This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attack (political party) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I want to ask the person who last edited the article-why did you erase the fact that Attack is not a fascist movement?-Spartan,Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Here are some major differences between Attack's ideology and fascism:
1. Attack is openly supporting the Direct Democracy (more referendums; people's opinion to affect some political decisions) like in Switzerland. Is Switzerland a fascist country?! - No! Fascism comes with a totalitarian system and dictatorship.
2. One of Attack's main ideas is to help and support the integration of the Gipsy and Turkish minorities. While fascist regimes are repressing the minorities!
3. Attack is audibly against imperialism! While the main ideology of a fascist state is imperialism!
So please stop accusing Attack in fascism, because it is totally incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:71BA:5D17:9185:6DA (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This section of the talk page is called 'on fascism allegations'. That is why I am proving that these allegations are ridiculous. Attack demonstrably espouses nationalism that spreads unity between the ethnic Bulgarians and the minorities, especially the Gipsy minority. The cited foreign sources are obviously prejudiced, unacquainted and unfamiliar with the real views, intentions and actions of Attack. Or those foreign sources (just like many local ones) are getting paid to dub Attack as an anti-Roma, anti-Semitic or xenophobic party. So, if one wants to be really informed about Attack's views, intentions and actions, they should get this information by listening or reading what Attack's representatives are stating. For example the first principle of Attack clearly states the ethnic unity that the party proclaims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:71BA:5D17:9185:6DA (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Gathering true information is best achieved by sticking to the facts. The facts are the actions of the subject. And these facts can be extracted simply by listening what the subject is saying and watching what the subject is doing. To disregard those actions, in favor of what the so called 'reliable third-party sources' are saying, is just the way to mislead and disorient the readers - and this is not how Wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:71BA:5D17:9185:6DA (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
— This is not a forum for you to spout ideology.
The sentence "Another question which remains open to debate is whether Attack is a right-wing or left-wing party" is a bit paradoxical. How can you seriously assume that a party who wants an official religion and a participation of the main (national) church to legislative work, who is antisemitic and xenophobic could be considered as a "left-wing" party? Such a sentence would be in a polemical text against the left at the right place, but not in a factual article. Hubert, France/Germany - hubertgui@yahoo.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.249.163 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The nationalist parties are typically aligned with the right-wing spectrum. Also, according to the deputy chairman of Attack, Prof. Stanislav Stanilov, the party's ideology is 'Radical conservatism', which is also part of the right-wing spectrum. However indeed Attack proclaims some center-left to left-wing economical ideas, such as: re-nationalization of some previously state-owned companies, which were subsequently privatized; state management of the macroeconomics and regulation of the market economy. The program scheme of the party states: 'Outlining a clear model of social capitalism, the ratio of public to private ownership'. In addition Attack's leader Volen Siderov has stated many times that 'Attack is neither left, nor right'. So we can clearly conclude that Attack has a flexible ideology, combining both right-wing and left-wing policies, hence the party can be placed on the center of the political spectrum.
In a January Economist Article, Ataka was called Ultra-Radical Right. In addition, Ataka is a member of a far right euro party. The party is Far Right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.87.110 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
ATAKA IS AGAINST TURKEY EU MEMBERSHIP!!!!--212.25.63.183 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Mars
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)
Attack are heroes of Bulgaria, and have recieved a poor article when compared to the great work they do everyday to preserve the Bulgarian people from Turks and Gypsies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.91.252 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have very little knowledge of the subject, but it seems to me that this article is very biased toward Ataka.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
These sources are on the highest quality level in terms of WP:reliable sources. Some editors like to label sources like these as Wikipedia's "gold standard". --RJFF (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
All these claims are saying that the policy of the party and its leader and members are nothing and that all they claims for the party they constructed is a lie and in fact the truth is the totally opposite of the policy of the party and is just what are the opinions from authors with unknown aim andcsource of salary, possibly bought and corrupted. These claims must require you to prove with facts that all from the party are total liars and make exactly the opposite of what they claim. Because I can prove that there are Roma members and supporters of the so called anti-Roma party in Bulgaria, this is the first, the second are the statements that require you to prove this. It can't be possible to claim something and to do the totally opposite and simply how can the party be anti-Roma when Roma people are supporters of it? The party's opinion always should be shown and can't be replaced just like that because of some opinions. The party's opinion is most reliable as far as there are not acedemic sources, for which is proven that are not corrupted. Such academic sources are the most reliable but it is impossible to know who is corrupted, so the party's policy remains respected and these opinions doubthful. First because, these reserchers may be professors of respected universities but their "boss" and agenda is unknown to us, because there are many well paid lying serial propagandizators in the politics and you can't deny this. Come on, there is nothing pure, fair, sure and clear in this world. Having in mind that we can show both the party policy and the opinion of the researchers because and it is not known wether they are real researchers or paid agents, we can put this in to another controversial paragraph because these claims are at least visible bias against the party. There is no adequate reason for deleting Siderov's declared views and remaining only other opinions which can be paid propaganda! Their source and aim are unknown and their claims are visible bias and propaganda, opposite to the truth and the views of the party. If you think otherwise that only the opinions of the researchers should be shown please do the following: prove that the party acts totally opposite of its policy as per the researchers views and prove that these researchwrs are totally clear and are not corrupted paid persons. Because it is not normally for some opinions to replace the party's declared views and if these opinions are going to replace it you must prove that the source of these opinions is not corrupted, which I am almost sure that would be impossible. I know that academic sources are more important and if you prove that they have no interests in this, they are honest and are not corrupted I would agree to exclude the party's views. But so far there such sources are not described and so far the party's views remain inportant as they don't have reliable opponents with opposite claims. So if you understand what I want to say, any opinion of anybody would not be reliable as far as they are not surely truthful and not corrupted. The opinions for which you insist are unknownly true or not and are therefore doubtful and unreliable, I personally think that are slanders. The leader's claims, true or not, are not opinions and must be at least included in the article and you can not claim that they are not reliable as far as you don't have more reliable claims.
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)
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).
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).
With regard to your revision of Attack (political party) you have unsufficient grounds to prove this party far-right. I wonder where do you come from and what expertise do you have in political sciences and Bulgarian political life? I recommend that you better assess Attack´s political behavior rather than what is said and declared by them. A party calling for nationalization and entering under-table coalition with a minority party cannot be called far-right and there is not such an example in the political life of Europe nor in the world. If "Attack itself claims not to fit on the left-right scale" you should at least remove the "far right" behind ultra-nationalist and leave it as a point of discussion. I understand that there is a number of violations against the page but you cannot put reasonable comments and ammendments on side because of this. Many serios observeres in Bulgaria strongly disagree with what is Wikipedia saying about this article. BR, silversvile, 26 June 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.101.208.205 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)