Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Hi @Vipz, I'm well aware of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and MOS:GEOLINK but I nevertheless think it's perfectly fine to link "Austria-Hungary" in |birth_place= and include "SR Slovenia" in |death_place=. For Kumrovec's case, Austria-Hungary, you know, no longer exists; I mean, none of the examples in MOS:GEOLINK include a country that no longer exists. For Ljubljana's case, I don't think most readers know it's a part of Slovenia; also, you know, it wasn't Yugoslavia's capital or largest city, unlike Belgrade. Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it provides context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I brought up the issue with MOS:GEOLINK regarding historical countries/subnational entities over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § MOS:GEOLINK for former countries/entities and hope to have community consensus formed there to resolve this disagreement. –Vipz (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, wouldn’t Kumrovec, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary make more sense and provide context as well given people are even less likely to know where Kumrovec is or that it is part of Croatia? Also SR Slovenia and Yugoslavia are no longer states but seem to be advocated listing.

To be clear, I agree with including SR Slovenia and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia sub-states to give context to readers. Seems helpful not harmful to the infobox. OyMosby (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm actually fine with |birth_place=Kumrovec, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary. The subdivision doubles this parameter's length, though. Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Or can we try |birth_place=Kumrovec, Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary? Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Was about to recommend the option to just shorten it since Austria-Hungary is short form as well. Sounds good. We’ll see what Vipz finds with Geolink. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I just say that the infobox is just for basic info, there really is no need for all this to-ing and fro-ing about Yugoslav republics Croatia-Slavonia, which I suspect is more about nationalist point scoring than anything else. If any reader wants to know exactly what sub-state geopolitical entity he was born and died in, they can read the article. As far as I am concerned, the city and empire for his birth and the city and country or his death is enough for the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I second this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I personally think we should keep "(now Croatia)" cuz there are >10 reliable sources stating he was born in Croatia. However, I don't have an issue with omitting "SR Slovenia". Thedarkknightli (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Any source that says he was born in “Croatia” is ahistorical. The subordinate kingdom of the empire was “Croatia-Slavonia”, but the infobox just does not need that level of detail. The article explains all this, there is no need to try to shoehorn it into the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

For people born in the largest cities in a historical period (for example, Berlin, Germany, but not Berlin, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire, because the German Empire or Weimar Republic is the common name for Germany). Absolutiva (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not necessarily ahistorical, because the conventional name for that place was that at the time, regardless of the politics then or now. ----Joy (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Vipz If you want to change the quotes to italics I have no problem with that Chafe66 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chafe66: Your latest revert was unwarranted, and neither of your reverts attempted to address the issues that were raised about the newly introduced changes. You introduced a set of quotation marks that English Wikipedia's MOS actively discourages. My latest edit cited the relevant MOS guidelines (MOS:CQ, MOS:WAW) and corrected the use-mention distinction formatting accordingly. If anything breached the WP:ETIQ that was probably the condescending tone of your revert edit summary. I will do that, cheers. –Vipz (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

jeez man, lighten up. I already backed off in favor of italics so just go take some time and calm down. After all, you had no idea what the distinction even was when I first edited. Whatever--I consider the matter closed. Good day Chafe66 (talk) Chafe66 (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You're pretty much casting aspersions with that assumption "you had no idea what the distinction even was when I first edited". Whether or not I was acquainted with the concept is completely irrelevant. My revert asked for policies or guidelines that endorse the proposed formatting. None were provided. You should make a habit of consulting the policies and guidelines prior to re-reverting in such scenarios. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow, just can't stop complaining! The issue is over, try to move on. I'll keep my own council on what I should and shouldn't do but thanks so much. Maybe focus on yourself? Chafe66 (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vipz, you might want to read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, which comes from an ArbCom case involving someone posting "hints" on wiki that an editor was guilty of very serious real-world crimes.

More generally, experienced editors prefer good judgement to mindless rule-following, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? in which every little action needs to be endorsed by an authority. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

In hindsight, I overreacted and let defensiveness shape my responses. Thank you for making the remark. –Vipz (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to propose that in the infobox section: | birth_place = Kumrovec, Austria-Hungary | death_place = Ljubljana, Yugoslavia | restingplace = House of Flowers, Belgrade

Be changed to: | birth_place = Kumrovec, Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary | death_place = Ljubljana, SR Slovenia, SFR Yugoslavia | restingplace = House of Flowers, Belgrade

The proposed changes provide a more accurate reflection of the geopolitical reality at the time of the subject's birth and death. By including links we are providing readers with direct access to the specific historical context relevant to those locations. Moreover, for the sake of clarity using the full name "SFR Yugoslavia" distinguishes the era from the earlier Kingdom of Yugoslavia or the later FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). In addition, in modern biographical standards for multi-ethnic or federal states (e.g., the USSR, the UK, or the US), we do not simply list the sovereign state. We list the constituent entity (e.g., "Ukrainian SSR, USSR" or "Scotland, UK"). Applying "Austria-Hungary" alone is a reductive treatment that is typically avoided for other historical figures of similar stature. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Everything you said is correct, but infobox is't the place for such content. It's all explaned in the article body. Infoboxes are not good places for explanations, nuance, context. ~2026-13198-44 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The infobox is not the place. I am not aware of a policy, guideline or even common practice that we "list the constituent entity". Happy to revise if there is such a thing and I haven't come across it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, guidelines are againt having such infoboxes. We had whole discussion on Tesla page recently about this very same thing and we decided to follow the guidelines and leave solely "Austrian Empire", without present day territories or subdivisions. ~2026-13139-06 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate the goal of keeping the infobox concise, the argument that we should omit constituent entities (republics/provinces) contradicts the established practice for nearly every other major federal or multi-ethnic state on Wikipedia. If we prioritize "at-a-glance" simplicity to the point of removing specific historical context, we create a double standard that targets certain regions while maintaining detail for others.

- In biographies of figures from the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, or the United States, the constituent entity is almost universally included because it defines the subject's legal and cultural origin within a vast union.

1. USSR: We do not simply list "Soviet Union"; we list "Russian SFSR, Soviet Union" or "Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union" (e.g., Yuri Gagarin or Mikhail Gorbachev).

2. UK: We do not simply list "United Kingdom"; we list "Scotland, UK" or "Wales, UK" (e.g., Sean Connery or Winston Churchill).

3. USA: We do not simply list "United States"; we list the specific State (e.g., "New York, U.S.").

Why should a figure from SFR Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary be held to a lower standard of geographic detail than a figure from the USSR or the UK? If the "Subdivision, Sovereign State" format is the gold standard for clarity in those articles, it should apply here as well.

- The mention of the Nikola Tesla page consensus is a false equivalence. The Tesla infobox was stripped to "Austrian Empire" as a unique "peace treaty" to stop intense nationalist edit-warring over his specific ethnicity and birthplace, there is no reason to apply the "Emergency Minimalism" used on the Tesla page.

- Distinguishing Eras Using "SFR Yugoslavia" instead of just "Yugoslavia" is not just a "nuance" — it is basic accuracy. Just as we distinguish between "West Germany" and "Germany," or "Russian Empire" and "Soviet Union," providing the full name of the state at the time of the event (as per MOS:BIRTHPLACE) prevents anachronistic confusion for the reader.

Conclusion: An infobox should be a summary, but a summary must be accurate. Omitting the constituent republic/entity when it is standard practice for other federal states is reductive. I propose we restore the specific historical locations to ensure this article meets the same biographical standards as those of the USSR or the UK. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, if it is, as you say, consistent with other articles, I won't complain. As for Tesla, you are incorrect , it wasn't done as "peace treaty", but I'm also incorrect to compare it with this article as the discussion there was about "now-in" construct and per guidelines it isn't for infobox. You can talk to Peacemaker67 to establish a consensus. I'm fine with whatever is consistent with other articles. ~2026-13386-83 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the willingness to follow consistency across articles. Regarding Tesla, the argument for including the Croatian Military Frontier and his passport isn't about 'claiming' him for one side, but about adhering to WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:BIO.

Historical Context: Tesla was born in the Croatian Military Frontier. To omit 'Croatian' from that specific administrative title is to rewrite history to suit modern sensibilities. We must describe the location as it was in 1856.

Documentary Evidence: The passport is a primary source. It provides clear, undeniable evidence of his legal identity at a specific point in his life. Per WP:IMAGE, images should be relevant and encyclopedic; a legal document defining a subject's citizenship is inherently both.

Consensus v. Erasure: We must ensure that 'consensus' isn't used as a tool for the 'systematic erasure' of a subject's documented origins. If the goal is a comprehensive biography, the inclusion of these facts is mandatory, not optional. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Do I just change it or how should one proceed? Thank you. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe wait for Peacemaker67 to share his opinon as he was participating in the discussion. ~2026-13653-44 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is no objection I think we can add SR Slovenia now. SigillumVert (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand why this is so difficult for Wikipedia but not for, say, Britannica. The Austrian Empire back then was huge, just as the United States that you mentioned is today, and we seem to prefer narrowing it down to at least the state level. I don’t think there were many Austrians or Hungarians in Tito’s village at the time, yet from the infobox one might think that he came from either of those cultural circles. What was the full name of the Empire again? I’ve seen some very long names when it comes to its sub-kingdoms. Ponor (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

But, look at Tesla in Britannica. It says Smiljan, Austrian Empire [now in Croatia]. No mention of 19th century Kingdom of Croatia or Croatian Military Frontier or anything apart from Austrian Empire and "now in Croatia". ~2026-13653-44 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If this infobox styling is being used for subdivisions and divisions of the USSR, the United Kingdom, and Germany prior to unification, then the same standard must also be applied to the Austrian Empire, Austro-Hungary and Yugoslavia. This is fundamentally an issue of consistency. There is no policy-based justification for selectively applying one convention to some historical states while excluding others.

For clarification, in Kumrovec—and in virtually every town or village in Croatia-Slavonia—the population was overwhelmingly Croatian, which is easily verifiable through reliable sources. The matter at hand is therefore not ambiguity over demographics, but adherence to established editorial standards. This falls squarely under WP:CONSISTENCY and MOS:PLACE, and deviations without clear consensus or policy support should be avoided. Franjo-22121990 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)