Talk:Kiro Gligorov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Kiro's sister 2 Explanation required 3 The citizenship 4 The languages 4.1 Include Bulgarian 4.2 Do not include 4.3 Comments

[edit] Kiro's sister

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sure you can speculate all you want, with no sources at all.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[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)

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)

[edit] Explanation required

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] The citizenship

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)

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)

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)

[edit] The languages

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)

[edit] Comments

• Add comments below