Talk:Movement for Rights and Freedoms

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

revert of modifications by 84.43.140.129
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)

Does anyone know the full name of the party? It's Движение за Права и Свободи на Мюсюлманите и Турците в България, which means Motion for Rights and Freedoms of the Muslims and Turks in Bulgaria. If you tell me that a party called this way isn't ethnic-based,I'll call you a corrupt liar.
 * 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)

Sources: "ТУРСКО НАЦИОНАЛНО ОСВОБОДИТЕЛНО ДВИЖЕНИЕ В БЪЛГАРИЯ"

Europeans who support moslem extremism are co-responsible for ethnic conflicts and refugees on the Balkans

--Xariegu 06:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As we have a dispute and until the issue is cleared it is reasonable to put the non-neutrality template. --Xariegu 07:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

need to support modifications by indicating the sources
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)

In order to avoid any manipulation, you should not compare Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria and Attack, the first being a conservative party opposed to the ex-communists and their longtime protege Ahmed Dogan(who is doing close to nothing for Turks, but quite a lot for himself and his mafia friends), the second being almost a neo nazi organization criminalizing every minority in Bulgaria (Gipsies, Turks, Armenians, Jews...) And I was just wondering how can a Belgian (who a priori cannot read any Bulgarian) check the reliability of any Bulgarian source???--a Bulgarian Turk in Paris84.97.241.161 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

I cannot say anything concerning Romania, Pakistan or other countries that I am unfamiliar with, but let me set the record straight concerning Bulgaria. I think that you, like many other Westerners, fail to understand what the DPS "question" is all about - it's not about Turks and Bulgarians, it's about money and power. Bulgaria has an extremely open minded and tolerant people, and my very existence as 1/2 Bulgarian and 1/2 Turk is to proove this. There is a great revolutionary that every Bulgarian knows about and cherishes - Vasil Levski. In his vision of free Bulgaria he saw all nationalities living together as equals, as Bulgarians and Turks and Jews and everyone was equally oppressed by the sultan of the Ottoman empire. Bulgarians have ever since respected his legacy (did you know that not a single Bulgarian Jew was sent to the death camps, despite Bulgaria being a military ally to the Third Reich?) with one exception - the communist regime forced ethnic Turks to rename themselves with Slavic names. So back to the DPS and Dogan - First: according to biographies that you can find on the web, he has been emprisoned in 85 or 86 and then released in 89. In reality he has only been emprisoned for 15 days in 86, and then released, according to some becoming an undercover agent (codename Sava) in Turkish resistance groups. There is of course no proof of this and as all secret service files have been closed by the NDSV/DPS government in 2001 one is left wondering... Second: there was no revolution in 89 in Bulgaria as there was in East Germany or elsewhere. The communists simply took the name of socialists and pseudo-democratic parties were created headed by pseudo-opponents of the regime. DPS was one of them. However another one - the SDS(or UDF) - quickly slipped out of control to become truly democratic and pro-European and even ruled more or less succesfully between 97 and 2001. Third: meanwhile the DPS was establishing its strongholds in regions like Kardzhali, gaining control of all local authorities (note that only mayors are elected, everyone else is appointed by the government) and of the tobacco business. The enormous majority of Turks in Bulgaria gain their living through growing tobacco - they became dependent of the DPS. You don't sell your tobacco to our people on our prices, you don't sell it to anyone; you don't register in the DPS, you will only get half-price for your tobacco; you don't show our man your ballot, you haven't voted for us; and if you haven't voted for us, you don't sell your tobacco... Note that there are about 70 000 ethnic Turks who live in Sofia - practically the only ones who don't grow tobacco - and they didn't vote for the DPS, and I didn't (less than 0,5% of the votes in Sofia). And note that the DPS opposed the EU and government backed BAT offer on Bulgartabak, officially because it would hurt producers (we are yet to hear how exactly), in fact because of the DPS control on the trade. Fourth: as a result, the Turks in South-Eastern Bulgaria grew even poorer than before, and Dogan and his friends at the DPS became multi millionnaires. Fifth: DPS officials are incompetent being chosen only through their loyalty to Dogan, the latest example of their incompetence being the poor management of water dams which flooded many villages in August. This may explain the opposition to the appointments of DPS governors. So: how is all this possible? It's quite simple - the DPS is useful to the ex-communists - see the fall of the first SDS government in 92, see their support for the BSP government in 94 and now. The ex-communists no longer believe in communism, in fact I doubt they ever did, all they want is power and money. If Bulgaria is ever to enter the EU, they will divert all EU funds to their companies, if it doesn't, well it doesn't matter, the status quo is beneficial to them too as they already control the country and have been in control thanks to populism, insecurity and DPS help ever since 89, but for the four years between 97 and 2001. ''As I re-read myself I fear I wont convince you - just another nut with his conspiracy theories you would say... I wish you were right. As for Bulgarian nationalists, I won't say there is no such thing, otherwise Attack wouldn't be in the Parliament, however I think you shouldn't bother with them - their party is already falling apart and in a year's time it probably won't even exist. And concerning Bulgarian sources in English, did I mention it - there was no revolution in 89 in Bulgaria...''--84.97.241.161 02:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Dubious allegations
I will remove this section of the article as its factual accuracy is dubious.

On March 9th, 1985 TNFM was responsible for planting an explosive device on the Sofia-Bourgass train. The bomb exploded on Bunarovo station in a vagon that was speciffically designated for mothers with children, killing seven (two children) and wounding nine. Another controversial act took place in the summer of 1987 when two boys were kidnapped near Balchik by three men associated with TNFM who demanded to be granted a safe passage to Turkey. Bulgarian authorities refused and intercepted the terrorists' car, killing two of the men and seriously injuring the boys and the remaining terrorist. In recent speeches high MRF officials have acknowledged the movement's involvement in terrorist activities claiming that at the time there was little else that could be done to attract international attention.

http://www.netinfo.bg/?tid=40&oid=1011656 http://more.info.bg/article.asp?topicID=239&issueID=219 makes allegations without citing the primary source. Given their anti-Turkish stance, I would conclude that they are designed to discredit the MRF rather than provide factual information.

As for the link http://www.dps.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0055&n=000002 where Cevdet Cakirov supposedly acknowledges the movement's "involvement in terrorist activities", I have read the source from beginning to end, and have not found anything that even remotely suggests he said such a think. It is a citation that does not in any way, shape or form support the claim that precedes it.

"Numerous rumors"
There are numerous rumors suggesting that DPS is involved in money laundering, illegal financing and corruption at the highest levels of governance.

Numerous rumours? That's a suspicious statement. Don't you people know what a rumour is? Rumours don't really mean anything. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, who knows? It's a rumour. By their nature, rumours are unverified. I'm removing the statement.Farkas János (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rumors mean nothing? Not to the guy that was doing those allegedly money launderings for them. He shot himself in the head.
 * Maybe he was having a headacke. We don't know for a FACT.
 * It is plain silly to ask for facts where members of a ruling coalition say who is to investigate what. This way Rudolph Hesse would've never been hanged --DemonX (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisions
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).

Latinization
"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)

Source falsification
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)

Origins of the party
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))

POV?
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)

Delyan Peevski
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)