Talk:Movement for Rights and Freedoms

message: Perhaps the Title of the page should be expanded to express the specific meaning more clearly? Tfine80 00:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The modifications reverted are 
* the removal of 'far right' beforce 'Coalition Ataka': the qualification for Ataka to enter the same category as the Front National in France or Zhirinowski in Russia is not contested by all observers of Bulgarian politics
* the replacement of 'centrist' by 'islamic' and the addition of  for the liberal affiliation of the party
--Pylambert 07:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find in the party statutes that the name includes of the Muslims and Turks in Bulgaria. Please cite your sources for your statement. Electionworld 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not a dispute about the neutrality of the article, but an attempt by a far right nationalist to let people think the MRF is akin to Al-Qaeda. MRF takes part in Bulgarian governments, either led by center-rightists (2001-2005) or by a coalition of socialistes and center-rightists. Were we to believe the islamophobic and turcophobic nonsense of Xariegu, both main parties in Bulgaria, representing 56% of the electorate, are guilty to be 'Europeans who support moslem extremism', as they are just forming a government with the MRF. --Pylambert 09:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert of modifications by 84.43.140.129  

message: As the MRF is an object of many controversies and the risk of manipulations is very high, it would be advisable to sustain any further modification by indicating the sources, including the links. At least it will make it possible to check if they are reliable, and to bring any debate on a sound base. --Pylambert 19:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a lot of Bulgarian sources in English, either medias or reports from international organizations, so it's quite easy to check - and quote - from them. Apart from the sources question, there is clearly one that puzzles me: why in the hell are most information added into this article systematically depicting the MRF/DPS as a villain party ? Don't you all have nothing else to write about it, its programme, its history from the underground Turkish resistance movement under the communist dictatorship, the recent refusal of local authorities to accept an ethnic Turk's governorship in their district or city, as a result of the coalition agreement ? Why are there so many contributors only interested in turning a single article, or a series of articles on related subjects (e.g. Adana, Hatay, Armenian Genocide and Kurds) into radical partisan articles ? Here the editors are Bulgarian nationalists who just hate the party of their main ethnic minority, there it's Turkish nationalists who can't stand any mention of the Armenian Genocide in an article, elsewhere (about the Ausbausprache, read the discussion page) a Rumanian nationalist who can't stand the idea that Moldavian can be considered from a sociolinguistic point of view as a distinct language, and let's not forget the anti-MQM (see the History page) Pakistanis who insist on depicting that party and its leader as terrorists or Indian agents ? The purpose of all these people just seem to pollute wikipedia with their nationalistic dirt and to let naive and unknowing readers take the contents of modified articles as face value. As for Ahmed Dogan being a "protege of the ex-communists", you'd better try to look outside Bulgaria to understand something about the functioning of ethnic minority parties in multicultural societies. But no one has yet taken any interest in writing a decent section about that aspect in this article, even if there ARE scientific articles about it. --Pylambert 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, this is at least a more argumented modification of the article. Quite different from the nonsense of Xariegu. The article still needs to be broadened on factual aspects, not only on the controversial aspects. I'll also add the Zaednost pamphlet you saw on the French version. --Pylambert 12:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to support modifications by indicating the sources 

message: I have removed the introduction to the article and replaced it with a version from 17 June 2013.  It was sloppy, POV, and contained a sensational claim supported by a reference that was a dead link.  aliceinlampyland (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: "Dvizhenie za prava i svobodi" or "Dviženie za Prava i Svobodi" (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hak_ve_%C3%96zg%C3%BCrl%C3%BCkler_Hareketi)?
I am not sure which romanization of Cyrillic is correct: "Dviženie" or "Dvizhenie"?
Örümcekadam (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latinization 

message: Please, do not falsificate the used source Radical Right in Europe which consider the so called Turkish National Movement an "illegal terrorist group", not a "Turkish organization". This Islamist organization claims responsibility for a number of terrorist acts committed in the 1980s the way al-Qaeda and ISIS do; this source should not be removed unless somebody can provide sources proving the contrary. This organization is claimed to be the predecessor of the party by the official website of the party. Please check the source Radical Right in Europe and do not revert without an edit summary.--87.227.208.124 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source falsification 

message: The second paragraph of the introduction is based on a complete misunderstanding of the badly cited source, as well as a poor formulation in English. Not only does it not make any sense, but it does not meet even Wikipedia's standards for viable information. Basically, it's either a terrible misunderstanding or a biased, anti-Turkish intervention on the page. (174.94.119.153 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the party 

message: It seems very unusual for me to have a "controversy" section take up about half the article. Even articles about extremely controversial political profiles such as Trump don't have "controversy" sections that take up this much space, relatively speaking. While it's important to keep all relevant and important information on the party – regardless of whether it frames DPS in a good or a bad light – but I think the mere ratio here should make us ask ourselves if the article really can be called balanced or neutral at this point. I will consider restructuring it in the near future but would like to hear others' opinions first. Μαρκος Δ
 16:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: This article contains more information about Delyan Peevski, than Delyan Peevski. I'm going to boldly massively reduce the information about him on the page. I have no problem with the information being added back, but maybe try and condense it or move it to the main article.92.2.74.169 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Delyan Peevski]]