem - namely, it too "omits significant information with regard to the ruling's wider impact and presents the issue in an unbalanced way". As for "unknown and minor event" and invoking of WP:N, see this post. Timbouctou (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss the issues of that article on that article's talkpage. You can find 20 times more news articles about just about any insignificant event in the world, Timbouctou. See WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. As for this, do you oppose or support the merge proposal? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't did not find anything in WP:NEVENT or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which would question the notability of this ruling. You should be more specific. Like I said earlier - if this had more sense in the target article (that is, if it provided more context needed to understand the thing), I'd vote for a merger - but I'd rather see the context in place there before merging. For the time being it seems you just want to get rid of this article, without any intention of improving either of the articles (since what you call "discussions" consists of you preventing anything negative to be added to Josip Broz Tito, usually by invoking misinterpretations of WP:V or other guidelines). That kind of behaviour has already led to this article being created in the first place, and I have no reason to believe things would be different next time. You can interpret that as an Oppose vote. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, you are opposed to my proposal? I'm shocked :). Last I looked, the guy that created this article added the information to the Josip Broz Tito article itself - and its still in. You wanna add something? Obviously people try to agree on what the text in the main article should cover, that's the point of a merge discussion, though since its you, I think the point of this was to oppose me. And anyway, I don't think anyone can expect you're about to accept anything I find acceptable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is "still in" only after you were forced to let it be in following the creation of this article. You didn't let it "still be in" 13 days ago did you. As for your insightful speculations about me and my person, take it elsewhere. Oh right - you already did. Timbouctou (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, fascinating. How these theories must take-up your time. But if you're so damn interested in the internal workings of my mind I'll fill you in. You'll notice I reverted the IP while the thing was in the article lede where it does not belong. When the guy provided another source and moved it down - I did not object. Though I still thought the wording was POV because of the IP's own commentaries, so I edited that a while ago when I remembered that whole thing after noticing the changed infobox. As for this article having some impact on my edits over at Josip Broz Tito - you've got to be kidding :). And I'm not speculating, Tim, I'm speaking from experience. I'll keep drawing attention to what you do until you at least learn to manifest your intense dislike for myself in more subtle ways - i.e. without trying to insult anyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem you yourself are not entirely familiar with what you described as "inner workings of your mind" as in the deletion (linked above) you opined "Not for the lead + POV wording + needs a better source ". So you didn't move it down to the criticism section, you simply removed it. You didn't change the wording - you removed it. And as for the source - well, now you're quoting exactly the same source at Talk:Josip Broz Tito (in fact you're using exactly the same quote I had used on top of this talk page two weeks ago from exactly the same source that wasn't good enough for you two weeks ago over there. I guess its reliability has magically improved in a fortnight. Timbouctou (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sick and tired of correcting botched, 10-a-week IP edits, and its not my "duty" to do so. And yes, I thought the source was unreliable, researched the matter elsewhere and saw that it was. Yes, I obviously made a mistake and realized it soon after. Congratulations. Your clever detective work payed off - how you must feel exuberant. I hope it was worth the invested time, because this is the very last occasion where you'll see me wasting mine to explain myself to you. This is starting to feel a little weird and morbid, your fascination is not mutual Tim.

Now, since the whole thing is long-since in the article, and we both came to the conclusion two weeks ago that it should stay there - care to tell me what does any of this have to do with any content issues? As seemed obvious from the start, you were (and are) only trying to start a WP:BATTLE here as well. Please feel free to be evasive if the question bothers you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, and quite simply - merger is pointless unless the target article provides context for the decision. It does not. In addition, you have a history of stalling additions which would include that exact kind of context into the target article so I have no reason to believe that this might change in the future. Therefore I'd like to keep this article where it is until the target article is made appropriate for merger. Timbouctou (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense. The content of this article and the historical events you wish to describe in the Josip Broz Tito article are two separate issues entirely. Particularly since the justices distanced themselves from any historical events. Furthermore, it is not necessary to add various other information that you perceive as the "context" for the decision - as the reasoning behind it has been explained by the court itself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We discussed it at Talk:Josip Broz Tito. The court's explanation was vague at best and you yourself speculated that they were referring to Goli otok and related internments of alleged Stalinists between 1945 and 1955. The target article does not mention Goli otok and neither does this one. So I see no point in merging it there before context is in place. This has nothing to do with what "I perceive". In fact on second thought, considering the coverage this decision received and numerous comments by historians from the region, I'm considering expanding this article further. It certainly meets WP:N. Timbouctou (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lets take this to Talk:Josip Broz Tito. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? In fact, this article could be expanded to include everything about his cult of personality, with the Slovenian court decision and the Zagreb petition to rename Marshal Tito Square in a separate section titled "Revisionism" or something. The court ruling is a subset of that topic anyway, and the pretty apparent cult of personality itself is not treated at all at Josip Broz Tito, in spite of copious sources dealing with it. The cult later morphed into an expression of Yugonostalgia and his image is now beng used to sell "everything from computers to beer" while at the same time debates rage on naming of streets and squares after him. This is a topic which deserves a standalone article in its own right. Timbouctou (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try to disguise these additions you've been advocating for quite some time as the "context" of this court decision. As I have said, the court ruling, vague or not, is not subject to interpretation by you or I, and shall not be turned into some sort of condemnation of Josip Broz Tito - especially since the justices explicitly say its not. It also has practically nothing to do with Yugonostalgia and his cult of personality. And I do think creating an article about someone's "cult of personality" qualifies very well indeed as a WP:POVFORK, arguably in the form of an WP:ATTACK PAGE on a controversial public figure. Even Stalin has no article of the kind.

You continuously (both here and on Talk:Josip Broz Tito) talk about different issues than the ones I came here to discuss. Back to the article: I cannot possibly agree to you adding that information as the "context" for the ruling of the Slovene supreme court - as it is nothing of the sort. 1) you and I can only speculate as to what the justices had in mind and therefore cannot possibly be more specific than they, and 2) the "context" you intend to provide are historical events the justices specifically distanced themselves from.

Now as for adding the information without painting it as the "context", that can be discussed of course. I described my position back in June:

"We need to go about this carefully and in accordance with all sources. The point I'm making is that many sources do not use the term, but merely state that he was 'popular'. Those sources that do use the term "cult of personality" need to be named specifically, and the whole matter must be placed into context of Tito's public image. That is to say, no 'CULT OF PERSONALITY!!' section, but rather a more neutral and balanced text dealing with his status in Yugoslav society in general. I propose we discuss on the talkpage prior to including it, so as to nip any edit-warring in the bud."

But the point is that NONE of it, neither the historical events nor the cult of personality, has anything to do with this event here. Even if the justices did not specifically say it doesn't (and they did), still we could not presume to connect any of it with this decision. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "disguising" anything. The reason for the court ruling was given vaguely: ::*("The name Tito does not only symbolise the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia from fascist occupation in WWII as claimed by the other party in the case, but also grave violations of human rights and basic freedoms, especially in the decade following WWII.")

• What does that mean? We can speculate about what they meant (like you did yesterday when you said that:
• "The decade following WWII apparently refers to the 1945-53 Stalinist period, while the state was overtly totalitarian in nature, and could just easily refer to the period as a whole. I assume, though I would not presume to guess, that the justices refer to the persecution of Stalinists and their internment on Goli Otok.")
• OR, we can look at what the public debate was focused on during the courts' deliberation, OR what historians say (precisely because the justices did not take it upon themselves to investigate anything but only to make a ruling on the symbolic value of his name - based on what historians had said).

"It also has absolutely nothing to do with Yugonostalgia and his cult of personality."

• It has everything to do with Yugonostalgia and his cult of personality, or more precisely - with the rejection of those in the 21st century.

"And I do think creating an article about someone's "cult of personality" qualifies very well indeed as a WP:POVFORK, arguably in the form of an WP:ATTACK PAGE on a public figure. Even Stalin has no article of the kind."

• Well I beg to differ. There are copious articles and books talking about his cult of personality during Yugoslavia, there are articles about attempts at revisionism in the 1980-1990 period and there were also notable events, petitions and movements whose goal was exactly that in the post-1990 period. It's pure facts. So what if Stalin does not have such an article? The difference is that Stalin was immediately struck from history books following his death whereas Tito's cult of personality has turned into a kitsch festival and obsession with Tito is alive and well well into the 2010s. The Relay of Youth is still being ran, his pictures can be bought in flea markets in the region, and his name is used to sell everything and anything. There's a wide consensus that there was a cult of personality so it's not WP:ATTACKPAGE, ad this topic is not dealt with anywhere else on Wikipedia, so it's certainly not WP:POVFORK.

"You continuously (both here and on Talk:Josip Broz Tito) talk about different issues than the ones I came here to discuss."

• You came to discuss the merger. I'm opposing it because this content will not be better off in the target article. What more do you want?

"I cannot agree to you providing the "context" for the ruling of a supreme court. Simply because 1) you do not know what the justices had in mind and therefore cannot possibly be more specific than they, and 2) the "context" you intend to provide are historical events the justices specifically distanced themselves from."

• 1. I don't intend to provide the context myself. 2. Since justices' opinion did not come to them in a miraculous vision, we can assume they read books and articles on the topic before making up their minds. 3. Yes, they distanced themselves from historical events but they certainly made an informed decision. What was their informed decision based on?

"But the point is that NONE of it, neither the historical events nor the cult of personality, has anything to do with this event here. "

• That's your theory. I for one think that the issue of (re)naming public squares and streets falls within the scope of his cult of personality - which used to be state-sponsored. It has to do with dealing with the omnipresent legacy of his cult of personality in democratic states which came into existence after 1990. This is a controversial topic, granted, but it's a very much debated one as well and as such deserves an article. Anyway, we can ask for WP:3PO to gain broader consensus. Timbouctou (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of these massive posts? I write something based on concrete arguments and you copy-paste each individual sentence to write "No you're wrong, I don't agree." What am i supposed to say to this? I am not wrong, and this is all starting to look silly again. You went from insulting and opposing me on everything and anything for the sake of your personal opinion of me, to just opposing me on everything and anything for the sake of your personal opinion of me.

I've been here Tim, as you know I've had a million discussions like this. The trouble is I'm getting old. If you don't feel you're able to modify your attitude to become more detached and objective, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble just by copy-pasting vast amounts of text from one of Dostoyevski's books into Wikipedia talkpages. You don't have to like me, you can even continue to hate me if you like (though it does make things difficult), but, if you want my advice, you have to try to keep personal relationships with people out of this, and take their suggestions and positions with good will and objectivity. I can be reasoned with. For the record, you are not being "patronized", I'm just tired of this sort of stuff and its certainly going down that road. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything I wrote were comments concerned with the content of the article. If you do not wish do discuss the content, than simply don't - nobody is forcing you. If you want broader consensus to be reached, WP:3PO is available. But please refrain from leaving non-constructive posts about editors' persons like the one above. Timbouctou (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the fourth time you have spurned my appeal to more reasonable discourse. And I did not comment in any way on the relation of your post to the article content. Though you have steered the subject of this discussion to the Josip Broz Tito article, but since you didn't want to move it to Talk:Josip Broz Tito, I also discussed those issues here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Josip Broz Tito#IP edits was concerned with where to place the mention of the ruling in the article on Tito. It had been agreed since that it belongs into the "criticism" section. This discussion is about the proposed merger. Timbouctou (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

News reports

Here's a section transferred from Talk:Josip Broz Tito with links to news reports about the decision. I'm moving it here for practical reasons. Timbouctou (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Slovenski ustavni sud protiv Titove ulice u Ljubljani (Dnevni Avaz, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• Slovenija: Ustavni sud odlučio zabraniti da ulica nosi ime Tita (Večernji list, Croatia)
• Slovenski ustavni sud protiv Titove ulice (Nacional, Croatia)
• Slovenski ustavni sud ukinuo Titovu cestu (Novi list, Croatia)
• Tito je u Sloveniji - protutustavan (Glas Istre, Croatia)
• Slovenija: Ustavni sud odlučio zabraniti da ulica nosi ime Tita (24sata, Croatia)
• Tito ustavno nepoželjan u Sloveniji (Radio Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• Slovenija ne želi Tita (Nova TV, Croatia)
• SLO: Neustavno ime ulice po Titu (B92, Serbia)
• UVREDA ZA ŽRTVE Slovenci zabranili naziv ulice po Titu (Slobodna Dalmacija, Croatia)
• Slovenski ustavni sud zabranio Titovu ulicu (TPortal, Croatia)
• USTAVNI SUD SLOVENIJE ZABRANIO NAZIVE ULICE PO TITU (Kurir, Serbia)
• U Sloveniji neustavno nazivanje ulica po Titu (Vijesti, Montenegro)
• Ustavni sud u Ljubljani zabranio da se ulica zove po Titu (Index.hr, Croatia)
• Ljubljana bez Titove ulice (Radio Television of Serbia)
• Ljubljana zabranila ulicu nazvanu po Titu (RTL Televizija, Croatia)
• Љубљана: Неуставно именовање улице по Титу (Politika, Serbia)

Reports on the original April 2009 Ljubljana city council decision:

• Tito ponovo dobija ulicu u Ljubljani (Blic, Serbia)
• Tito ponovo dobio ulicu u Ljubljani (Oslobođenje, Bosnia and Herzegovina)
• Tito dobio ulicu u Ljubljani (RTL Televizija, Croatia)
• Tito ponovno dobiva svoju ulicu u središtu Ljubljane (24sata, Croatia)
• Tito u Ljubljani ponovo dobiva ulicu (Business.hr, Croatia)
• Љубљана доби улица „Тито“ (Nova Makedonija, Macedonia)
• У Љубљани и званично „Титова” улица (Politika, Serbia)