Talk:VMRO – Bulgarian National Movement/Archive 1

Notability and neutrality
The article has only the Bulgarian media perspective of the subject, against Wikipedia policies and regulations, making it disputable because of it's notability and neutrality. It doesn't have any academic reliable sources that we can base it on, NONE. Someone please add more reliable sources, or I suggest the material to be blanked, the notability and neutrality aren't proven by far. Blok Glo  (talk)  14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMRO – Bulgarian National Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031222046/http://www.gord.bg/bg/article/id/2224 to http://www.gord.bg/bg/article/id/2224

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Colorcode
Colorcodes are not the official colors used by a political party but rather a single color used to represent a party on Wikipedia, the colorcode for IMRO-BNM is black, why do you insist on changing this to red and black which is not a colorcode? Ec1801011 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Colors.
The colors of VMRO are two: black and red. Check here; here and here, please. Jingiby (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * party colors and colorcode are not the same thing, please see every other political party's page. Ec1801011 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Unreasonable removal of content
Hi. As requested, I'm addressing you in the talk page. Your removals of this content are unjustified, as they represent official party positions on important topics. The gay parade was a major issue during the 2019 Bulgarian local elections and remains a contentious issue to this day. There is absolutely no reason to remove that content - it's both an official party position, and relevant. Likewise, an intention to "destroy ghettoes" and keep minorities around as "tourist attractions" is anything but WP:UNDUE, especially as it is covered by a high-quality source and was an official part of the party's pre-election campaign that it itself had published. The one with the section on the website I can accept being removed, but should you insist on these reversals, I would have no option but to bring this up for an RfC, as this is relevant content that's being deleted. I can understand you have passion for the subject, as your profile clearly shows, but what matters in the case of wikipeda what is important is wether or not it is true and relevant, not wether or not it serves to benefit or degrade the reputation of preceeding organizations. In any case I would like to hear your thoughts. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think that this article is complex and covers the history of this party for a period of 30 years. It is not logical for 2/3 of the article to deal with some of the views of the party leadership from the last few years on some specific issues. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, then let's clarify in which years those positions were published. They're very relevant, as they represent the current positions of the party. Additionally, if you have any sources as to what the positions of the party were historically and how those positions might have changed troughout the years, you would be very welcome in adding that to the article. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)