Talk:Irina Bokova

Language & Precision & CoI

In the entry section, there is this phrase, regarding terrorism: "Her approach to the latter involves enforcing the protection of intellectual goods." What does that mean? Protecting what exactly? Can we please clean up this article in general, parts of it remain imprecise. Also, "a firm opponent" is evaluative language, this should be stated more neutrally.Hundnase (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This phrase is following the one that ends with Bokova is actively supportive of international efforts to... cutoff funding for terrorism. Agree that it may require better wording, but it's important part of the job of the UNESCO DG, so that it should remain there in some formk. On the second sentence, do you think there are more firm or less firm opponents, or just oponents of racism and anti-Semitism? The exact same phrase was used to describe Gabriel Marcel. Similar for German eugenicist Schallmayer, who was a firm opponent of any form of Aryan racial theory, and others. Firm is something, which means someone has not shown changes in their opposition, afaik. E.g. China and USA firmly oppose North Korea nuclear tests, Americans firmly oppose businesses, refusing to serve gay customers, etc. When you are opposing racism and anti-Semitism, one would expect firmness, not changing opposition every once in a while. I am happy to see your intention to continue contribute positively to improving the article. This is much more productive than the conversation we have on my talk page. Thanks! Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought our conversation was entirely productive! But either way: On the first item, "enforcing the protection of intellectual goods", maybe this was meant to say "enforcing the protection of intellectual and cultural heritage". At that point, it makes sense and resonates with her activities around Mali, Syria & Palmyra.

On the second, it would add accuracy and precision to highlight her actions, rather than calling her a "firm opponent". I can call someone a "firm opponent" of inaccurate language, but it's more precise to highlight that "has edited political Wikipedia articles since 2008, with a particular emphasis on increasing accuracy of language." So if there are facts and evidence regarding her anti-racism, this should be entered here, and then we have a better rendering.Hundnase (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

On the first edit - agree, sounds better. On the latter, I see no problem in saying something, which is factually correct - based on a number of speeches and awards she has received. However, I'd agree with you that the reference is actually not correct, as it's the wrong one. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

we again see that one User who has a very clear CoI (documented extensively below) comes in and undertakes edits, in this case to make information on Bokova's husband (who now is the target of extensive corruption allegations) far less visible. This really has to stop. Wikipedia pages are not vanity pages, they need to represent information. That this user goes in, and edits out information on September 7, after a the Guardian publishes an investigationon September 4, is entirely unacceptable and again, this user has a CoI. Hundnase (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, if you believe i have "a very clear CoI (documented extensively below)" - as you properly state, there is plenty of explanations below, which does not support your statement... So unless you have some different facts, please, refrain from repeating issues, which have been solved. As for the edits you have reverted, please don't forget one of them is without a source since October 2016, so it is properly removed, and the other, about her husband - he's listed in the right column, below her picture. As for her ex-husband, would you elaborate what's his importance in her current life, so that he should be listed? Also, please, follow the normal editing, and add the text at the end of a section, not in the beginning. Thanks. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

we see a very clear sequence here. You are a custodian of the page who very regularly scrubs information from it when it does not flatter Bokova. On September 4, the news breaks that her husband has received $400k payments from Azerbaijan, and that this is now an issue that is being discussed in the Bulgarian cabinet. On September 7 you remove the more detailed reference to her husband. Again, you have personally worked with her, you have supported her candidacy -- you should not be editing her page -- and not be removing information just because it is not flattering. As for the reference on her husband, I will just add that in. Again, you should stay away from this page. This page should be NPOV, and not just flattering information. Hundnase (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Who am I is irrelevant; what matters is if this is an article about a certain person, or about her family. Unlike other edits, which are being made anonymously, I am signing what I write, because I have been editing Wikipedia for about 10 years, and that's my normal behavior. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Education

One generally does not get an MBA in IR. The entry needs correction and/or citations.--128.54.238.5 (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the other languages of wikipedia it is written only "international relations" or "Moscow institute of ..." without any reference to "MBA".

There are two major English Schools in Sofia - First and Second English High-School of Sofia. Which one she attended? Probably First, but a citation is needed anyways.DemonX (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonian from Bulgaria

I made the change, adding the cited fact, that Bokova is of Macedonian ancestry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian in this context means Bulgarian from Macedonia. I have corrected the above edit.

Kostja (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not something strange. Most of the sources on Wikipedia are based on articles announced in newspapers. Especially, in this case. I don't think that I made something wrong. I cited source in Bulgarian, where the fact was confirmed, and I don't think that this is POV. My propose is to revert the cited fact, and to stop deny the true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a POV, but extreme POV. Jingby (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it was just a case of misunderstanding. What the media in question meant is that she was Bulgarian from the region of Macedonia. That's all that is. Neither she, nor her relatives have self-identified as ethnic Macedonians. It's a common mistake to make for someone not into the whole issue. --Laveol ^T 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How naïve must one be?

Her father was a prominent Communist Party member. No wonder she ended up in a position of power herself. Did anyone in Bulgaria rejoice over her election, btw?

Fyromian (yugoslav) vandalism on Bulgaria related pages

It seems that there is a group of former Yugoslavs from FYROM who stubbornly vandalize many Wikipedia pages related to Bulgaria, trying to spread the old Yugoslav Nazi ideology about "ethnic Macedonians". For these persons I would like to point out that in the Bulgarian language the word "Macedonian" means "a Bulgarian from the region of Macedonia". It has nothing to do with the Yugoslav invented "ethnic Macedonians" from FYROM. So please first learn Bulgarian and only then cite Bulgarian sources. Vedm (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Allegations of the Assassination of Raiko Alexev and Attempts to Subdue them.

1. Important Matter. There are substantiated claims that Ms. Bokova's father Mr. Georgi Bokov is the perpetrator of the assassination of the Bulgarian artist, cartoonist, satirist, journalist and publisher Raiko Alexiev (penname Fra Diavolo)in the days immediately after the communist coup of September 9, 1944.

2. Prima Facie Substantiation. The claims are detailed in the documentary book "Goreshto Cherveno" ("Hot Red")by Ivaila Alexandrova, Sofia 2008, ISBN: 978 954 491 409 7. Written by a reputable Bulgarian journalist, the book is based on interviews with Mr. Alexiev's surviving wife and on documents. It has been awarded for journalistic achievement by the Union of Bulgarian Journalists - a recognized non-political professional organisation.

3. No Refutation by Bokova. Ms Bokova has never commented publicly on these allegations - neither to deny them, nor to give a moral judgement.

4. Relevance. This fact is of great importance as Ms. Bokova is assuming the post of UNESCO's Director General. It is going to affect her ability to lead in cases of infringement of artistic and journalistic freedom and in cases such people are prosecuted, tortured and executed. Her pedigree has been the subject of comments in all international press, so this establishes the relevance of the family background of someone taking up such a prominent position. All the more relevant is the fact that Ms. Bokova's father was not simply a prominent communist but probably an executioner of a key intellectual figure for political reasons. If confirmed, this fact would qualify strongly the assessment of her personal and professional making and morals. It will have a growing bearing on her reputation at UNESKO. All these issues are the matter of increasingly heated public debate in Bulgaria and will no doubt spill over internationally.

5. A Word of Advise. Instead of trying to suppress the information on the matter on wiki and other places why not advise Ms. Bokova to engage in some better form of damage management by issuing a detailed statement on the matter?

Please, create a new article about her father, whose name is still not active on Wikipedia (in red). Afterwards his name would be active (in blu) and who is interested in his biography can receive this info after clicking on his name, i.e. Georgi Bokov. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that ardent anti-Communists are against Irina Bokova only because of her father, which is rather simmilar to the Communist attitude. Kostja (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

-

How about some argumentation when using "POV Pusher" labels?

I understand why people disagree with judging Ms. Bokova by who her father was. But the fact that there is such critique in Bulgaria remains a fact never-the-less and it was reflected in the international media. Reporting this fact (not advocating for the judgement) is perfectly legitimate on a wiki article referring to a "current event". Even more so is the fact that the Bulgarian debate is moving from some the vague general referrals to her father's past to focus on Ms. Bokova's own reaction (or lack thereof) to the substantiated allegations of the execution of notable cultural figure by her father as she is assuming the leadership of the world's cultural organisation. Besides the current internal reactions, this fact could have a continuous relevance, as Ms. Bokova will certainly have to deal with commemoration of artists and intellectuals executed by various authoritarian regimes. She may even have to defend ones that are presently tortured. And just imagine if there is an initiative that UNESCO commemorates Rajko Alexiev (as it did with Vapcarov). Thus, reporting this aspect of the current Bulgarian controversy is perfectly pertinent. Karadjin (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I find it amusing that an obviously single-purpose account was created just to throw dirt at one person. I don't know where it stems from, but your hatred towards Bokova is quite visible. This is in no way good for the credentials of any editor.

2. Could you point me to any evidence that Bokova was supportive to to any murders. It'd be nice to see if her official position is actually supportive. I highly doubt that, cause in that case her diplomatic career would have been over before it started.

3. Why should she be responsible for crimes, committed by her father? Did she do anything like this? Did she order anyone's death? I find all these allegations quite absurd and yes, indeed, this is classic POV-pushing, based on personal or political hatred. --Laveol ^T 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is blaming Ms. Bokova for crimes committed by her father. However, the information is relevant because there is controversy over Ms. Bokova's figure in Bulgaria on these grounds, and it is not every day that people with such background become high-profile international officials. We should keep this information in the article, provided it stays NPOV. Ivanicov (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you tieng to hide the truth?

I see, you editors here are all bulgarians, you are trying to hide your shame. Don't try to do it, if this is really a neutral encyclopedia (even one on the internet), why don't you show the reality? She may be great person, but her origin MUST be shown! It's important what her father did, she won her education and respectively her new duties thanks to her father and the death of Rayko Aleksiev. If Georgi Bokov never killed him how was he supposed to take his place of member of the Central Committee of BCP and editor-in-chief of Workers' Deed? If the editors of this article don't know the story or if they are ex members of BCP or if they are under the infuse of some patriotic feelings (bulgarian director of UNESCO), they CAN NOT be neutral! Some western or whatever (just not from Bulgaria, or other post communistic countries) should join the editing process.

Or Wikipedia is just not objective source. Thanks.

The name of this article is not Georgi Bokov. 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not, BUT it's important for HER personality as well. Already told it here. Don't try to hide the truth under some fake arguments, one sentence about her father won't change the topic. It can be moved to the refs only if there is separate article about G.B.

Sock, just create articles abouth this persons. That you have make is communist manner of work. Jingby (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And were not the communists the guys that were hiding the truth? And were not the communists who killing in order this truth to stay hidden? You are the one with communist manner or you are just trying to hide your shame.

Personal attacks don't belong in Wikipedia, so please try to use real arguments.

Kostja (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some facts on the controversy issue in Mrs. Bokova's father past

Since many people quote the book "Hot red", it seems I am the only one, who actually spent some time reading it, and as a result, I published a detailed description of all versions of the death of Mr. Raiko Alexiev. Based on the advice of one of the Wikipedia editors, I moved all the details of this tragic death into the discussion page (in Bulgarian). Here's a brief summary:

• The book - in the discussed part - is built on interviews with the widow of Mr. Raiko Alexiev, and quotes from other people;
• Mr. Alexiev has been arrested by the notorious Mr. Lev Glavinchev;
• According to Mr. Alexiev's son, Vesselin, his Father has been tortured by a Mr. Zeev, investigator;
• According to a Bulgarian writer, Boris Delchev, who claimed he heard another Bulgarian writer, Ivan Bogdanov saying that "the whole responsibility for Mr. Alexiev's death "lies with Mr. Krum Kyulyavkov. Mr. Alexiev has been detained and tortured upon his request. The death was result of the torture";
• According to a Bulgarian artist, Nikolay Shmirgela, Mr. Alexiev has "died from a sudden death - angina, renal crisis, or something else, but not torture";
• According to the widow of Mr. Alexiev, another (unnamed) writer or cartoonist "have sent a material to be published in Mr. Alexiev's newspaper, but Mr. Alexiev didn't publish it", and she continues, "other eyewitnesses told me that the same person has jumbed on Mr. Alexiev, and probably he died because of this" (page 121);
• According to a prominent Bulgarian writer and teacher of the author of the book, he's been called twice in the last few years, and has stated that the death of Mr. Alexiev is connected to certain names of Geshev and Alexieva"; (page 246)
• Bulgarian writer Radoy Ralin has said that "... Mr Georgi Bokov - has been showing off that he has slapped Mr. Alexiev 400 times" (page 68);
• The same Radoy Ralin has also said, "Kyulyavkovs have organized the death of people like Raiko Alexiev, and the succeeded" (page 185);
• in an interview, published in the Bulgarian "24 hours" in 2011, the writer of "Hot red" quotes Mr. Ralin, as if he confirmed that Mr. Bokov has been the one, who killed Mr. Alexiev. However, this seems new information, and is not quoted in the book. Mr. Ralin has passed away several years ago, and obviously has not given any source for his statements;
• in a response to the interview in the "24 hours", Mr. Filip Bokov, brother of Mrs. Bokova, claims that his father "has never seen Mr. Alexiev. Mr. Bokov has not been in Sofia until 1946 - 2 years after the murder of Mr. Alexiev. There were witnesses of people from Razlog, who have worked with him at that time." Further, Mr. Filip Bokov claims that the author of "Hot red" has never checked Mr. Georgi Bokov's biography, which would have persuaded her that the statements in her book are not supported by the facts, and she has never searched to talk to any of Mr. Bokova's family to check the facts.

Remark from the editor:

• The above quotes and information from the book and interviews in the Bulgarian media made me believe that while I am not aware of the reasons for spreading the rumors about Mr. Georgi Bokov's involvement in Mr. Alexiev's death, there's not enough direct or indirect evidence whatsoever, except one statement by a Bulgarian writer, who have not been present at the events. Full disclaimer: I knew Mr. Ralin, as my own father was also a writer, and my grandfather - a poet, during the same time, when Mr. Ralin was writing. Veni Markovski (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Director-General

This article Irina Bokova article stated - "She defeated [nine candidates] at the election in Paris, with Farouk Hosny ultimately being defeated by 31-27 in the fifth and last round of voting". But UNESCO stated that "[Eight candidates] ran for the position, and 58 countries voted for them".

I want to know -

• Eight/Nine candidates name.
• What's the real figure? Can anybody explain it?

Have a nice day. - Subrata Roy (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

blocking Jewish exhibit

Why nothing on her appeasing Arab bloc and canceling the 3500 exhibit in Paris?204.14.66.194 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because it's not "her appeasing". Read more sources, not just newspapers. Veni Markovski (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy re: participating at the military parade in Russia - May 9, 2015

The following statement from the main article has no evidence in the quoted sources, therefore I am moving it here, until such source is found:

In the above quoted sources, there's no mentioning of Mrs. Bokova to participate at the Military parade. Most EU and Western leaders have boycotted the event as a result of Russia's policy on Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea. On the parade Bokova will join the leaders of North Korea, Cuba, Mongolia, Vietnam and alike. This stance according to her is meant to demonstrate that "UNESCO was founded to promote the principles of humanism".

I have also edited the information about her visiting Moscow around May 9. From her interview, she's not doing anything different than Mrs. Merkel, but we will have to wait until May 9, and see. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Updates in 2016

I noticed that there is a new anonymous user, who has made about a dozen edits in the last days of 2015, and continues in 2016. While some of his/her edits are correct, others are quite out of order. "Vassko" User_talk:Vassko may be better discussing issues first here, before trying again to edit. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

vassko (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)===In the media=== I see no reason to have a special section "In the media". Mrs. Bokova is a well-known figure, a world leader, and there are articles about her on almost daily or weekly basis. It seems only logical that if one starts publishing news pieces, just to say what's written about her, then the Wikipedia article soon will become only a reference page for news stories. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Veni you have been COI #tagged here. You have some special reasons to edit her page out of any controversial links to her past and current world media coverage about her.

Bokova features as a main character in three plays by Paris-based UK playwright Nick Awde – Bruges (The Europeans Part 1; Edinburgh Festival 2014), Antwerp (The Europeans Part 2; Edinburgh Festival 2015), and Tervuren (The Europeans Part 3; 2016).

Frontrunner for top UN job exaggerates biography by German Die Welt

UNESCO boss coiffed their resume by German Die Welt (UNESCO chief Irina Bokova will necessarily be 2016 UN Secretary General. For the Bulgarian cheat even a little in their past - and set out on your CV to Foreign Minister.)

Bulgarian Communist and UNESCO Boss Irina Bokova May Lead UN (Video)

Russia Wants the Next UN Chief to Be Eastern European, Lavrov Says By Bulgarian Novinite.com

Dear "Vassko", perhaps you mean Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, but the tag that you use so freely needs to somehow be justified (and, by the way, the fact that you are an anonymous user might mean that you are indeed in COI, but then, how would we know? It's good you moved the content here - let the other people say if it is relevant. If other editors find it relevant, then I'd be more than happy to contribute with about three dozens of articles, which are quite relevant to her work at UNESCO, and another couple of dozen - before that. But I doubt it - I opened random pages of people like Helen Clark, Ban Ki-moon and others - nowhere I could see a section "in the media". Everywhere the references are listed where they belong - at the end, and only if they make sense to the main article. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Veni, I am not anonymous (I am Vassko as the internet knows me) as some of the users who are editing Bokova's page and removing content. I know what COI is, thank you. I had not add the media page, I only added recent articles about her, which YOU found that they are not relevant and no one else.

Dear "Vassko", I looked into your history and noticed only 18 recent edits of Irina Bokova page since December 24th (Special:Contributions/Vassko); if you have other edits, please, let us know where they are, so we can get to know better your editor's skills. But to say that only because you have chosen a nickname, that makes you not anonymous, is a little bit overstatement, no? As to the fact that you are the one, who added the references to the news sources, it's true; however you might have missed that there was a source request since October for the only other referred news piece, and the normal thing would have been to delete it, not to expand it with more information. I noticed this inconsistency in the article due to the fact that you started adding non-relevant references to outside media. So, I am thankful for your contribution, which definitely helped make the article better — and better doesn't necessarily mean longer. If any of the news stories you have provided gives new information about Mrs. Bokova's work, then you could include the relevant part in one of the existing sections, and add the source. However, looking through these articles, I don't see anything new, which is not already covered in the article.

(P.S. If you know what COI is, then you wouldn't have used it, as you know it's not me, who should prove I don't have a COI, but you, since you are the one, who used the tag.) Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Veni, quick question? Are you still part of the Bulgarian General Assembly for the UN? as stated here? http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/718/15/PDF/N1471815.pdf?OpenElement If so, you do have COI issue just based on this, who knows what else. I will prove it, it may take me some time, but I have my connections and my sources too. Yes, I have tried to make some changes to the page about Bokova and no, I am not an expert, but every time myself or others try to add any info that is showing a different side of Bokova or different info about her, you and a few other anonymous users delete it with lame remarks. The news articles that you removed are very relevant and is not up to you or me to decide if they are or not. You have 17 edits on her page too, mine are minor - Minister, vs. acting... etc. This has opened my eyes about who you are and who you support. What are you going to get out of this? This is now recorded and time will show, but please don't think we are idiots.

Oops, Veni, you have made a few more edits than 17. Sorry, I misspoke (Special:Contributions/Вени Марковски)

The above edits are done by User:Vassko. Please, note that this page is for talks on the main article, and not for discussions between users, if you want to say something, you can use my own page User_talk:Вени_Марковски. Thank you for your understanding. Also, it's appropriate to sign your edits - there's a special field below the box you use to edit. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Funny how reverse psychology works, now I have what I needed for my research..vassko (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that has been going rather long enough. Threatening other users by mentioning that "you have connections" is not ok. Shaming fellow editors, even indirectly, over social media is also not ok. Hard-line right-wing sources such as The American are simply not reliable. I do not know what personal issue you might have with Irina Bokova, but articles as this one fall within certain guidelines. If you do not wish to respect those guidelines and your fellow contributors, please, do not bother to edit here. Thank you.--Laveol ^T 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And further warnings. sockpuppets are not appreciated. Editing while logged out in order to continue the edit-war you started is not ok and might lead to a permanent block. --Laveol ^T 15:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made couple of suggestions on his page, but it seems the young gentleman is too busy editing the article, and has not looked into the way Wikipedia is being edited. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take words out of content here. "Threatening other users..." is BS, and you know it. An editor like Veni should know that he can't make statements about Bokova (https://www.facebook.com/VeniMarkovskiPublic/posts/1018564914833878:0) and her family on social media and later edit out all other references that indicate a very different information about her and her past.

He edited again in her page the (ad intern) out and left it as if she was a Minister... (minor edit, right), ok Acting is still there. He took references to her Political party BSP in the header, maybe he knows better if he is a personal friend or also a BPS party member, I don't know, but this again asks the question why this is edited out. Just because you don't find the coverage of the new American (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_American) to be reliable, that does not mean that this is not a good coverage of politics and news from US perspective.vassko (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Vassko, let me kindly remind you that this here is the talk page for Mrs. Bokova, and not a discussion forum, where you can expect comments on your Ad hominem attacks against another editor. But of course the relevant content is no problem to be addressed: in the article it says under her photo that she was acting minister, including the dates (thanks for finding the exact dates, btw). You may have not realized that you have not edited the right way this part of the infobox, therefore it was in red color; but now it's correct - you can dig in the history and find out who made the right correction, if you are interested. As for her alleged membership in the Bulgarian Socialist Party, a claim that as far as I can see you have introduced on December 28, that is of course a Loaded question, and it is not the other editors, who should prove she is not a member, but you, who should prove she is. Since you are the one claiming something about her, then you should make the effort to find the evidence to support your claim. But, please, keep in mind it may be a very difficult task: as a Bulgarian career diplomat and an ambassador, she has been subject to the Law for diplomatic service, which says that no Bulgarian diplomat can be a member of any political party. Many editors have spent many hours to try to make this article follow certain guidelines, and before editing it, perhaps you should use the sandbox. I left on your page some instructions how you could do that. Thank you. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Minister Job title

TO ALL EDITORS, Some of you keep changing her Minister title. The job title of Minister needs to be edited and ad intern needs to be added. This is how she has updated her UNESCO profile after the recent inquiries about her work history. (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/director-general/biography/) which shows - (a.i.). On top, the wikipedia page dedicated to real Bulgarian Ministers does not even lists her as one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Bulgaria)). My brother's great grandfather Atanas Burov was a real Minister...vassko (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. As you can see in the text of the article, it clearly states Ms Bokova worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, starting in 1977 as a third secretary and eventually becoming acting minister (Ad interim) between November 13, 1996 – February 13, 1997. In the infobox we are using the acting, rather than ad interim, following the general understanding, commonly seen at Wikipedia for governmental officials (e.g. see Acting Prime Minister, Acting governor, etc. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is Bokova not listed as a Minister at all on the official Web Site of the Bulgarian government (Министерство на външните работи) - МИНИСТРИ НА ВЪНШНИТЕ РАБОТИ НА БЪЛГАРИЯ (http://www.mfa.bg/bg/pages/250/index.html)? This needs to be addressed and in the meantime, her job title may need to be updated/chaged...

This is also published here" "Ms. Irina Bokova has not been voted for minister of foreign affairs by the Bulgarian parliament, as stipulated by the Constitution. From a legal point of view Ms Irina Bokova has been 'acting minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria' and she should not be entitled otherwise", says the statement of the Foreign Ministry in Sofia. The official list by the Foreign Ministry does not name Bokova as an office holder." http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article150296745/Frontrunner-for-top-UN-job-exaggerates-biography.html vassko (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuous interest in Mrs. Bokova. Perhaps you haven't read the explanation above. The current version of the main article clearly states that she was not minister, but an acting one. I've put the necessary references, and explain it again out of courtesy, although for the normal English speaker if you say acting, it's clear what it means. Just in case, if you have not read the Wikipedia article about acting, here it is: The term "acting" is often used in one of these senses to refer to a temporary occupant of an office in government. An "acting" official holds office to ensure both the stability and continuity of his department will continue despite the absence of a formal leader. What you are referencing, with quotes from Die Welt is already mentioned in the article, with the right attribution. Regards, Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC).

Opinions vs facts

There are several controversial statements, which would be better discussed and edited here, before moved back to the main article (if at all moved back). They were at the end of the UN Secretary-General candidacy section, and they are all coming from the same source - an online site. If returned, they should also be properly situated in the adequate sections (e.g. issues, related to her UNESCO work, should be in the section of UNESCO, not UN).

The last statement - the quoted site assumes that there is campaign, but without actual evidence - just allusions. Here's one example, which is quite easy to find in the Bulgarian media: the answer about the financing of the campaign is clear, and is well documented. See 24 hours daily,, or the official answer of the Bulgarian foreign minister in the Parliament in 2015 for example. All below quoted statements are published by the same site, and there are attempts to present the opinions as facts, which is against NOPV. Furthermore, since the official nomination of Mrs. Bokova was done in February 2016, it is obvious that a campaign for the election could not have started until then. That also explains why the money, allocated from the Bulgarian government, are being reported in this year's budget. There's a difference when a government announces a certain candidacy, as part of their internal or foreign policy, and the actual time, when the UN is accepting nominations. The quoted article does not provide any facts, but presents opinions as facts.

On the other controversial statement, quoted below, the source is from the OCCRP site, which is a site, dedicated to organized crime and corruption reporting (which has nothing to do with the raised question, of course), the article is published under a headline Bulgarian UN Official’s $ 3 Million Property Questioned, while the original article, published by the same site as in the other two cases, is published under a headline Bulgarian UNESCO Chief and Her Family Own Manhattan Property Worth More Than USD 3 Million. There's a clear difference between reporting about real estate property (even if it is not quite correctly reported), and saying that the property is being questioned. A quick look over the original article shows that while it talks about her family (Mrs. Bokova and her husband), it is also talking about her adult son, who is married and with kids, which does not qualify him as her family. This is a judgemental language, and the reference is probably deliberately to a site, which sounds more serious than the Bulgarian original. Furthermore, even the OCCRP article admits "It is not clear if the family had other income sources", and yet, without any facts and further research, both sites make allusions that there is something suspicious. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

At the same time, an investigative news outlet has questioned how Bokova, on her official salary, has been able to afford a $3m property in New York. Investigative news outlets have also questioned Bokova's integrity over the appointment of subordinates.

There is some evidence to suggest that Bokova's candidacy is promoted by a PR Agency, APCO_Worldwide in a coordinated campaign that places articles (including some of those quoted above) in various news outlets around the world. It is not clear who pays for the campaign at this point.

Veni Markovski I made those additions. The entire previous passage is highly problematic, and only includes highly flattering pieces. So why not take out the self-promotion? If you are of the opinion that there are better sources that highlight some publicly voiced concerns about Bokova, you could add nuance, or update the references. Right now, the article is not NPOV, it is like an item written by a PR agency. So if there are published doubts about her integrity, this is notable, and readers can then make up their own minds. In that regard, thanks for disclosing who you are. It says on your site that you do PR work, and have worked with Permanent Missions at the UN (and many other great things, of course), and also have been on panels with Bokova. That of course can happen, and it's also OK that you describe her appointment (on your blog) as "great news for my country" but you repeatedly added items that other users have flagged as "self-promotion", and removed aspects that are critical. So the section on questions raised by investigative outlets (only underlined by what is happening here right now) should go back in, by NPOV standards. Also, can we be clear that there is no COI here? Hundnase (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions.

If you want to discuss me, please, use my talk page, this here is the talk page for Irina Bokova.

As for your opinion that this passage is problematic, I am not sure what you mean, and that's a good place to discuss it. But please, try to avoid Ad hominem attacks, and concentrate on the texts you added. I just pointed out that all of the quoted information comes from one source, and is not based on evidence, or the facts quoted have been misinterpreted. If there's evidence, please, add it here, and then we can find the right place to put them in the main article. And, by the way, the editors of this page have done that in the past - for example with the far more delicate issues like her campaign in 2009, or the protests from Arab countries on the Israel exhibition, or the Japanese publication (see the relevant parts in the section on UNESCO). Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Veni Markovski, okay, fairness of tone appreciated.

The original OCCRP article mentions specific numbers and figures, about transactions, and in turn presents various links to sources. So it is well resourced. OCCRP is a respected outlet.

The same is the case for the Bivo article on APCO International, which indeed highlights plausible links that readers themselves can follow up. I would suggest we insert before "The Bulgarian state has allocated approximately $60.000 to Bokova's campaign for Secretary General." Then the sentence on APCO. If you want to add further nuance, sure, go ahead. Anything that's NPOV is fine with me.

Just adding pieces that show how great Bokova with highly flattering comments is not NPOV, I think we can agree on that. I would appreciate a sensible resolution on this, so that we can move on. Hundnase (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the change of tone.

Let's review the so called "articles", so that we are clear whether they can be used as source or not.

The original OCCRP article, as you name it, is a copy of an article from the same site that is quoted in the two other paragraphs. See here. The problems are several. First, is this a relevant information? There's no requirement for the UNESCO Secretary-General to publish such information. This is private information. I don't see such information for heads of other UN agencies. I don't see how the property that Mrs. Bokova or her son own is relevant to the article about her. I may be wrong, of course, and you can prove me wrong if you can point to other heads of UN agencies and their real-estate declarations, including the ones of their children. The title in the OCCRP assumes there's something wrong, but there's no evidence in the article, that supports the claims of the site. I don't call it a news site, and have put "articles" in quotes, as there are certain requirements for objective journalism, which are not being followed in that article.

The other articles, claiming that they "prove" some connection between publications and a PR agency - I doubt you are seriously considering this as a prove, "The fact that one of the authors, who writes actively in favor of Bokova in a blog in the Financial Times, was an official associate of APCO Worldwide, at least until 2012, is a confirmation of the above." Hardly even an objective reader, and certainly not a Wikipedia editor would seriously believe that someone, who has been a consultant (and not an associate as the site claims), and in 2007 - that's the date of the web archive they have included, is somehow related or connected to his previous client from 4 or 9 years ago? Now, if there's an official response from UNESCO or the Bulgarian government, confirming the allegations from the "article", that would be a different issue. But even the site admits that UNESCO informed them In response to a stipulating question, the Head of the UNESCO Press Office, George Papagiannis, stated the following: “Dear Sir, We have no record of any contractual engagement between UNESCO and the two entities you mention in this email.

And last, no Wikipedia editor would find something wrong in publishing relevant and based on facts information. But if it is not relevant, or is not based on facts, then there's an issue. I, for one, try to give the benefit of the doubt, and move information (which doesn't seem to be based on facts, but on opinions) from the main article in the talk page, because I want to hear what the others have to say. We have done it with other items — you can see some examples above — and it works. It is always better to clarify information here, and then move it to the main article. For example, your suggestion about the Bulgarian government report on the financials allocated for the campaign, seems reasonable, but I would question why have this information only about Bokova, and not the other candidates.

The above comments are by Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

First, again, change of tone appreciated. But let's agree, please, that readers can make up their own minds, but should have access to sources that easily allow them to follow up. Let's please also agree as a starting point that this media section cannot be considered NPOV if only pieces promoting Bokova are included.

Asset declarations: yes, this is relevant information. Many UN officials declare their assets, voluntarily. Irina Bokova has decided not to do so. That is her right, but it is also worth pointing this out. It is especially worth pointing this out for a candidate for UN SecGen, and making that information accessible. Most sensible editors will absolutely agree that questions about undeclared wealth are relevant to any public official. This source makes no allegation, but traces and combines documents that are publicly available, allowing readers to verify information for themselves. This is relevant by pretty much any standard -- unless you think that information of this kind about public officials should be suppressed. I would really find that troubling, as an approach.

Using the argument you deployed ("is this information there for all other candidates?"), you could never get any information on asset declarations in on anyone, because -- not having it for every single other candidate in the beginning, it would be edited out. Those that are keen to promote Bokova's candidacy, by contrast, should/could react to this by checking asset declarations for others, which is a much more constructive and plausible approach.

OCCRP is a trusted third-party source, with added checking and review, and thus it's right to precisely credit them.

On the APCO article. The article draws several connections that are entirely plausible to many readers. If they don't convince you, that is OK -- but at least give readers the opportunity to examine. APCO has been given an opportunity to deny, and has not done so. There are plenty of facts in that article. There are, by contrast, fairly few facts in the articles that describe what a wonderful UN SecGen candidate Bokova will be. These are opinion pieces promoting a candidate. So by that standard, please take them out as well.

So: undeclared assets are relevant. PR campaigns are relevant, as long as we have a media section. If we remove all the opinion pieces praising Bokova -- you previously I think described this removal as vandalism -- then we can take the APCO piece out. Otherwise it should stay precisely for NPOV.

Below the piece, with more nuance (assets are family; highlighting "declared official salary"), amending the sentence on appointment and adding another reference detailing issues with that appointment (which contains both praise of Bokova and some criticism), plus adding nuance on PR. I suggest that I'll move this version, with its enhancements, back in over the weekend. If you want to add more nuance in the meantime, go ahead.

At the same time, an investigative news outlet has questioned how Bokova's family, on their declared official salary, have been able to afford a $3m property in New York. Media outlets have also highlighted questions about Bokova's judgement in appointing some subordinates.

One investigative outlet suggests that Bokova's candidacy currently is promoted by a PR Agency, APCO_Worldwide in a coordinated campaign that places articles (allegedly including some of those quoted above) in various news outlets around the world. In December 2015, the Bulgarian government had stated that it allocated approximately $60.000 to Bokova's campaign for Secretary General, without yet indicating how these funds would be spent.

Whether I agree with you on the need for more transparency or not is not the issue; what matters for Wikipedia is if the information about her investments is a) required by law, b) relevant to the article, c) provided by a reliable source. Neither of these three exist in the quoted site. We are just editors, so we cannot start editing a story, published in a website, by an anonymous writer (the "article" is not signed, it's published by admin).

However, based on information I see in the article, it is very likely that the site is not reliable. It is further visible by the fact that the same article is published by OCCRP, which is already changing the headline, so that to claim the purchase is questionable. I am sure that as a long-time editor of Wikipedia you understand how non-reliable sources may become reliable with a few clicks.

As a normally thinking person, I don't see an issue or a problem for two people with total of about 80 years of work, including in high-paid positions, to buy one or two small apartments in New York.

However, as a former journalist, I cannot not notice that the "article" takes a look only at the income only in the last few years of their jobs, and admits that the salaries of the couple would have been enough to buy the real estate, but the nonobjective way in which it is written, and the allusions the anonymous writer(s) make(s), would hardly qualify it as a reliable source for the Wikipedia article. I can give you one simple example (again, this is not our job - to edit the articles of an anonymous writer), which would provide further evidence (besides the fact where it is published) why the article is not reliable source, as Wikipedia defines it. The writer(r) say(s), "In 2012, Irina Bokova sold two properties in Bulgaria for a total of 633,000 levs ($380,000)". Simple calculation will show you that the rate they use is not the one in 2012 (check here for data from 2012), but the one in... 2016. There's a big difference, and just in this case is is about $ 55,000 - in other words, the two properties in Bulgaria were worth not $ 380,000, as the article claims, but $ 435,000. When there are such errors on data that's easy to check, we as editors in Wikipedia, have no right to use such sources. Actually, we have a duty not to use them. I'd point your attention also to the article about reliable sources for more information. Kind regards, Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

nice work, on that small technicality. I still disagree with you. Any normally thinking person can judge for herself, and does not need you to suppress that article. Also, one oversight does not disqualify the overall item, about a large purchase that people may want to know about. She is a person of public interest, OCCRP is considered a reliable source, and their article indeed is better than the item from which they quote. Veni, I like all your other work that I have seen so far as I could see it, but I will call a COI on this, and put this on your talk page and add tags here as well.

You have a systemic pattern of doing the following, as has also been noted by other editors:

- you place wildly positive items on Bokova, that promote her, and flatter her, and have little evidence and fact.

- you suppress any statement that puts her in a less favorable light;

- you systematically grind down reasonable editors and thus sideline items including the article in the Welt and others, that allow readers to see another perspective onto Bokova.

I specifically offered a reasonable and conciliatory approach, and instead of working on the text to come to a good resolution, adding nuance, you take an absolutist line of trying to suppress information on her. I hope you realize that you do a huge disservice to her, and that this makes her look shady. In this context, it is NOT ad hominem to note that you wrote a wildly glowing piece on Facebook about her, urging everyone to support Bokova, attacking people that were critical, and wondering why one had not managed to eradicate it. It is perfectly OK for you to support her candidacy. But Wikipedia is absolutely NOT the place where you should do so. Hundnase (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

On my phone now, so no time to answer with details, but there is no CoI whatsoever. I've explained more on my own talk page. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page is about the article of Irina Bokova; I would be more than happy to continue the conversation about any potential CoI on my talk page. You have started it there, so we can continue it there. In the meantime, I just want to make one thing about the article clearer: You say above, "nice work, on that small technicality. I still disagree with you." This wasn't meant to be any kind of work, it's just a simple example that the quoted source is unreliable, if they can't figure out that in 2012 the USD was in a different rate to the BGN. As for your disagreement with me, that's of course normal, as we are here not to agree or not with each other, but to figure out what information is relevant, and what is not. You say, "OCCRP is considered a reliable source, and their article indeed is better than the item from which they quote." Their article is based on a source, which is not reliable; the fact that they publish it doesn't make the original more reliable, or the edit more factual; in fact if we look at the headlines alone, the OCCRP is even more misleading. I'd agree that an edit of the issues, raised in this non-reliable source, that may do the job for the article would be a sentence that provides just the factual information about her real estate properties in Manhattan, without the obviously mistaken data and quotes about the purchase being questionable. As for the PR agency, that's another allegation, which is based not on fact, but on opinions (I saw that person A worked for company B seven years ago, therefore he must be related to company B today). If you find some facts about the alleged relations, then of course, we can work on them, so that they can be included. Hope that is helpful. However, let's stay focused - on this page we discuss the facts that should be (or shouldn't be) in the article. On my talk page we discuss myself. On yours - we discuss you. This is the normal way, this is what we do in Wikipedia. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting that exactly today there will be an article, from a decent web site, which explains the errors in the so-called news outlet. Euractive has published an article, headline Bokova’s personal fortune, accusations and facts, which gives answer not only to the allegations, but is written as a true journalistic piece should be - without mixing opinions with facts, without naming UNESCO and EBRD sinecure organizations (this is how they were named in the piece in bivol), and last, but not least - an article, which is signed by a real journalist. Let me address the issue one may raise, "But let's put then both sources in the article, and the reader will figure it out". As editors, we simply cannot use anonymous accusations, from a non-reliable source, in the main article. This is simply against the basic principles of Wikipedia. We already have done more than enough, by discussing here, in the talk page, the problems with using such sources, so "the readers will figure it out". I don't see how an editor, with some experience, would agree on having an anonymous opinion used in the main article. I could understand it, if the editor is biased, or is new, but the fact that I could understand it, doesn't mean it will be allowed by the other editors, with more experience. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV on Nomination, Candidacy & Endorsements

To move beyond the debate above, we need to separate information on the Bulgarian nomination and candidacy from endorsements. (Note that some of these endorsements still need cleaning up, and look clumsy. So if you are a particular fan of her candidacy, you may want to edit those to appear professional.) I have added a section on endorsements, and it is of course reasonable that these are mentioned. But they should be flagged as such, otherwise this is one-sided promotion and not NPOV. To the extent that credible sources highlight concerns and criticisms, these should also be included, for NPOV. I think this is a sensible and balanced approach, following established practice. Hundnase (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Good catch - thanks for positive contribution. It is always nice to see new people contributing in such a way. Hope you will do similar changes to the other candidates' articles. I will try to do some of them, too. They all have to be given equal coverage. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Never been Minister of Foreign Affairs

Just for your information: she has never been Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria, just worked in the office. Cruks (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

See here. Cruks (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Cruks, Bokova has been acting foreign minister; that's why changed it back on July 18. I just saw that someone changed it back again. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

She was ad interim. That is the correct word. Cruks (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Right. The same meaning. I will fix it, as right now I see it's wrong again... Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved parts from the main article

Just saw that someone has published the following text, quotes below, in the first paragraph of the main article:

She has recently come under criticism for her communist past and questions on corruption raised by Bivol.

I'm moving it here, so that we can decide if a) this information is relevant for the article, b) should be in this paragraph, c) if it is allowed, what should it look like, so that it is neutral, d) how can the internal conflicting issues of the quoted source be solved, e) the sentence quotes Bivol, which is being already discussed above, etc. I have my own remarks, but it is better to hear the anonymous contributor first. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

<references>

Like Resume tag

The main problem with this page is the bullet list sections that could be written as prose. The awards section is also absurdly long and needs some sort of trim. As evidence by the discussions above, this article seem to have been very controversial when Bokova was running to become Secretary-General of the United Nations in 2016. Any user wishing to clean up this article should probably take a look at the concerns outlined above and correct any non-neutral POV text now that the controversy has been diffused. Mottezen (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)