Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blagoje Jovović

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 delete. kur ykh 03:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoje Jovović[edit]

On April 10, 1957 Ante Pavelić, the ex-dictator of the WWII Nazi puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, was shot twice by an unknown assailant while in hiding in Buenos Aires. The identity of this assailant has remained completely unknown. Now, it is likely he was shot as a result of an assassination operation by the Yugoslav secret police (the locally infamous UDBA), like other prominent ex-collaborationist individuals in hiding around the world (most notably Maks Luburić). However, it is important to emphasize that this is all speculation.
The problem we're facing here is that Serbian nationalist circles are propagating the "theory" that the man was actually shot by some ex-Chetnik guy called Blagoje Jovović. There isn't a shred of evidence that would indicate this, and the "theory" entertains the notion that the British secret service was essentially protecting Pavelić by keeping his location a secret. This article was created to support this wild nationalist conspiracy theory and promote the ex-Chetnik (Chetniks were Serbian radical nationalists during WWII) Blagoje Jovović as Pavelić's would-be "assassin". If we put aside the speculation, this person does not come anywhere near to meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements. (Don't get the wrong impression by the long intro, its required due to the matters obscurity, to me the whole matter appears pretty cut and dried :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above -Zeus-^u_c 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral for now~~ Weak delete the fact that there are conspiracy theories concerning this person as an assassin, and that these theories are published in reliable news sources actually increases the subject's notability. That said, I had a hard time finding sources to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable news sources would those be? The source in the article is Serbian, and Serbs generally view Pavelić as the most evil person that ever lived (in the Balkans). He killed hundreds of thousands in concentration camps, and it must be gratifying to entertain the "Jovović theory" because it supports the notion that nationalist Serbs "finally got their revenge". And even the authors of this (unsubstantiated) article presented as a "source" admit they're only speculating.

Surely we can't take this seriously without the evidence of support from at least one neutral historian? I mean, I'm sure you'll find lots of newspaper articles supporting the idea that JFK was killed by aliens from outer space... We must remember that the identity of the assailant remained completely unknown, the investigation turned out no important clues or suspects (which, in my opinion, only shows that the Yugoslav secret police was likely behind the whole thing). As things stand now, the "theory" has no evidence supporting it, and no historians backing it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did a very good job of explaining myself. What i meant was if reliable sources can be found concerning a conspiracy theory, even if said theory is far-fetched, then it would be notable. But I was unable to find sources. Due to the language barrier, I was hesitant to make a judgement, since I can't personally verify or discard sources in a language I don't speak. As for JFK, if there was an extremely popular fringe theory about UFOs, discussed in reliable sources, then an article on the topic wouldn't be a bad idea. Changed my recommendation to weak delete. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, of course... If such adequate (neutral!) professional support is found for the "theory" I'd change my vote as well. However, I doubt any non-Serbian historian would ever back the idea that one guy working alone located Pavelić, attacked him, and then managed to disappear without a trace. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete. The article as it stands is based on one source, which is one person's account of the subject's reminiscences, and the subject rather conveniently died before it was published [1] so we have know way of knowing whether the subject himself considered it an accurate account. Searching for the subject's name in the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets the only other remotely plausible source I can find is this. I'm not very good at Serbian, but it doesn't look to me like a source that we can rely on to support the extraordinary claims made here. Could someone who understands the language better confirm that? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources that retell the story - Amfilohije Radovic is a very prominent bishop in Serbian Ortodox Church, and the confession was arranged by him. There was a substantial media coverage; fact that Montenegrin patriot from Argentina was the assasin was known for years (many sources can be found for this), but his name was made public in 1999.

The topic made news even in Croatia - here is Vjesnik article about Blagoje Jovovic, complete with confirmation of the data and case with Amfilohije Radovic. http://www.vjesnik.com/pdf/2005%5C07%5C23%5C28A28.PDF The buzz is significant enough to meet notability criteria of wiki. Croatian article speculates on the truthfulness of Jovovic admission, but concluded that at the very least he was involved. Per wiki rules:

The person clearly existed, did appear and was admitted by the bishop Radovic
The event created buzz
Weather he was the attentator or not is not for wikipedia to determine. However, as the case is significant enough, the person should be left, with explenation that it is his self confession/claim that he is actual attentator.

Based on this, clearly article should be kept as the case is significant, archbishop Radovic meeting and coming out is confirmed by reliable sources; weather he is really an attentator is not the issue for deletion - it is properly dealt by reporting what is said in reliable sources - and there are sources about his testemony. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "buzz"? Two newspaper articles? The guy is completely unknown and obscure, painfully so. No evidence or serious historical sources supporting his role as "assassin" can be found. He existed? Well, I exist too... wanna make an article about me? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Do not be fooled by Croatian proposal for article deletion. This man was a hero, as he killed one of the most vicious murderers in human history. Croatians are well known for their attempts to whitewash history, and to put all their dirt under the carpet. By siding with Ustashe apologists, you are in fact colaborating in dirty campagn of holocaust denial, that goes in Croatia for decades. Blagoje Jovovic is significant hero of the Serbian emigration, and Serbian nation in general. His exploits are well documented and in fact, books like "Ubij bliznjeg svog" deal in detail with how the most notorious Ustashe criminals were assasinated by Jovovic and other people, many hired by UDBA (Yugoslav/Serbian version of MOSAD). Moreover, an article about other agents, like Ilija Stanic would be welcome. Stanic is a well known figure whose exploits were documented in self testemonies, like the following nice piece that describes death of the Ustasha murderer Maks Luburic, one of the people who are celebrated in today Croatia, like Pavelic, by people who come here and propose deletion of pages devoted to these agents of justice on bogus reasons and "reasons". This is how Maks Luburic died, in Stanic own words:

"Vidim pocrnio kao zemlja. Dize se i povraca. Povedem ga u kujnu na cesmu. On povraca u sudoperu, ja mu pljuskam vodu po licu. U tren uzmem cekic i raspalim po celu: Tup! maks pade kao sveca. Mislio sam vise se dici nece. Kad on me pogleda kao zver. Zamahnem opet cekicem, a on dize ruke da se zastiti. Ja viknem: -Majku ti jebem ustasku. Ovako si ti manjem ubijao decu u Jasenovcu! Vidis sta te ceka! Pogodi ga cekic kroz prste u celo. Puce lobanja. Izvucem cekic iz glave i okrenem se. Odem do vrata da proverim da li su zakljucana. Kad se vratim u kujnu, Maks istao i dahce kao zivotinja. Sto kila u njemu. Uzmem onu stanglu pa ga raspalim po celu. Puce glava kao lubenica. Krv se rasu po kuhinji. Maks tresnu dole kao da je pao sa sto metara visine. Puknem ga jos jednom. On se umiri. Umotam ga u deku. Maks je otezao, jedva ga dovucem pod otoman. Fino sam ga spakovao da ga brzo ne nadju..."

This guresome execution was done by another Croat - Stanic was blackmailed into killing him, but no doubt that they deserved each other. Stanic was paid appropriately for this deed, got apartment in Sarajevo, and was somewhat of a local celebrity. Same goes for Blagoje Jovovic, who did a clean shot to the head of the "poglavnik", who unfortunately survived to pollute this world for a few more years. Croatian editors should abandon their petty denying of the existence of these people who did some justice to the numerous victims of the Ustashe genocide, that they deny, and always keep in mind that brave Serbian soldier of justice, Blagoje Jovovic, is not only an extraordinary hero, that will always be remembered for what he did, but also a role model for all Serbs that will never allow Croatian whitewashing of history, Holocaust denial. Deeds of Ustashe will always stand between us, and Serbs will never allow the crimes of Croatian genocidial maniacs to be deleted like this!!! Knjizevnica (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoL --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fabricated history, zero verifiable sources. Don't be fooled by Knjizevnica's (looks like a clone of another banned user to me) attempt to put this into some "anti-Serb plot" scheme - this is about encyclopaedic relevance and verifiability of sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would just like to point out that not all of us, at least, are croatian. -Zeus-^u_c 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - but change it a bit, so that it suggests that Blagoje might not be the assassin. Enough people in Serbia and Croatia know his name for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia, but whether it's 100% that he IS the assassin, that can be debated in the article itself. Pure logic. --JUSTICE 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See that's the POV: "Jovović might not be the assassin"? That's misleading, as Jovović might have been the assassin, but equally it might have been some bartender in Buenos Aires from a bar where Pavelić skipped out on his tab. :P It is more than likely that the assassin was not Jovović, to present the whole matter in a way that the article says "Jovović was the assassin, but there is a chance he might not have been" is completely misleading. In fact, without professional verifiable sources the idea should not be entertained at all on a serious encyclopedia. And no, the person is not well known in Croatia, I imagine he's a completely obscure figure outside Serbia, and even there only nationalist circles seriously entertain the notion that he was the assassin. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR is correct - 99.99% Croats (dunno about Serbs, but given the average Serb nationalist appetite for "theories" such as these, I suspect the percentage is much lower ^_^) doesn't have a clue who this "Blagoje Jovović" is. I surely didn't until I've came across this article the other day by inspecting certain user's contributions. Besides, how many people have heard of him or not is irrelevant as regards to encyclopaedic relevance, which are strictly regulated by the WP policy.

As DIREKTOR perceptively notices, the way this article is presented is as if it's describing a real historical event, which is false and highly misleading. Hence, the sole reason why this article should be deleted is because there are no real historians discussing in verifiable sources the validity of the theory - it's completely irrelevant to them. We cannot draw on another nationalist myth and present it as a fact, or moreover, consider the spread of the theory in some nationalist circles as an argument of relevance for WP when it's completely ignored by the profession itself.

As it turns out, the supporters for this article are all some kind of hardline Serb nationalists. I mean, look at the above quote by this 2-edit account Knjizevnica - "Maks Luburic, one of the people who are celebrated in today Croatia" - only a completely deranged person could say something like this (as a comparison, it would be equal to saying "Hitler, one of the people who are celebrated in today Austria.."). Please don't fall for the fallacious anti-Croat propaganda. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I ought to change my vote to "Strong" delete to cancel-out the "Strong" keep above? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "enough people in Serbia and Croatia know his name for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia" then presumably there are reliable sources that have discussed this person. It would help the argument much more if you could point us to these sources rather than just declare this as a fact. For the record, as we seem to be getting into nationalist arguments here, I have no connection with either Serbia or Croatia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to imagine what this page would look like if it was entirely rewritten based only on reliable sources, and it didn't seem like the page would amount to much more than a stub, quoting vague innuendos but nothing solid. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (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.