Talk:Kiro Gligorov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kiro's sister[edit]

I think I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that Kiro's sister self-identifies as Bulgarian. Does anyone have any information about it? --Telex 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that have any relevance? Even "when applying for a position as a lawyer in 1942, Kiro Gligorov declared Bulgarian ethnicity" seems like a useless bit of trivia to anybody else but some Bulgarian/Macedonian nationalists. --Mikko Paananen 22:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it stresses that as a former head of state he identified as Bulgarian. He has never relinquished that statement.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But at the same time it is extremely vague a statement. It can be easily interpreted to suit either Macedonian or Bulgarian nationalists in its present form, and serves only to create dispute as it is. Gorast 15:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute exists only in your head. It is a FACT, Kiro Gligorov identified as Bulgarian. Draw your own conclusions.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence only says he identified as a Bulgarian when applying as a lawyer, presumably in Bulgaria where he recieved his education. There are absolutely no solid conclusions to be drawn regarding how he identified personally and not when it suited his desire for employment. That's why the sentence fosters confusion in it's present state. Gorast 16:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had to add my comment to this non-sense above just because there is no valid reason to accept such a thing that he proclaimed himself as Bulgarian jsut because he graduated from their school. I graduated in America and I am not American. Even if I put something like that on my Resume or my applications that would be considered as fraud by stating something that is only based on my wish and non-sense reason. He is Bulgarian and unfortunately for Macedonian ears - besides that he was a gypsy. December 26th, 2006.
As a matter of fact, a signed document is as solid a statement as they come. The article does not does deal with subjective stuff, only facts are reported, deal with it.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah sure..like Kiro Gligorov had the freedom to declare a "macedonian ethnic identity" or anything else he wanted in the time of Tsar Boris's rule in the middle of Sofia LOL. Now you are going to convince us that the nazi-ally tsarist Bulgaria was a democratic country with full respect of human rights and national self-identification? LOL. sure, sure that document is valid..for Funkyfly only of course. People would have sign anything during hard times (and you would even sign that you are Bangladeshi with a rifle in ur mouth or in some other dificult situation). Even many Bulgarians have been forced to declare that they're "serbs" or "greeks" or whatever during certain historical periods, so should I now take such documents as SOLID STATEMENTS? :) If we were talking about Miladinovci bros or Prlichev now that would be DIFFERENT (i personaly dont have a problem with the fact that the "Bulgarian" ethnonym was indeed used here in the past). But now we are talking about 1942, two years before ASNOM (the forming of the Macedonian state based on "macedonism" as its national ideology) in which Gligorov took part personally. So according to Funkyfly, in 1942 Gligorov was a devoted "ethnic Bulgarian" and he was like "give me that paper here! where should i sign?!" and just two years after in august 1944 he is suddenly with the communist partisans who are fighting that same Tsarist Bulgaria (?!) and he somehow suddenly started to advocate "Macedonian nation", "Macedonian language", "Macedonian alphabet" etc..etc.. --Vbb-sk-mk 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can speculate all you want, with no sources at all.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[To Vbb-sk-mk]: Unfortunately, your theory is very much like religion: based on faith and faith alone. No one could arrive at the Macedonistic conclusions had they not assumed they were true in the first place and treated them as a given by building the theory around them. Have you considered the possibility that Gligorov did have a genuine Bulgarian identity at that time and only changed his mind later on in life (something like Misirkov)?--Tekleni 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your sources HERE (from the oficial website of the President of Republic of Macedonia).
It says:
The First president of the Republic of Macedonia was Kiro Gligorov, he performed this function in 2 terms, from 1991 to 1999. Kiro Gligorov is born on May 3rd 1917 in Stip. Graduated from Faculty of Law at the University of Belgrade. Participant in national liberation struggle in 1941.
 Member and responsible for finance in the ASNOM Presidium (finance commissioner- повереник). Secretary of State for finance in Federal executive Council, member of SFRY Presidency as well as President of the Assembly of SFRY.
He was elected President of the Republic of Macedonia on January 27th 1991 and re-elected on November 19th 1994. Served as President of the Republic until November 19th 1999.
Here's also a photo incl. him, Chento and other guys at the ASNOM gathering- CLICK HERE (from the oficial webiste of the State Archives of Macedonia, the project was sponsored by Soros foundation so dont be suprised that u will see soros.org). Unfortunatelly the pic is bad, but blame them not me (that website was made in times of dial up internet, more than 10 years ago (I also have the promotional cd-rom that they were giving for presentation purposes). On the pic, Kiro is the last guy on the right (smiling with big nose talking to his mate). A good version of this pic can bee seen at the Museum of Macedonia in Skopje
And I forgot to add that his citizenship certificates mean absolutely nothing as oficial Bulgaria anexed these territories in 1941. If Nauru took this territories back then instead of Bulgaria, he would logically have had a Nauruan citizenship. Before Bulgaria came in 1941, he had a citizenship of Kingdom of Yugoslavia (as he's from Shtip) so should I take that as an evidence that he was a serbian, croat or slovene (the only constitutional nations recognized back then)? Also, after the WWII he had high positions in the politics in the Tito's Yugoslavia, nothing is mentioned about that too. He was a part of the establishment that advocated the "macedonism" from its very start (ASNOM). Anyway, its really ridiculuous that an article and the discussion about such an important politician in the region during really hard times is mainly concentrating on this absurd and irrelevant thing "is he really a Bulgarian or not" while at the same completely disregarding the really relevant things. As I see same happens with the article about Ljubcho Georgievski. This article is absolutely ridiculuous, I can't beleive that anyone sane would take it seriously.
And you still haven't answer me: What about those bulgarians who have been forced to declare different nationality during certain historical periods? Should I now dig around and find some documents and waive with them saying "AHA! see? haaa they VOLUNTARILY declared as Greeks, Serbs, Turks or whatever". You will not fool anyone with documents made under special circumstances. Many Slovenians have been forced to declare as Germans or Austrians or whatever during certain periods, many Croats in Dalmatia were forced to declare as Italians, many Vojvodina Serbs were a subject of "maygyarisation", many Ukrainians were forced to be "Russians" etc..etc.. You lnow that every empire wanted to impose its national(istic) policy towards its subjects. You will convince me now that someone feeling as an "ethnic Macedonian" could freely declare as such during Metaxas for example?? You are not idiots (I hope) --Vbb-sk-mk 14:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Kiro say this cause he was Bulgarian or FYROMian? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyOubwyWgNQ&feature=channel_page No? Maybe this had something to do with his assassination? 89.210.169.135 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

58.165.112.104 (talk)

Kiro Gligorov said it best in 1993 'We are Slavs, We have no connection with Alexander the Great. We came here in the 6th Century AD. Macedonia was always Greek.'58.165.112.104 (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation required[edit]

I would like to ask the member Funkyfly to explain me the last changes.
The person in the article is important to the rest of the world only as a former president of the Republic of Macedonia under his name KIRO GLIGOROV and ONLY KIRO GLIGOROV. Not Blagoje, not Blagoev, not Blagojevich, not Bruce Springsteen, not Ghengis Khan, not Napoleon. Why would be so important for an occasional internet surfer how this person is called in Republic of Bulgaria? If thats so important, lets put how his name is written or pronunced in chinese, arabic, lithuanian etc.
BTW Blagoja is probably his father's name, so Blagoev is logically a Patronymic. As patronymics unlike in Russia are not widely used here, in THIS COUNTRY WHERE KIRO GLIGOROV WAS A PRESIDENT, that "Blagoev" is completely irrelevant. The whole Planet Earth knows him as KIRO GLIGOROV.
Then also have in mind that his hometown was under serbian rule in the period between WWI and WWII and what is today Republic of Macedonia was considered as south Serbia. The people were forced to declare as serbs and the serbian language was forcibly imposed as official language. the personal names were changed into serbian forms, if you were Mitre Mitrevski you would become Mitar Mirić, so accordingly Kiro Gligorov became Ćira Gligorović. Should I now add the serbian form of his name in the article?! Well, I may say that under that form he was listed in all the administrative documents of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Who knows, someone could also find some document from his studies in Belgrade in the 1930s where he claims he is "serbian"?!
this is absurd.--Vbb-sk-mk 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He declared as Bulgarian at some point, so Bulgarian stays, also stays the name under which he enlisted in the University of Sofia and signed his Bulgarian citizenship certificate.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained you everything: no one can take seriously documents made in special circumstances, especially made during rule of the bulgarian fascism (which btw killed thousands of Jews in my homecity Skopje in 1943). That was not a democratic system, so the freedom of national self-identification was not guaranteed then. Stop making fools of all of us. I repeat he was also known as Ćira Gligorović once and listed as serbian (certainly he couldnt be listed as bulgarian or ethnic macedonian dureing the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). should i now waste my energy to look for any such serbian document and put it in the article? No. cause its irrelevant. What is relevant is that he was an important politician of Republic of Macedonia from the very day this state was born.
Also everyone should note one thing, those scanned documents you provide to support your claims are from a website of a nationalist political party in Bulgaria VMRO-BND (wikipedia article: IMRO - Bulgarian National Movement). That itself is not wrong, but I smell BIAS here, since they are openly opponents of "macedonism" and Gligorov as one of its exponents, so with these scans they probably wanted to discredit him (regardless of whether the documents are true or fakes) --Vbb-sk-mk 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I'd rather you point a document showing serbian identity. It will contribute to the article.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained as well - no one will take YOU seriously without sources. I have sources, you dont, so you'll be reverted if you erase sourced info. Read Wikipedia:OR   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your sources are a website of a Bulgarian nationalist political party and documents issued by a state that was an ally of Adolph Hitler.--Vbb-sk-mk 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Most original sources used to prove the Holocaust were issued by the Nazi state of Adolph Hitler itself. That doesn't mean they can't be used.--Tekleni 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vbb-sk-mk, as much as you dont like it, two of your country recent learders - Gligorov and now Lyubcho Georgievski had or have currently Bulgarian citizenship. Btw Gligorov never revoked his certificate of Bulgarian citizenship, so de jure he still is one. Also, Dosta Dimovska from the current governent of the Republic of Macedonia is also a Bulgarian citizen. Stop appealing to motive and deal with the facts. And by the way you can in no way prove Kiro Gligorov was forced to declare Bulgarian. As a matter of fact he did it in his own will, as he was applying for a job. If he resented the "Bulgarian occupators" that much he couldve joined the communist guerrila forces in the mountains, but he did not.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first for Tekleni: You are basically right, but you forget that I said what I said in the context of the rights of ethnic self-determination, thats what we are particulary talking about here. You couldn't just declare "Im an etnic Macedonian" during the Bulgarian rule of what is today Republic of Macedonia, as you were not allowed to declare "Im a bulgarian, etnic macedonian etc...etc.." during the Metaxas rule in Greece and there are plenty of other examples around the world through the history. Tsarist Bulgaria was not a democratic country as Metaxas's Greece was not too. Nazism/fascism goes together with extreme nationalism so assimilation, suppression of certain nationalities, forcible change of personal names and toponyms and so on were common policies of many fascist regimes.
For Funkyfly: Every human being in this country use to have a bulgarian citizenship when this territory was a part of Bulgaria. My own father has a Bulgarian birth certificate cause he's born during the WWII. so what? that means nothing. if he was born before/after the war he would have a different one. the territory was anexed by Bulgaria (see wikipedia: annexation) and Bulgarian national policies, laws and administration were imposed here. And not only that. Before the WWII every alive human being here (incl. Gligorov) use to have citizenship of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and were forced to sign they're 'south SERBS'. What do you think, he could just say "Im a macedonian" or "Im a bulgarian" when signing up for the University in Belgrade? And what do you mean he never revoked his bulgarian citizenship? He was with the partisans who fought those bulgarian authorities, he was one of the leading founders of ASNOM, what better example do you want that he was against that Bulgarian rule? --Vbb-sk-mk 20:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you admit the Bulgarian citizenship of your father. It will rather ease the procedures for obtaining Bulgarian citizenship for yourself if you wish to do so. The birth certificates were issued voluntarily in 1941 and your father obviously chose to get one. As for south serbs, that is something noone outside Serbia believes in. Unlike that, the population of your country prior to the begginning of the 20th century declared itself Bulgarian, and that is a well documented fact, confirmed by many international historians. See Demographic history of Macedonia, the section is statistical data.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your blindness has no borders Funkyfly. My father couldnt choose to get a birth certificate as he was just BORN. he was A BABY. you are so arrogant that you are not even reading my posts. And your statements regarding the "voluntarily issuing of certificates" are absolutely ridiculuous. Lets say you are a parent, you cannot just say "well..im not going to get a birth certificate, to hell with the authorities". Its an important document for life regardless of the current political situation (whether it was a Bulgarian or Serbian or Turkish or whatever rule). It gives some basic info on the person like place of birth, date of birth, the administration that issued it etc. --Vbb-sk-mk 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You simply confirmed my point. He or his parents voluntarily chose Bulgarian citizenship. They could have otherwise run away in the mountains to fight the "occupier" but they did not, because that citizenship meant something to them, and they held on to it.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually my grandparents did went to the mountains to shoot at your army, don't worry about that. As for the importance of documents in modern times , we are not living in caves. Systems come and go, but to finish any bureaucratic stuff a birth certificate is essential, when a child is born normal people always get that thing, regardless whether under serbs, bulgars, turks, greeks etc. Also, WHY DID YOU REVERTED MY LAST CHANGES? There was absolutely no reason for that. I have just added detailed explanations for the sources of those documents. They are indeed published on THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE POLITICAL PARTY IN BULGARIA VMRO-BND (section for the city of Plovdiv) arent they? You cannot change that fact. His Royal Highness THE READER OF WIKIPEDIA has every right to know clearly WHO PUBLISHED THOSE DOCUMENTS, to know WHAT KIND OF SOURCE IS THAT EXACTLY. Is it academic? is it a newspaper? is it something else? Your explanation for the last revertion is "Unecesary". If that info was unecesary for you, you dont have to read it, but for the readers IT IS important. Milions of people use Wikipedia they have a right to know what links they are CLICKING. I will put those explanations back in the external links section and I have every right to do so--Vbb-sk-mk 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you will be reverted per Wikipedia:POINT. Those documents are indeed on the website of VMORO, as they are quite a recent discovery. About your parents up in the mountains to shoot "Bulgarian occupiers" - good for you.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my parents were just born so they couldnt, again you are not reading me. but enough about my family. i just mentioned them once in the context of citizenship and you just continued as it is really important. I checked the wikipedia rules you are pointing out, I really don't see how am I "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Maybe Im disrupting you personally instead. What I know is that I have to Be bold in updating pages (Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages).
Now, why should I not to put those explanations back?
According to the Wikipedia rules for citing sources: Wikipedia:Citing sources:
Annotation reporting the POV of a particular source will help our users.- thats exactly what i was doing
Also on Wikipedia:External links: On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.).
I explained everything according to the RULES (which you obviously try to avoid), those DETAILED EXPLANATIONS MUST BE PLACED BACK NOW.--Vbb-sk-mk 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact you have not shown anything. The only thing you're doing is making a Wikipedia:POINT that those sources are unreliable in some sense. Judge the message, not the messenger.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its only your personal impression that I want to present those EXTERNAL LINKS as unreliable in some sence.As this is not your personal website - your personal judgement doesn't neceserily have to be a LAW here. THE WIKIPEDIA RULES SAY CLEARLY: Detailed explanation of every external link. Those documents are placed on the official website of the political party in the Republic of Bulgaria VMRO-BND, (their section for Plovdiv), the readers have every right to know what they are clicking! --Vbb-sk-mk 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citizenship[edit]

Aldux, In case you dont understand Bulgarian: "Kiro Gligorov is a bulgarian citizennational, honest and trustworthy". He obtained that document on his own will, and attached it to his application. He even obtained two of those, one from the Stip municipality, and one from the Skopie one. (links 1 and 2).   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What impressive proofs! Since Vardar Macedonia was part of Bulgaria during WWII, a small thing you seem strangely to forget, and I highly doubt one could declare himself Macedonian during the period. Also, you've closed the discussion yourself: the words bulgarian citizen doesn't prove anything, exactly because it was in the kingdom of Bulgaria; and from this you weave a fairy tale of pro-Bulgarian collaborationism and so on (BTW, this could be true; but I pretend WP:RS). As you know, I'm neither Greek nor Bulgarian nor Macedonian, and have no axe to grind; but I've never put up with pov-pushing of any sort, and this you already no. So sorry, but I'm going to revert.--Aldux 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded it so that it states that he obtained Bulgarian citizenships, without mention of ethnicity. The documents indeed say ethnicity. As for removing sourced information, you will be reverted. I also added the "occupation" thing from 1941 to 1944. Happy?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The languages[edit]

FunkyFly and Aldux have debated over the inclusion of the Bulgarian language for Kiro's name in the intro via edit summaries and through me in my and their talks. First off, I must say that I personally hate all those 'grey-area' alternate language debates, which are very frequent in the controversial (and non-so-controversial) articles we all edit. I've made an attempt to describe this debate below. Feel free to add to it if I've ommitted anything, and comment below. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Add comments below
  • Do not include- It should not be included because such claims originate from the political party in Bulgaria - VMRO-BND (see external links in the article, its the Plovdiv office of the party). Thats the only source we have currently for these claims. Its a political party considered nationalist so I cant be sure about the veracity and neutrality of their claims. Moreover, even if he did sign such documents, it was during the Bulgaria's alliance with the Axis. In a such situation I doubt if the human rights, such as the right of a free ethnic self-determination, were granted by the authorities, as fascism is often connected to extreme nationalism. Moreover, its an undisputed fact that he took part in the National Liberation War of Macedonia and ASNOM, which were pointed against the Bulgarian control of the region, and aimed at forming of a Macedonian state (SR Macedonia). Also, he often joked about the former occupation of Macedonia by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia or Bulgaria by telling how their authorities were changing his surname (Gligorović in serbian, then in 1941 switch to Gligorov in Bulgarian and so on). However I dont have source on that right now consider it trivia --Dzole 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot one important point: this is a biography of a living person. Its against the rules to add questionable statements to it --Dzole 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include, and stop adding "according to VMRO-BND". This is ridiculous. The documents are not issued by the VMRO-BND party. ForeignerFromTheEast 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Then where such claims originate from Foreigner? You just want them to remain in the article without providing any source? How come you get unpunished by the wikipedia admins? Those external links lead to the official website of the nationalist political party VMRO-BND in Bulgaria (its Plovidv office): http://vmropd.org/pic_news/205-2.jpg
http://vmropd.org/pic_news/205-3.jpg
http://vmropd.org/pic_news/205-4.jpg
In Bulgarian:
© 2006 ВМРО-БНД - гр.Пловдив Всички права запазени.

Stop fooling people and stop your vandalic behaviour. You are not an admin here to shape wikipedia according to your personal political preferences. Neither this article nor any other article is your private property. As long as the edits are properly sourced and explained you have absolutely no right to revert them. Moreover, you add fake edit summaries claiming that what you revert is for example vandalizm even if the contribution in question was valid. Just an example: a while ago you reverted my VMRO-BND additions to this article claiming that "the party doesnt say that" while these "documents" are hosted on its official website? See: 02:46, 7 November 2007 ForeignerFromTheEast (Talk | contribs) (8,971 bytes) (unnecessary, the claim is not by the party) . Then by whom it is? --Dzole 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is only hosted at VMRO-BND's server. The document is not "theirs". The document is issued by Bulgarian authorities in Skopje in 1942. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

provide sources and stop this behaviour --Dzole 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be ridiculous. Sources are provided. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what sources? --Dzole 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linked in the article. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by which relevant institution or organization they are published? --Dzole 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the 3rd time: they are issued by Bulgarian authorities in Skopje. ForeignerFromTheEast 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have any proof for such claims --Dzole 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing in circles. For the last time, I repeat, the sources are linked. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know very well that you are wrong, i wonder why no one reacts. those poorly scanned pics are not sources. point some valid scientific institution or organization that published them and that guarantees their veracity --Dzole 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are issued by the Bulgarian authorities in Skopje. This is the last time I repeat this. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out with it. This factoid is sourced only to primary sources, which (being from war time and all) are highly problematic - what was the background, what was the meaning of such a step during that time, what alternatives did he have, how many others did that? We don't know anything about it. Unless there is a reliable secondary source discussing this as a significant part of his biography and explaining the historical backgrounds, this factoid is totally useless OR. I'm removing it under WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will the external links to those scanned documents remain? --Dzole 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby[edit]

User: Jingiby returned the questionable Bulgarian links (scanned documents) that were removed yesterday and he or she added references to certain newspaper articles

This newspaper reports about Ljubcho Georgievski's Bulgarian citizenship. I do not dispute that, but how is this relevant to Gligorov? The newspaper claims BTW that also Gligorov declared Bulgarian ethnicity and aquired Bulgarian citizenship but during World War II, providing no further explanations (just one sentence). Its the same as if Macedonian nationalist newspaper would claim that the president of Bulgaria is "ethnic Macedonian".

Quote from "Struma": nonsence: Както е известно, дългогодишният и най-авторитетен президент на Македония Киро Глигоров, който е учил от 1941 до 1944 година в гимназията на Кюстендил, официално там заявявал, че е българин, от стар български род, но по-късно заради личния си политически интерес “забрави” произхода си и стана флагман на създадената изкуствено от Коминтерна в границите на бивша Югославия Република Македония.

translation: as it is known the pres. of Macedonia Kiro Gligorov, who studied at the Kyustendil Gymnasium 1941-1944 officialy declared Bulgarian ethnicity. (end of quote)

Kiro Gligorov couldnt study at GYMNASIUM as he was a grown up man then with a diploma from the Belgrade University of Law.

This newspaper just reports what Struma said. Its not confirming the veracity of the claims represented in Struma. Its just an informational article. Jingiby falsely represents this as "a Macedonian newspaper also claims (confirms) that Gligorov declared Bulgarian ethnicity".

direct quote from Vest: И поранешниот претседател Киро Глигоров од 1041 до 1944 во Ќустендил признал дека е Бугарин, а подоцна заборавил што рекол", пишува "Струма".

translation: And the former Mac. Pres. Kiro Gligorov from 1041(?!) to 1944 in Kyustendil(?!) recognized that he is Bulgarian, but later "forgot" what he had said, as the newspaper Struma reports

Jingiby also added another questionable document scan hosted at the personal nationalist website: http://balkani.hit.bg/Pod42.jpg The website belongs to Anton Zhelev Ivanov, a member of VMRO-BND: Author's biography

Jingiby absuses the fact that many third party wikipedia readers or admins do not understand macedonian and bulgarian to smuggle-in irrelevant or falsely interpreted sources that they can not verify.

Although my english is definetly not perfect, let me also note that he misspels "former" as "vormer", "law" as "low" and often "were" as "ware". Obviously they are not just occassional typos because they are spreaded in several article that Jingby has edited. --Dzole 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To everybody: can we discuss this peacefully without further reverts, or will I have to ask for page protection?
I'll comment on the issue later, must go offline now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid the other side ignores my explanations on the talk page. As you can see Jingiby has not responded with proper counter-arguments. Moreover he continues a "revertion war" at Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo --Dzole 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Can we use a better picture? Preferably one before the assassination attempt. Politis (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section - eldest president ever?[edit]

How this could be truth? Josip Broz Tito was 88 when he died as president of SFRJ. Saigon from europe (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was the oldest president at the time that issue of Guinness book of records was published (2000). The oldest elected head of a state was Sandro Pertini, president of Italy who left office in 1985, aged 88 years and 9 months.--Vitriden (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no - the oldest elected head of state was Eamon de Valera was was 90 years 8 months 10 days old when his second seven-year term of office as President of Ireland expired on 24 June 1973. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kiro Gligorov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiro Gligorov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing sentence deleted repeatedly[edit]

Long-standing sentence was deleted with explanation of lacking sources by a new IP, that is WP:SPA. After 4 sources were added the deletion continues. This is obviously some form of vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The attached sources contain scanned primary documents signed by Kiro Gligorov during the Bulgarian annexation during the Second World War and those issued by the Bulgarian authorities in his name at the same time. Moreover, these documents were taken from the archives in North Macedonia from which there are facsimiles. All this corresponds to the provided by secondary sources information and I do not understand why it should be removed. One of the authors is PhD and former chef of the Bulgarian state archive, etc. What here is unreliable? Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kiro Gligorov/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tosatur (talk · contribs) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tosatur, what's the status of this review? Is it ready to close? asilvering (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA Notice[edit]

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [[Talk:Kiro Gligorov/GA|Kiro Gligorov]] in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to [[User_talk:|contact me]] with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

Tosatur (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·

I made a few edits during the review. My thoughts are below:

I think there are quite a few things in this article which need further explanation. They might be clear to someone who is more familiar with the topic but not a casual reader. This could be a link or an explanation in the paragraph. For example:

"On 29 May 1996, in Helsinki, a solemn statement by Gligorov confirmed the accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the CSCE Final Document."

Why was the statement solemn? What is the CSCE Final Document?

"He was released on the orders of Skopje Mayor Spiro Kitinchev, who guaranteed that he was a trustworthy Bulgarian."

What does "trustworthy Bulgarian" mean here? This should be explained in more detail.

His vice president/prime minister is only mentioned in the infobox. Also, there should probably be a note explaining that Macedonia only had 1 vice-president in 1991.

"Gligorov was of the opinion that Albanians would always have a share in the governing of Macedonia."

I think this needs more clarification. It isn't explained anywhere that Albanians are a significant minority in Macedonia. Also, how did he think this "share" should be implemented? Why did he then dismiss the Albanian demands for greater rights in 2001?

The first paragraph in the Personal life and death section is more at home in the Honours section.

The Politics section could use some subheadings, separating his service in Yugoslavia from his service in SR Macedonia and the Republic of Macedonia.

"In 2017, he was posthumously honoured with the Order "Saint Nicholas" (St. Nikola) by the Municipality of Štip."

Shouldn't this simply say "The Order of Saint Nicholas" (and optionally, the name of the award in Macedonian)

"He was awarded the Mediterranean Peace Prize on 5 January 1998 in Naples."

I found two more accessible sources for this: [3] [4]

I don't think this source looks reliable. It could be removed without invalidating any of the statements made in the article.

The article seems well-illustrated, stable, and neutral, and I haven't found any issues with verifiability.

Tosatur (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I removed the sentence about CSCE since I found out that it was inaccurate. By then, it was nonexistent and was replaced by OSCE. This is evidently an error by the Macedonian Encyclopedia.
- I gave more context to the guarantee by Kitinchev.
- His vice president and prime minister Georgievski, as well as prime minister Crvenkovski, are now both mentioned in the article's body too. I also added a note about the vice president position as recommended.
- I added more content about his stance on Albanians. It should be clear now.
- I moved the first paragraph of the Personal life and death section to the Honours section but retained the last sentence. It makes more sense for the details about his retirement to remain in the Personal life and death section.
- I split the Politics section into two sub-sections as recommended.
- I think no change is needed regarding the Order. The name of the Order is simply "Saint Nicholas" and that's how it is referred to in sources.
- I added one of the sources you recommended about the Mediterranean Peace Prize. I could not access the other one.
- I removed the unreliable source. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes, I've just gone through the article again. I added a citation to the statement "They had one son and two daughters" (Personal life and death)
Is it possible to get a source for note 2? I wasn't able to find this backed up in source 1. (I could find a mention of Ljubčo Georgievski, but not that the position was abolished after his resignation)
Also, where is the source for "on 7 March, he entrusted the mandate to Nikola Kljusev to form the first government" (Macedonia)? I wasn't able to find this in source 30.
Source 14 and source 42 are the same book but different editions (2010 and 2019 respectively). I found the same statement backed up by source 42 in the 2010 edition, on page 329. I would recommend changing source 42 to be the same as source 14.
I can't find any source for "in 2000, the Guinness Book of World Records listed Gligorov as the world's oldest president" (Personal life and death), even from Guinness themselves. They list Joaquín Balaguer as the oldest president.
As for "some politicians and academics came to pay their respects beforehand" (Personal life and death) maybe it would be better to add who attended? The source given states that Gjorge Ivanov and Gorancho Koteski were in attendance.
Source 61 is broken, but could easily be replaced by source 60 for the sentence "he was buried in Butel Municipality, Skopje" (Personal life and death)
I think the Memoirs section needs to include sources, just something saying that the books do exist and were written by Kiro Gligorov.
The Honours section needs to lead into the list better (eg. Other honours given to Gligorov include: list). Also, try to include the years the honours were won, and add links for the ones that have their own articles.
Source 66 states that Gligorov had an affair with his culture advisor? If this is true, it should be included in the article, probably in the personal life section.
Other notes on sources:
  • Source 5, I couldn't find a copy of it, so I can't verify if it backs up the statement.
  • Source 8, I could only find the 2009 edition of it, so I could only verify the withdrawal of JNA (d, p.203) and statements about Vladimir Gligorov (e, p.86)
  • Source 13, I could only find the 2001 edition, but still verified citations, so that one's fine.
  • Source 16, I couldn't find a copy of it anywhere, can't verify.
  • Source 24, I couldn't find a version that includes the page cited, p. 391, unable to verify.
  • Source 30, verified, except for the sentence about Nikola Klujsev, as mentioned previously.
  • Source 32, I could only find the 1997 edition, but still was able to verify.
  • Source 42, verified on page 329 of the 2010 edition.
  • Source 61, broken, as mentioned previously.
Tosatur (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was already verified in its respective article, so I removed that part. There isn't any information about the vice president position in sources.
- I added a source about the mandate for Kljusev.
- I removed the 2010 edition and replaced it entirely with the 2019 edition.
- I removed the part about Guinness. That appears to be an error on Sloboden Pecat's behalf.
- I mentioned some of the people who came to pay respects as recommended.
- I replaced the broken Makfax source with the Utrinski vesnik source.
- I cited a source for the Memoirs section.
- I added the years for the honours which could be verified and the links of existing articles. For the rest, I've put "Unknown."
- I could not be able to tell if he had an affair. I've only encountered that information in Macedonian news sources and not in any non-Macedonian sources. All of them trace their information from one news source, which we have no access to. If we can't tell how, why, where and when he had an affair, then we shouldn't include it.
- I added a quote for Dismembering the State: The Death of Yugoslavia and why it Matters.
- Well, the 2019 edition is almost identical as the 2009 edition regarding the statements. The only difference is that Gligorov was not deceased when the 2009 edition got released. You can try accessing the 2019 edition through your phone if some pages do not appear when you are on your PC for example.
- Here is a quote for source 16: Gligorov, Kiro (1917-) Macedonian politician and president of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1991-1999). After he finished law school at Belgrade University, Kiro Gligorov worked in private banking until the beginning of World War II. In 1941 he joined the partisan movement and was accepted into the KPJ in 1944. After World War II he became the Yugoslav finance minister (1962-1967), vice president (1967-1969), a member of the Yugoslav presidency (1969-1972), and president of the Yugoslav Parliament (1974-1978). He was elected president of the presidency of Macedonia in 1990, reelected in 1994, and then badly wounded in an attempt on his life on 3 October 1995. He retired in 1999. An archived version of the source is available online.
- I added a quote for source 24. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that all looks great. Regarding the affair, I agree it shouldn't be included in the article. As for the sources, I consider them all verified.
A few other criticisms; It would be nice to have more info about his early life and personal life post-politics, like details on his religion and his parents. I understand Gligorov wasn't the most well documented figure though. More images would be good as well, there are a few on wikimedia, like 12. Could help to illustrate his early career a bit more.
I think the sentence "Along with some other communist activists, he saw the solution of the Macedonian Question through a "federation of the Balkan peoples" does not clarify much. Is this saying that Gligorov, along with other communists, decided that Macedonia should be a part of Yugoslavia? If so, the same source can be used, but the sentence should be rewritten to be more clear.
Also, if Gligorov helped decide to make Macedonia a part of Yugoslavia, I think it should be included in the politics section. If possible, the article should include more info about how, if at all, Gligorov contributed to this decision. The ASNOM article contains more info on what exactly ASNOM decided.
I think some paragraphs in the text can be broken up to make them more readable, like the lead, early life, and first paragraph of the Macedonia section. Tosatur (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from User:Goldsztajn[edit]

@Tosatur asked me to have a quick look at the review (I'm listed as a GA mentor) - some observations: the article's lede is too short and needs to be expanded (see MOS:LEDE), the section on his role in Yugoslavia is too short (yes, he is most widely known for his role in North Macedonia's independence, but this part overwhelms the article at present) and the article appears to lack neutrality.

In many sources, he's repeatedly referred to as a close associate of Tito and a key official in Yugoslavia ("a comrade of Josip Broz (Tito) and high-ranking member of the former socialist elite" (p.311) Constitutional Politics in Central and Eastern Europe: From Post-Socialist Transition to the Reform of Political Systems). Furthermore, the overall tone of the article is uncritical - reading the article he does not appear to be subject to a single criticism. However, from a quick search, for example, I find the following: "The Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) finance minister who most furthered early Yugoslav economic reform (beginning in May 1952) was a Macedonian named Kiro Gligorov... One consequence of his actions, nonetheless, was the rise in corrupt misuse of such loosened financial accountability and the subsequent abuse of funds" (Paradigm Lost: Yugoslav Self-Management and the Economics of Disaster). Or "Gligorov is still blamed for his attempt to save Yugoslavia (through the so-called Gligovor-Izetbegovic proposal) instead of leading the process of establishing the state’s independence, something that the other republic leaders had been doing for quite some time before the federation’s final demise." (p. 104 Civic and Uncivic Values in Macedonia)

His character is more complex than the article indicates: described as "the fox of the Balkans" (p.53 Macedonia: Warlords and Rebels in the Balkans), "his genius for survival and solutions - which earned him the nickname "the fox""(p.43 The Wreckage Reconsidered: Five Oxymorons from Balkan Deconstruction), "the wily Kiro Gligorov - whose survival through four decades of communism earned him the nickname the fox" (p.212 Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation).

With the lack of focus on the Yugoslav period and the overly positive framing, I'd be somewhat concerned that the article does not meet the criteria for "broad coverage" or neutrality (criteria 3 and 4 of a good article). No doubt, sources do evaluate Gligorov positively in areas (eg "credited with keeping Macedonia out of the War of Yugoslav Succession" (p.4 Civic and Uncivic Values in Macedonia) - but that's not the full picture and I feel the article needs to address those other areas to achieve GA status. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I agree with your comments regarding broad coverage and neutrality. I wasn't aware of the other aspects of Gligorov's career, this has been very helpful. @StephenMacky1 the above comments should be a pretty good framework on how to improve the article further.
I do think the article has improved a lot recently so I'm hesitant to fail the review, instead I can place it on hold until the issues are addressed. Tosatur (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking note of all of the feedback here. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd place the review on hold. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll put it on hold for a week and check back in after that. Tosatur (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tosatur. 7 days have passed. The following actions were undertaken regarding the issues here:
- I added more information that I could find about his early life. I also added more information about his life post-politics. I added two more images for illustration, but they aren't of good quality because they're old.
- I added more context behind the sentence about his support for a Balkan Federation. There isn't much documentation about this matter in sources too.
- Broke up the paragraphs for better readability.
- I expanded the lead a bit, but it's already in line with MOS:LEADLENGTH. The article has fewer than 2,500 words, so two paragraphs in the lead are enough.
- I added more information about his role in Yugoslavia.
- I added the negative outcome of his policy when he was a finance minister.
- I added the information about his nickname and aspects of his persona. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll look over these changes and get back to you ASAP.
Tosatur (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made some minor edits to make the article flow better and to fix grammatical errors.
I think the article still needs to cover more negative viewpoints towards Gligorov's policies. For example, as @Goldsztajn described, Gligorov was blamed for his attempt to save Yugoslavia via the plan he submitted with Izetbegovic.
I also think that it should be explained briefly what Ante Markovic's economic reform plan entailed, in order to get a better view on Gligorov's economic views.
These are the only criticisms I have for now. Tosatur (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not include that "criticism" because it lacks context (i.e. vague). It is only mentioned as part of a note and it does not elaborate who exactly still blames him. There is no way to put that in wikivoice. I added Tito's view towards his policy instead. I tried to find some other criticisms against Gligorov, but most of them consisted of accusations against him made by nationalists, which is still a common political tactic even nowadays.
- I added more context about Marković's reform plan, but it tells more about Marković than Gligorov. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review complete[edit]

I have decided to promote this article to GA. I find that it meets all the GA criteria.

The issues with neutrality mentioned earlier were settled by including criticisms of Gligorov. The issues regarding verifiability were solved also. I have found no major issues in the article's prose. The article contains a decent amount of images to satisfy the GA criteria. Tosatur (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Tosatur. Keep up the good work. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

(
)
Kiro Gligorov
Kiro Gligorov
Improved to Good Article status by StephenMacky1 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article recently updated to GA-status. Hook mentioned in the article and the article has no issues with copyright. Good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiro_Gligorov&oldid=1218356794"