Talk:Attack (political party)

message: Anyway, Attack doesn't create ethnic conflicts by itself. DPSMTB (MFRMTB) does. C'mon, who would let in the Parliament a party that is called "Movement for Freedoms and Rights of the Muslims and Turks in Bulgaria"? Sure, I'd support DPS if they were some non-profit organization, but they're a full-fledged anti-national and anti-constitutional party that tries to take over the Bulgarian government and use it for some people's personal gain.- ^Fallenblood^, Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.145.225 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Political parties are always non-profit organisations by law in most countries (although a unique kind of organisation). If you have any info that the DPSMTB is involved in illegal activities, I suggest you take it to the police. BTW, I'm not a Bulgarian but as far as I can tell they're called Movement for Rights and Freedoms so you might want to read neutral sources rather then propaganda from Attack (personally I think National Union Attack is a much worse name then Movement for Rights and Freedoms). Also, you claim Attack doesn't create ethnic conflicts yet that are attacking an entire people for the actions of some of those people. If that isn't creating ethnic conflict I don't know what is. Anyway this is all OT since the talk page is for improvements to the article, not for discussion of the topic. Nil Einne 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: This is hardly an exemplary article of an encyclopaedia entry. Not only does it contain judgemental overtones, but it is also full of factological mistakes and half-truths. The author grants Rumen Vodenicharov a membership in the party Ataka, when in fact, he is part of the coalition Ataka and not of the party itself. This is, of course, a minor mistake, compared to the gross misinformation that the party includes "large group of generals". How large exactly - 5,10,20? Name at least three, please! No, at least one general, who is a member of the party Ataka.
Another misleading quallification is the characterization of the party as professing a "virulent anti-semitism". This is hardly a reality-based observation, because, even though Siderov may have written some books in the past, which could allow the undetached observer to label him as an "anti-semite", this is not endorsed by the party as a whole, nor by Siderov himself in his public appearances lately. He rarely mentions Jews at all (which doesn't necessarily mean that he has no anti-semitic views, but rather that keeps them to himself), let alone do so other representatives of the party. 
Anti-semitisim has no wide-spread support in Bulgaria and you can't draw a massive support from the electorate if  you run on such a platform. Yes, it's true that attitude towards other ethnic groups, namely Gipsies and Turks, is much more openly expressed by the party, its members and supporters, but it is often not based on a belief in racial supremacy - it's caused by a view (whether it is a justified one is a totally different question) that these two ethnic groups are the beneficiaries of double standards and privilliges, enjoyed solely on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds.
But to stop here would leave us with an incomplete and totally skewed picture of the essence of Ataka and the source of its support. Depicting Ataka as yet another right-wing anti-semitic and xenophobic party is very convinient as it fits the already available stereotype of the typical right-wing European party and, as this page is in English and it is to be read by speakers of the English language, who are unaware of the situation, it will portray Ataka to the average reader in an easily digestible, but factologically incorrect image that fits into the norm of a throw-the-first-stone radical extremist organisation. 
The most substantial misrepresentation of reality comes not from what is said in the article, but from what is omitted. The obfurscation of the social and economic stance of the party does no service  in the explanation of where it draws it support from. Such issues are ever more present in the party's talking. It directs most of its criticism to the establishment and the ruling elite, but you won't see it even mentioned in the article. In this sense it is a long shot to call it anti-democratic when it has insisted on referenda on a number of key issues of concern to the populace, while the current political elite has decided to play "deaf and dumb" on any dissenting opinions and to go for elitist solutions, thus increasing the resentment of the masses for being ignored in the decision-making process and increasing the rift between the electorate and its rulers. Not to mention the widespread corruption and power-abuse practices of the politicians from the establishment, who do not even think it's worth hiding it anymore (remember how Dogan openly  talked about his "circle of firms" on BTV). It's exactly democratic deficit that brought Ataka to the surface, it's what is going to keep it there, as long as many of the people consider it a real alternative to the political model that had prevailed until recently, when choice was, in fact, limited to choosing between "six and half-a-dosen". Instead Ataka looks as something entirely different. And, to conclude, Ataka was going to have much wider support exactly because of this, had it not been the fact that while there are many who agree that it does a good job in spotting the problems, it is not capable of providing the sollutions to them.
Slex 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  or, boy, where do I start?! 

message: I would just like to say that in my time in Bulgaria, I have always heard this party referred to as "Ataka."  Should some mention of that be made here?  I'm not sure of the accuracy on that, or the relevance, but someone else might have some thoughts...-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.156.38 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Let me be the one to tell all these undeducated ones that write about "Racist Attack." First of all, they are not in the middle of the problem at all. Let me just give you the bulgarian side of things. For more than a decade that Movement for Rights and Freedoms is always with the ruling coalition into Bulgaria. They make alliance with whoever has the power. Then, the movement uses that power to help the etnic Turks into my country with money and food. Not only that but the movement makes excursion around the time of national election for people to come to Bulgaria and vote and then go back to Turkey. There are around 430,000 native turks into my country and they decide the faith of a few millions. Also, the Turks have build jamias into every our town and slowly but surely are taking over the country. Half of the bulgarian ministers are turks. Bulgarian national monuments are destroyed and our history is re-writen to fit the propaganda coming from the movement. Bulgarian people born into the areas where these turks live are turning turks even though they are pure bulgarian borns. The National Movement Attack is here to protect the bulgarian nation and stop the slowly but surely convertion of Bulgaria into a Turkish province. Attack is for everything that is Bulgarian to be preserved. So, before defendind the turkish and go against the real victims into the story (which are the millions of Bulgarians) i STRONGLY and I mean STRONGLY SUGGEST getting the whole story first and then coming to your own conclusion. If anyone has any questions about my writing,e-mail me and I am more than happy to talk more about the subject. Thank you very much. Go Attack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasko2481 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The side of  the Bulgarian people 

message: The current title I think is wrong because was used until 2009. As far as I know Attack is currently a single party, not union. In the 2005 elections it particiapted with the name Coalition Attack (link]) consisting of 2 parties - Attack and National Movement for the Salvation of the Fatherland. Later the National Movement for the Salvation of the Fatherland left Attack and the two participated in the elections in 2009 alone, so the current title is expired. The name in its website and this of the parliament is political party. --Ceco31 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title 

message: I have decided to tag this article as needing a revamp, due to its clear neutrality issues throughout. I have already deleted some unsourced, blatantly POV material from the article, but it needs further work before it can read as an unbiased, objective piece of information concerning Attack.
76.18.150.34 (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: Content that references reliable sources should not simply be deleted, especially not without giving a valid explanation. If you have doubts about the cited sources being considered reliable for some reasons or being incorrectly rendered, please utter and explain your concerns here. It is important that no unsourced content is added and that the article keeps a neutral point of view, given that obviously this subject is quite controversial. Edit warring should be avoided. Instead, all users should feel invited to discuss dissensions here on the talk page. --RJFF (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: We've had a set of deletions which appear to try and assert that the party is only nationalist not right wing.  Those deletions have been made again ignoring WP:BRD by HomoByzantinus whose talk page indicates other warnings for this type of behaviour.  Can we please have an explanation of those deletions ideally with a self-revert while we sort this out.  ----Snowded TALK 11:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any explanation, I've reverted removal of ref'd content. RashersTierney (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: All statements of the party leader against racism were deleted from the article with the aim to define the party xenophobic. The statements of the party leader are contradicted by the slanders on first position in the intro, when the party clearly says that is against this. And now instead to show what the party claim on first prosition, on first position in the intro the article relies on a cheap propaganda of possibly corrupted sources, totally contradicting with what the party declares. Wikipedia only approves reliable statements and such minority views of unidentified authors and objects are definitely not for such a site and should be deleted immidiately! Yesterday Siderov declared: "I have always been against racism"?  --Ceco31 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The leader of the party is not a reliable source when speaking about himself or his party. He can claim not to be racist, and still, in the eyes of independent observers, the party utilizes racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-Roma rhetorics. That the leader denies this, does not mean that it is not true. The authors of the cited sources are reliable scholars, the books have been published by reputable publishing houses. If you think that the sources are misrepresented or presented in an unbalanced way, please let us discuss these issues in detail. But it is simply unacceptable that you claim they were "slanders", "cheap propaganda" or "possibly corrupted" without any substantiation. This is not an adequate basis for any serious and sober discussion. And I advise you not to revert the article again, until we have found consensus. You know that edit-warring is not accepted and leads to blocks. (You have only recently been unblocked, right?) --RJFF (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is same  for these scholars, that they claim that way, does not mean that is true. First how can you prove that they are independent observers? It is very likely that they are not indpendent. They are with unidentified agenda and are unclear persons and may be even corrupted, neither you or me and nobody knows. Unless they are independent, these observers are not reliable sources, this has so far not been proven, simply because their aim is unknown to us. I would doubt more in the words of unknown persons and less in the party leader, simply because he is making the party. Why these observers are more credible? And if they are even more credible, why the party's position should be deleted on that way and not even shown. These claims are opposite to the party's official ideology, which says that all Bulgarians regardless of origin, race, religion, etc. must be equal and that all they are welcome in the party. All anti-discriminatory statements of the memebrs have been removed without explonation. This is at least deserve to be mentioned and the party's point and official ideology should not be replaced with opinions of unknown authors not indpendent, because their claims are not credible. I think there are enough facts which make this a subject of controversy so I offer an intermediate option with creating a paragraph Controversy as in elsewhre in the articles.--Ceco31 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In wikipedia we do not make judgements about the quality of sources and we do not use primary sources other than for statements of fact.  So anything the leader says would have to be recorded as "The leader claims that ...." rather than a statement about the parties position.  This is all set out in WP:RS.  If you disagree with the policy then raise it on the discussion page of that policy, here we simply implement it.   That said I am open to a sentence of so which includes claims by the party if you want to draft them.----Snowded TALK 05:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I am not willing to go into conspiracy theories about corruption, sinister, hidden agendas or anything alike. Like Snowded has told you: sources like these are considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The party's own assertions (first-party accounts) do not qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If you don't like it, try and change it. But as long as these rules are in force, we will implement them in every article. Including this one. --RJFF (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely with Snowded and RJFF's comments above. In addition, the incluson of sourced content such as 'the party is considered ultranationalistic' is entirely acceptable, and indeed necessary for a neutral, balanced article. The assertion that such statements are libellous is mistaken, as we are not saying 'the party is ultranationalistic', we are merely reporting this is a view held by others. I'll happily work with other editors in adjusting the wording, and finding additional sources, however I disagree with deletion of this sourced content. PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanders aiming to describe the party xenophobic 

message: The party changed its position from the far rightest in the previous National Assembly to central place following the new elections in 2013. I have seen it on the TV, all memebers of Attack and Volen Siderov to seat on the central part of the hall, while the most far right position occupies GERB with the leader Boyko Borisov occupying the most far right seat in the hall. BTV published the exact current composition if the assembly seat by seat see it :here . The policy for reliable sources claims that outdated scholarly sources must be updated, moreover one of the sources claimng far-right: Maria Pencheva is not even scholarly source, it is without repotation and not a serious one. So as per the Wikipedia policyc the scholarly sources may be outdated, for example when there are new elections and the party changes its position in the parliament --Ceco31 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude. "Political position" has nothing to do with where in the parliament they physically sit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack is with changed political position in the parliament 

message: I've copyedited the first sections, mainly for un-English turns of phrase. I've also, very conservatively, removed some excess detail and repetitiousness, but the text really needs to be tightened and made more concise. We don't need every detail of the party's program spelled out at length. Shortening is not a job for me, as I'd probably give offense by removing things thought essential. People more knowledgeable about Bulgarian politics should do it. It's not an advantage for the article that it's diffuse and long-winded; readers won't have the patience for it. Furthermore, I removed some downright outrageous pro-Attack POV, but I'm not the right editor to go more deeply in making the article neutral either, since I'm the administrator who semiprotected it. P.S., we can't write about a January 2013 referendum as being in the future; the result of the referendum should be in the article. Meanwhile, I've "commented out" the bit about the referendum (this means that the text is still there in edit mode, but does not show up on the page). Bishonen | talk 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit — but this article needs to be shorter, more neutral, and updated

message: Silversvile needs to stop edit-warring to insert their own synthesis claim in the lead section that Attack is a "far-left" party, or, recently that there's some doubt whether they're on the left or the right. A brief look at Google shows that reliable sources routinely refer to Attack as "far-right". It's no surprise that Attack itself claims not to fit on the left-right scale, because all ultra-nationalist parties everywhere with a platform of populism and xenophopia talk about themselves like that. Everybody else calls them "far-right". Also we can't have the lead section blatantly contradicting the description of Attack's political platform further down in the article. I can't read the reference you provided, but perhaps some other editor of the article can tell us if it's a reliable source. You should make an effort to find a source in English that says it's a point of discussion. What I can see, though, is that it's from 2007. No matter what the text says says, it can hardly prove in 2013 that the left-right issue is still a point of discussion, which is what you claim. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Far-right or far-left

message: The name is Ataka, so why are we translating it in the title and article? Including a "(meaning attack)" would be sufficient and the correct way of doing it. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title: Why ''Atack'' and not ''Ataka''?  

message: I've never seen one of these flags in person so only from reference can I say that the colors are odd but what's clear is that the flag has the pixels you get from poorly exporting a PNG onto a image. Can somebody provide an input onto the flag design's colors before I waste my time removing white imperfections in the wrong color? Thank you. Hunderbee (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flag is discolored & has white export pixels