Talk:Attack (political party)

On fascism allegations
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)


 * To all non-English who edit this page:
 * Please, correct your spelling! The quotation marks in English are ' and not "!!! And the words are not 'betrial' and 'holly' but 'betrayal' and 'holy'!!!Are you illiterate or what????-Spartan,Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, acknowledge the fact that people make mistakes when we write in the English language. The Ataka movement is indeed closely tied to fascism in its beliefs and understanding of political philosophy. I know that being a fascist is a very sad thing for any modern person, but unfortunately Ataka is such. --Cryout 05:03, 22 February 2006 (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)


 * There is not a single mention of 'fascism' in this article. So, I don't knwo what you mean. However, I cannot agree with what you write about minorities. Attack demonstrably espouses Bulgarian ethnic nationalism and spreads hate speech against the country's minorities, especially against Roma, as the cited sources show. --RJFF (talk) 20:41, 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)


 * This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, this means third-party sources by non-partisan observers, scholars and analysts. It is unacceptable to base an article on what an article's subject or its supporters say. Sources cannot be blanket rejected simply for the reason of being "foreign". Your claims that the authors of the cited sources get paid to advocate a certain view are a severe imputation and unfounded. --RJFF (talk) 22:31, 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)


 * Please consider making yourself familiar with Core content policies, especially Verifiability. It will be much easier to discuss and find a compromise with you when you know and accept these basic principles. --RJFF (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also familiarize yourself with WP:NOR:


 * "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described here." -- Excerpted from WP:NOR relating to WP:V.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and seeks a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV); a subject's commentary on itself is not made from a neutral point of view, and so can not be accepted by wikipedia, regardless of its factuality (circle back to WP:V and WP:NOR.) --4idaho (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

General comments
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)
 * 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)

or, boy, where do I start?!
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.

right-wing or left-wing; ideologies
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)
 * I was just cruising and ended up here, but this left-wing/right-wing classification in Europe is indeed begining to be a bit ambiguous. The "problem" is that in economical terms several "right-wing" parties have traditionaly "left-wing" policies (this isn't absolutely new though, fascism and NS began that way). More to the point Communist parties in several countries have began to swift to highly nationalistic - bordering on racism sometimes - stances (see the Russian Communist Party). --Bellum sine bello 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the party's "plan" you will see that economically is very leftist. The problem is that one dimension "left-right" is generally not enough. Ataka would be at the bottom of the Nolan chart, not supporting neither social (akin to far right) nor economical (akin to fa left) freedom.95.111.98.230 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2013 (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.


 * Uh, are you sure that you're familiar with the political spectrum?


 * ... [centrists oppose] political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right. -- Wikipedia article on Centrism


 * What you're describing sounds like Third Position ideology, and would be a fascist or syncretic ideology, not centrist. Regardless, this is all irrelevant until you accept wikipedia's guidelines, outlined above. Please familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCES, and WP:NOR, all of which your proposed edits are in violation of. Please appreciate that wikipedia is not a blog, and that regardless of how correct you believe yourself to be, wikipedia may not be the appropriate platform. --4idaho (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Attack's proposed political changes would not and could not result in a significant shift of society neither strongly to the left, nor to the right. But if you prefer to put things that way, this means that Attack is completely out of the political spectrum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:E934:18F8:3F68:2DFA (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If only you were listening; individual editors opinions are not a valid basis for edits (WP:NOR), wikipedia is a collection of verifiable statements (WP:V, WP:SOURCES). Please find reliable third party sources (the criteria is outlined here) to support your edit. The content you wish to remove has been properly sourced by wiki standards; your edit has not. You will not be able to change this article until you learn to do so in a way that is compliant with wikipedia policy (WP:CCPOL.) --4idaho (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Name
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

The side of the Bulgarian people
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 title
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)

NPOV Tag
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)

Recent edit war
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)

Recent deletions
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)
 * In the absence of any explanation, I've reverted removal of ref'd content. RashersTierney (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Slanders aiming to describe the party xenophobic
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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) Snowded  TALK 05:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Lars Rensmann is a professor of political science at the University of Michigan; his book was published by Brill Publishers, a well-known and reputable publisher of high-quality academic works
 * Robert Bidelieux is an internationally reputed veteran political science researcher and longtime professor; same is true for Ian Jeffries; their book was published by Routledge, one of the most well-known publisher of academic books worldwide
 * Janusz Bugajski has since long been a established authority on East and Eastern Central European politics; book was published by Rowman & Littlefield, also one of the most prestigious and well-known academic publishers globally

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.


 * 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)


 * 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)

Attack is with changed political position in the parliament
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)


 * Dude. "Political position" has nothing to do with where in the parliament they physically sit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit — but this article needs to be shorter, more neutral, and updated
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 &#124; talk 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC).

Far-right or far-left
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 &#124; 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)

Title: Why Atack and not Ataka?
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 &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Flag is discolored & has white export pixels
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)