The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Josip Broz Tito. This is a tricky one. The article is definitely not ok as it stands. A separate article on the topic that is not a POV fork? Possible, but needs work. Even better, incorporation of a section about the personality cult into the main article. Closing as a redirect so that content remains available if any of the above actions are taken later. Tone 12:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Tito[edit]

Myth of Tito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SOAPBOX commentary essay. Now the views presented in the article may have representation outside Wikipedia, including by scholars, but stating that the notion Tito liberated Yugoslavia in WWII or that Tito was a Yugoslav nation-builder as 'myth' is inherently POV. Different viewpoints on the role of Tito can be expressed in the main article without creating POVFORKs. Soman (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would propose that the article is renamed to "Cult of personality of Tito" and we can take it from there, considering that there is no doubt that the guy had a cult following (and still does). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice discussion of this concept belongs in the Josip Broz Tito article. This should not be discussed separately, but as part of the overall evaluation and legacy of Tito. This is an extremely poorly written POV fork with unencyclopaedic tone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 -- since you are more experienced than I in this part of the WikiBalkans, I am curious on your view on this. I think WP:TNT may apply here, but is there some reason in particular that you think this cannot be a stand-alone constructed along the lines of Stalin's_cult_of_personality? --Calthinus (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Calthinus. The central problem with the article is the creator, Antidiskriminator. As Maleschreiber rightly points out, there is extensive and long-term evidence that they have a long list of POV creations (only a few of the recent ones are mentioned by Maleschreiber, I could add a dozen more in the last year), and they definitely will not fix the article in the way that you suggest. They do not edit neutrally, have very fixed views and will be intransigent, and are more likely to double down and make it worse. If this article is not blown up, it will linger on as a POV fork from the Tito article. The useable bits could be merged into the Tito article, but I feel it would be a grave error to allow it to stand alone in this form, and would reward the constant POV-pushing behaviour. The egregious POV behaviour of Antidiskriminator needs to be addressed with ArbCom, who imposed a lengthy "Serbs in the 20th century" TBAN on them some time ago, which obviously should be reinstated. I will get to it, but frankly, there is a lot of POV-pushing and disruption in the Balkans area at present, and it is hard to keep on top of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that Peacemaker67 has put forward. The editing pattern of that editor indicates that they are not even interested if the articles they write are tagged for multiple policy violations. The main goal seems to be to use wikipedia as a repository for certain ideas and to keep them around as "alternative facts". But the problem with keeping, let's say, Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is that even if kept in a heavily tagged mode it still puts forward a conspiracy theory as an alternative. Honestly, I think that only AE can solve the Yugoslav topic area problems which IMO don't necessarily begin with the fact that editors have a POV, but the fact that they're trying to game the way policies function in order to push that POV. If everyone argued for their - minor or major - (N)POV within the boundaries of wikipedia's policies and used reliable bibliography consistently, then all POVs would be eliminated eventually and a narrative which would reflect reality would emerge. But since that doesn't happen, the community should enforce core policies in the strictest manner. --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67:, i agree with your sentiments, when you get the time do address those concerns at Arbcom. There are few admins (1 other apart from yourself dealing with the southern end of the region) with topical knowledge on the Balkans, many don't want to delve further to address the POV pushing and or call it even when its not. That's the state of things in this topic area (sigh). Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very poorly written WP:POVFORK based on extremely POV conceptualization and WP:FRINGE bibliography. A similar POVFORK was deleted a few months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs and articles Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period fall in the same category.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added valid references to this page. The topic of this article has received significant coverage (link to section about works dedicated exclusively to Myth of Tito) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per Wikipedia:Notability. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A week after the article was nominated for deletion I think it can be concluded there is a consensus that the topic is notable, and it should have coverage on Wikipedia within an article of its own. The main concern of editors who !voted for deletion or renaming is pov of part of the article's text or its title, which is not valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia policies (ie Wikipedia:Deletion policy) points to an alternative to deletion which includes tagging to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. One editor who !voted for deletion insisted on tagging the article (diff and diff) to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article). It is impossible to attract editors to the article which is deleted. I invite editors who are concerned about article's pov to respond to tag added by their fellow editor and join editing of the article. No article/editor - no problem is not how Wikipedia works. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is actually a poster child for what WP:TNT is for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is currently in poor condition, but the topic is fairly well represented and well documented. Cult of personality, Relay of Youth, Titoism, Law on protecting values, etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What I see is a political pamphlet. Who determine what is true and what is a myth? It would be like saying that Tito was not wounded in the Battle of the Sutjeska and that this event is a myth invented by the communists. This article is a one-sided political pamphlet in which there is no other side and thus the article cannot be neutral. Maybe some information with a stronger source may be part of an article about Tito(legacy section). Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A bit unsure here. Unlike some others, I think this is a notable topic, clearly -- WEBDuB is right on this. However, the current page is such a POV eyesore (see below) that it is just on the edge of WP:TNT. If the page is to be rescued, I would like to see substantial work in (a) reducing the egregious POV-in-wikivoice on the page, (b) improving the prose which will require a fair amount of work, and (c) dealing with other aspects of the myth of Tito in historiography and elsewhere, such as the spread of the myth to the West as Tito (much like Ceaucescu later with Reagan) managed to portray himself as somehow friendly to capitalistic states, and how this led to the coalescence of the myth of Tito as a man who successfully brought quarrelling peoples together in some paradise state (side note: and that was, at the time was, though now amusingly, used as a model for the proposed One state solution for Israel/Palestine -- not in scope, but this is an aspect of the notability of the myth I would argue -- though perhaps that is the whole Bratsvo Jedinstvo myth more than Tito himself). And, of course, the legacy of that myth, as the state he built fell apart after his death. For examples of the sort of prose that is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia for how POV it is, here is one (which I agree with, but geez, this is just so unprofessional): In this atmosphere of faultlessness many catastrophic political moves were drawn which slowly but inevitably pushed the all country and its Communist leaders into total catastrophe and disintegration.[3] The mythologized Tito and dreamland Yugoslavia never existed.[8] Also, this Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks.[7] -- Popovic is a "writer and playwright" so he is not even remotely WP:DUE, and in light of that, regardless of intention, this sentence will look to almost any informed Western reader like it was inserted just to rehabilitate the Chetniks. Last example: The Myth of Tito was almost unanimously accepted and parroted by western scholars -- no citation, and, well... ahem. --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Josip Broz Tito cult of personality and rewrite per comments by Calthinus or delete. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per concerns raised by the above discussion Alltan (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "Tito cult of personality". A rewrite would also be a good idea, but there is definitely enough material for a stand-alone article on the subject. I'm surprised such an article didn't exist until recently. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename and improve the article from what I can see, the article is not of a good encyclopedic standard. However, it should be renamed and improved, as this topic has enough content to constitute a separate Wikipedia article. Dikaiosyni (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT delete article is a POV mess. I am undecided as to whether a separate article is appropriate, but if so it's not this. (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename: The topic is quite interesting in historical terms and can be further improved.Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Article needs improving but it is a worthy and notable topic to have a Wikipedia article about. Alternatively it can be merged and turned into a section on the Tito wikipedia page. --James Richards (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic is notable, and it should have coverage on Wikipedia. Why not an article of its own. But not this one. It is written very badly. Since it needs to be entirely rewritten, it first needs to be deleted. @Peacemaker67: I see your concerns about the creator of this article, and their continual creation of articles with numerous issues, but unless you take it to AE, your concerns will keep growing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "Tito cult of personality". Jingiby (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tito's cult of personality I have witnessed firsthand among elderly and middle aged people (from former Yugoslavia) in Australia, and probably scholarship covers this in regards to Yugo-nostalgia. But i saw the concerns of admin @Peacemaker and i agree with them. Not only that, Balkan topics have enough POV to deal with, and not that many competent editors are around to address them. This will just be another article in need of work that will languish for years without any real attention.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment At Talk:Myth of Tito#POV and tone I have detailed, with examples, the serious deficiencies in just one of the sources used in the article, which is just a ridiculous fringe and POV polemic that makes all sorts of groundless claims about well-known facts regarding Tito. This source is used for more than a quarter of the citations in the article, including some of the most extreme statements. This is an example of why TNT is required here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not just one of the sources. Its only one of 15 sources (almost all written by contemporary university professors) that Peacemaker67 pointed as fringe. I replied at the same page and explained that claims about groundless claims about well-known facts regarding Tito are incorrect and not even used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the source for eight of the 29 citations used in the article, over 25%. I haven't even examined the rest yet. I have responded to your claims on the talk page. This is really a WP:CIR problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is contradictory. You haven't even examined the rest of the sources but you proclaimed that article has WP:FRINGE bibliography diff. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, your position is that when over 25% of an article's citations are to a ridiculous polemic with over a dozen clear factual errors, that doesn't qualify as a fringe bibliography? I'll get to the rest, but I note that Maleschreiber was the first to raise the fringe aspect of the bibliography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are no over a dozen clear factual errors. I proved at article talkpage that your claims about discrepancy of birth date and membership of CPY date are incorrect. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You proved nothing. You made unsubstantiated claims. I provided reliable sources that showed that these claims are spurious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. I directly refuted central point of your position by explaining at article's talkpage that you were incorrect, provided sources to prove it and explained that you actually refuted your position yourself with Ridley. You are right with one thing: This is really a WP:CIR problem.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite interested editors to examine the talk page and judge for themselves regarding Antidiskriminator's claims about what he has proved or otherwise. Not only is competence required, but English comprehension is also required. I do not propose to continue this tit-for-tat nonsense here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peacemaker67. Ljubiša Despotović's article is a WP:FRINGE article. Another FRINGE element which is utilized for heavy POV purposes is Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks. Setting aside, the obvious historical revisionism about the Nazi collaborationist Chetniks, the article puts forward as a legitimate source, Danko Popović, a figure of Serbian literature - thus, not even remotely a reliable source for historical subjects - who talks about Tito's victorious Partisans as wild highlanders who claimed the girls from Serbia's heartland region, Sumadija, as war booty in a manner similar to the way their hajduk (brigand) ancestors abducted the womenfolk of "agas and beys" during the Ottoman times. Counterposed to communist highlanders stand both the Sumadija girls (by implication, peasants) and the cultivated bourgeois girls from Belgrade and larger cities. This sort of bibliography is being put forward in the article in addition to many misleading citations. Tito as a whole can be discussed in Titoism and Yugo-nostalgia among many legitimate articles. This one is just a WP:POVFORK that needs to be deleted. In general, it needs to be addressed in AE. The longer such editing is allowed to continue without admin intervention, the more it creates an enviroment which makes other editors in the Balkan topic area think that they can act in the same way outside of the context set by wikipedia's core principles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.