Talk:2022 North Macedonia protests

Background paragraph

I have added a few sentences to ease readers into this mess. All the sentences are well referenced and I don't see why they are being removed. Greetings.Jingiby (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's quite simple actually. This article is about the 2022 North Macedonia protests. The section in question is about the French proposal. The content you added is about Yugoslav Macedonia (ceased to exist in 1991) being supposedly anti-Bulgarian. The removal, thus, should make sense. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 01:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, the text directly concerns this event and, in particular, Bulgaria's claims to North Macedonia at the moment, indicating their basis, which has historical aspects. Jingiby (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Directly concerns this event according to whom? You? Provide a source that directly connects the French proposal with the "anti-Bulgarian basis" of Socialist Macedonia. I'll also note that you are edit warring to implement your additions without consensus. --Local hero ^talk 03:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't figure out what the problem is. It is obviously a dispute with historical dimensions and claims of Bulgaria concerning the Macedonian identity and language, the resolution of which is aimed at the French proposal. Jingiby (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have made the sentence under question more neutral, simpler and shorter to avoid criticism. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby. I think what Local Hero is trying to say is that the content you added is not appropriate for the French proposal section, but perhaps more appropriate for the Background section, since that section summarizes what led up to the French proposal and the protests. The French proposal section is to summarize what the proposal is about, not what led up to it. Thanks. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Jingiby (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No it is Bulgaria unrisnble demands about history which Macedonia won't implement them 77.29.228.189 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Moved from User talk:Perfex78

 – Unresolved discussion

Pre-move discussion

@Perfex78 Hello. I'm reaching out to you regarding your recent edits on this page, because this issue cannot be resolved through reverts. So you claim that one of the causes of the protests is "Pro-Europeanism", but none of your sources support this. Your first source was published in 2019, so it doesn't relate to the protests at all. Your second and third source appear to support what is already presented as a cause of the protests, i.e Bulgaria–North Macedonia negotiations surrounding the accession of North Macedonia to the European Union. Your following sources are about the views of intellectuals on the French proposal. Moreover, their opinions are attributed in the "Criticism of the French proposal" section and they aren't presented as indisputable facts. None of them claim that the protests were motivated by "Pro-Europeanism" either. Also you restored the part about "high European politicians", even though none of the critics presented in the "Criticism of the French proposal" appear to be politicians. If you have sources about 'high European politicians' criticizing the French proposal, you can freely include them in the page. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1StephenMacky1 Hello, thank you for reaching out and asking for clarifications.

1. The opposition (VMRO) is openly pro-European. That is what the 2019 quote declaration clearly states. That has not been changed, they have always been pro EU, for decades, this is from one week ago

They are the major opposition party, a declared pro-european party that called for the protests. So that is evidence that pro-europeans have causes to be against the proposal.

2. The opposition (VMRO) that called for the protests, declared clearly that it is not against the EU membership. They want the EU membership sooner. The provided quote is their demand for "guarrantees that EU membership will not lack after there is a constitution change". This again shows the protests, on their behalf are not anti but pro european. And this is also specific to the issue. They, pro-european, want EU membership sooner and with less issues and blocking. Quote from the link "и нема да има кочење или блокада на пристапниот процес и преговорите" translated: "so there won't be blockades on the accession process and negotiations". Again pro-europeans that have causes to be against the proposal.

3. "Bulgaria–North Macedonia negotiations surrounding the accession of North Macedonia to the European Union is already presented". The specific cause and reasons of being Pro-European *and* protest, there is evidence for, was not present.

4. As I referenced in the text The opposition (VMRO) demands EU access under the "Copenhagen accession criteria". Again underlining that their protests are driven by a Pro-European agenda.

5. As I referenced several declared pro-European politicians and intellectuals, like Erwan Fouéré, the former European Union Special Representative, have shown reserves and criticism about the French proposal. Criticism not driven by Anti-Europeism, but driven by Pro-Europeism. Stating as far as going away from the "Copenhagen accession criteria, by introducing identity and language issues, the french proposal will *hurt* the EU enlargement process". A portion of the protesters share this opinion, that also coincide with the statements of the opposition VMRO leader as I quoted above. So among the resonable causes for being opposed and protest against the proposal are also this stated objections. Again pro-europeans that have causes to be against the proposal.

So the point is not only Anti-Europeans are against this proposal. There is evidence that there is a line of Pro-Europeans that object this proposal for its going out of the Copenhagen accession criteria, and this needs to be stated as a cause. Given it is the stance of the major opposition party, it is not a minor cause, and it deserves to be listed.

6. "High European politicians" Erwan Fouéré, the former European Union Special Representative is a high European politician and a career diplomat covering high European functions. As it is already included in the page.

7. Also while we are at it none of the other "Caused by" points have any references and quotes. In example

• Anti-Bulgarian sentiment in North Macedonia
• Euroscepticism in North Macedonia
• Pro-Russian and pro-Serbian sentiments in North Macedonia

If no one can provide evidence supporting this claims, they should be deleted from the page.

Thank you Perfex78 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, thank you for responding.

1. That sounds more like of an argument for the VMRO-DPMNE page and potentially Hristijan Mickoski too. If you have reliable sources to support that claim, you can present your argument there too. It's still unrelated to the protests. Our topic here is the protests.

Excuse me, but your arguments from 2 to 5 sound much like orginal research, we cannot reach our own conclusions from sources. Claims have to be directly supported by sources. Erwan Fouéré and the other intellectuals are unrelated to the protests, since they were never involved. We cannot use them as sources to prove the "pro-Europeanism" of others, nor present their pro-Europeanism as a cause of the protests. Your third source is also not related to the protests, but the French proposal instead.

As for 7, this is already sourced and summarized, just not in the infobox. If necessary, the sources can be aligned in the infobox too, that's not a problem. Wikipedia doesn't rely only on quotations, of course. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply StephenMacky1

The protest organizers state their pro-european interest as the cause of their protesting.

The protesters state "lack of Copenhagen criteria" and concerns the proposal will "hurt and postpone the pro-european agenda"

Those are factual referenced statements of the protestsers and their stated causes. There is no reason this information to be ommitted from the page. Perfex78 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this constitutes original research and doesn't belong on the page, thus it should be removed. I know and understand what the sources say. Nowhere is "pro-European" mentioned and this is simply your own analysis of it. If you still insist on claiming otherwise, we can ask for input from a third party. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello StephenMacky1

We have the quote that the protests are pro "european integration". Pro "european integration" is Pro-Europeanism.

I also have no issues in using the literal quoted term pro "european integration" instead.

In example: Pro-European integration for Copenhagen accession criteria, against identity, history, language, becoming part of the accession process.

Otherwise how would you word their reasons for the protest from their quoted statements? Perfex78 (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources describe the protests as being about pro "European integration". Besides the claim that these things are part of the "Copenhagen accession criteria" is actually only a claim. If you want, we can move this discussion to the main article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 Please read the cited material.

https://telma.com.mk/2022/10/22/mickoski-garancii-od-eu-pa-glasanje-za-izmena-na-ustavot/

"VMRO-DPMNE maintains the position that there will be no constitutional amendments and changes to the Preamble with the inclusion of Bulgarians until there is a firm guarantee from the European Union (EU) that this will be the last request and there will be no inhibition or blockage of the accession process and negotiations."

Here is a pro European accession process statement quote, by the protesting opposition. Perfex78 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll move this discussion to Talk:2022 North Macedonia protests, so that others can provide their input. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Post-move discussion

Pro-Europeanism as a "cause"

https://kanal5.com.mk/mickovski-za-politika-francuskiot-predlog-ne-nudi-pochetok-na-makedonskata-evrointegracija/a538053

I added another reference to the page. Mickoski stating the causes for his protest. His pro-EU position and concerns that the proposal works against the European integration. Perfex78 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1StephenMacky1 I have added the objections of party leader Pavle Trajanov, as of ref, "full EU membership, but only under the Copenhagen accession criteria, that we already fully fufill". His objections were to ommit bilateral and historic issues".

Essentialy confirming the stated disputed cause

• Pro-Europeanism for Copenhagen accession criteria against identity, history, language, becoming part of the accession

This settles the issue. If you think there are other need to keep the OR tag add in coments. Perfex78 (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is far from resolved. The template will be removed when the issue gets resolved. Don't try to add new material in the article until consensus on the issue here is reached. Present your sources and arguments here. What you're doing right now is a form of disruptive editing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 can you be specific, argument how "the issue is far from resolved"? Thank you Perfex78 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78, I have removed several duplicate sources expressing Mickoski's opinion since October 2022 and one interview from 2019. They do not correspond to his opinion during the protests, and moreover, they do not express the opinions of the other parties and movements participating in them. Please ,do not use sources to events unrelated directly to the protests that took place months later or years earlier. Please provide sources from the time of the protests that express similar views. Jingiby (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78, in August 2022, Mickoski vowed to leave the politics forever, if Bulgarians were included in the country's constitution, a mandatory requirement included in the negotiating framework with the EU.[15] In September he initiated the holding of a referendum under which the friendship treaty between Bulgaria and North Macedonia would be denounced. Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jingiby Mickoski is the main political party behind the protest, he called for and organized. His objections and reasons, directly related for the issue and protests are very relevant cause of the protests. The source does not have to be literally from the days of the protests. Here we have a quote, three months after the protests, of the still ongoing issue, where he is stating the demands and causes. Perfex78 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Perfex78, these are Mickoski political positions, which, like any politician, are not constant. Please concentrate on the protests and the positions of the protesters at that time.Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jingiby please refrain from vandalism and revert wars. Wikipedia is not a place for your opinions on Mickoski to rever posts with "their dangerous play with nationalism and incendiary messages threaten to undermine" as a cause. We like or not, those are the causes stated by the main political leader supporting the protests. And as such are relevant to be on the page. thank you. Perfex78 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jingiby

- For your "temporal concerns", if you have evidence that Mickoski he rennounced this demands in the mean time, please provide the reference. And we can add that information on the page.

- For your "relevancy concerns" Mickoski is the main political party behind the protest, he called for and organized, so we can agree his stated causes and demands are noteworthy. Thank you Perfex78 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jingiby the article you quoted "Although VMRO-DPMNE and its leader Hristijan Mickoski claim to be pro-European, their dangerous play with nationalism" from Euronews is from february 2022, 5 months prior and unrelated to the protests, protesters or organizer views. Please concentrate on the protests and the positions of the protesters or political organizers. Perfex78 (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78 Let's stick on topic. Your primary argument right now is "Pro-Europeanism" as a cause. So since we cannot have both "Euroscepticism" and "Pro-Europeanism" as causes, I'll present the sources in support of the former:

• Deutsche Welle source (There appears to be a bit of bias here, but the source is reliable within context per WP:BIASED.)
• Meta.mk source
• Novinite source

So far I haven’t been able to find English-language sources that describe the protests as “pro-European”, but neither do any of the sources that you presented do. As for the Copenhagen criteria and the French proposal, we'll get into that too, since I have sources for that as well. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1

They can be both. Some protesters were anti-European. Others only reject the French proposal while being Pro-European membership. The major political leaders that supported the protests state causes that are Pro-European while rejecting only the French proposal:

• There is the clear pro-EU statement from Trajanov “"full EU membership, but only under the Copenhagen accession criteria” pointing to “bilateral and historic issues in the framework” as the problem.

• And clear Pro-EU Mickoski statement “We have to work to get that EU entry date” and the objections are "bilateral problem introduced as part of the negotiations" and "no warranties from the EU about the European perspective"

By their own words they are pro-EU. They do not protest against EU membership, they protest against the French proposal. I do not see why we should change or omit that information on the page.

Even in your own sources. There is DW “French proposal betraying the European hopes of the Macedonian citizens”,“Desired Membership” – all very clear Pro-European statements by Dimitrov. And "novinite" again stated "Today, the opponents of the French proposal to start EU membership". Opponents not of EU membership, but of French proposal. Perfex78 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We rely on third parties when it comes to information about the protests. If we relied on protesters' statements, the article would have been pretty biased and inaccurate. The opinions of protesters cannot be presented as indisputable facts. As for their statements, they can remain on the article (except those statements way before or after the protests, since they are unrelated). You can even include Dimitrov's statement as well. However describing their statements as "Pro-European" is biased and OR. As for whether someone is pro-European or not, we also rely on third parties for that, not on what that someone claims to be. The statements of protesters are actually simply views, not information. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I've made some simplifying changes to the infobox that avoid ambiguities and complications in understanding for casual readers. I think this compromise is good for everyone. What do you think? Jingiby (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the cause could be framed as "Objections related to the EU accession process of North Macedonia", so that it's not a duplicate with the first cause. Seems like the most neutral wording to me. However the source on Trajanov should be excluded, since he doesn't seem to be linked to the protests. If @Perfex78 here agrees, that's what the cause will be framed as. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 What is your objection? That there is no evidence the protester organizers have Pro-EU stances?

We have the information of the Pro-EU statements of the political leaders backing the protests. And we have their demands that are Pro-EU membership demands. Essentially showing the (political back of the) protests were (mostly) only anti-French agreement, not anti EU membership. We have third party reporting of the pro-EU demands and protests.

Omitting this information would be cherry picking WP:CHERRYPICK

Most of third party sources, the ones you quoted too, report protest against the French proposal, not against EU membership, and report the pro-Eu membership demands of the protesters.

Essentially if the "Anti-EU" wording causes are listed and covered. So should the "Pro-EU" wording, causes, be listed, we have lots of evidence for. It's the most neutral position WP:NPOV

1 "Demanding exclusion of the bilateral Bulgarian-North Macedonia issues from the European accession process." This already implies the ones demanding are Pro-European accession (and that is true, as referenced). So i do not see why we cannot have for clarity , and to be precise with their stated demands and causes a formulation like:

"Pro-European accession under the Copenhagen criteria, exclusion of additional bilateral issues from the accession process"

2 "Insisting on a guarantee from the EU that that the inclusion of the Bulgarians in the constitution will be the last request of the accession process" This again is a Pro-European accession demand (not anti EU membership stance). For clarity, simplificity, to keep as precise to their stated causes and demands should be worded:

"Pro-European demands for guarantees for no further blockades of Euro accession after the inclusion of the Bulgarians in the constitution"

Pavle Trajnov should not be ommitted as he was involved with the protests, called for protests against the French proposal, besides voting against it. Perfex78 (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jingiby The infobox photo you added is problematic. It is biased and one sided. It frames (all) the protests as "Anti-EU protests". Given the evidence, presented material and discussion about the of the Pro-EU nature of the protests and demands. Someone waving "Fuck you EU" is not evidence that is representative for the majority of the protesters. More appropriate photo is the one with the main protest banner "Ultimatum no thank you" the main protest rallied bahid. Will be replacing it with that one for neutrality. Perfex78 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The closed poster on the photo reads "Bulgarian fascism - a European value." I wonder who the fascists are? Maybe those who carry the placard "Fuck the EU". These are the same ones who have burned the EU flag, the French proposal and the Good Neighbor Agreements with Bulgaria and Greece. It's a good photo.Jingiby (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Macedonia protests Ultimatum Jul 2022.jpg is an obvious copyright violation. The photo is taken from Express newspaper as the uploader has claimed himself: https://www.expres.mk/denes-blokadi-niz-cela-makedonija-poradi-francuskiot-predlog/ It has been nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Jingiby (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

File:NMK Protests 2022.jpg has been

nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons as an obvious copyright violation. Jingiby (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78 All right. My offer is that the cause be listed as "Objections related to the EU accession process of North Macedonia". Do you agree with it? StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1What are the issues you have with this?

• "Pro-European accession under the Copenhagen criteria, exclusion of additional bilateral issues from the accession process"
• "Pro-European demands for guarantees for no further blockades of Euro accession after the inclusion of the Bulgarians in the constitution"

With "Objections related to the EU accession process of North Macedonia" the reader might be misleaded that the protests are (only) anti EU (membership) objections.

"Eurosceptic" causes are listed. In addition to that, we know there are Pro-EU causes. Specifically against the French proposal and very Pro-EU oriented. As of the materials cited. So for neutrality, clarity and avoid misleading the reader into thinking they are all Anti-EU, we need to make the distinction between the different causes for the protests (Anti and Pro EU). Therefore best option is to keep the clear and simple "Pro-EU" wording, as of the sources. Perfex78 (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78 I'd like to make something clear to you since it seems there has been a confusion. The protests had multiple causes and the infobox section doesn't imply that the protests were exclusively anti-EU or that Anti-Europeanism was the only cause, nor is this implied anywhere in the article. It simply means that part of the protesters were motivated by Anti-Europeanism. I have not claimed that any of the protest organizers were motivated by Anti-Europeanism either, it's one of the reasons why the cause is listed as "Euroscepticism in North Macedonia". "Objections related to the EU accession process of North Macedonia" is more neutral because it cites the objections of some protesters without putting any labels on them. Either way, the last cause has to go because it's 2 months after the protests and is unrelated. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 I agree, multiple causes. Anti-EU causes are listed. So should the Pro-EU causes be listed. Anti-EU labels are listed. So should the pro-EU labels be. Or we should clear both labels. Tho labels are helpful for clarity. "Objections to the EU accession" can be stated for purely anti-European objections too, so it is not specific and can be misleading.

We should stick to simple and precise wording:

• Pro-European demands for guarantes for EU membership.
• Pro-European demands for Copenhagen accession criteria, against bilateral or identity issues in the process.

Perfex78 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78 There are no multiple anti-EU causes, just one of the multiple causes which is Euroscepticism and for which there are sources directly supporting it. "Objections related to the EU accession" is not anti-EU because there have been countries who had objections related to the EU accession of North Macedonia and that's not Euroscepticism. It's my final offer regarding the infobox and I hope that you practice good faith by considering it. More context about the protesters' motives can be given in the "Background" section of the article, where their objections can be mentioned, based on sources. The sooner we reach a consensus about this, the sooner we can get this article back into shape. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby, you yourself nominated the photo for deletion. Also the photo which you uploaded/is used in the article is literally a photograph of an image from a computer monitor used by a news agency. Arguably it's far worse in terms of quality when compared to the other image. Kluche (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• StephenMacky1's proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise. I do not see why there can be any problems with it. Perfex78, I understand what you are trying to say, but like how Stephen has stated, that although the protesters are not labeled as eurosceptic, it is undeniable fact that euro-scepticism is one of the factors, not the factor. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@SilentResident what are the objections against: * Pro-European demands for guarantes for EU membership.* Pro-European demands for Copenhagen accession criteria.? Eurosceptic causes are listed and labeled, so for neutrality and a resonable compromise the pro-EU causes should be listed as well. "Objections to the EU accession" can be a purely anti-EU cause, therefore misleading in the context. No one here denies (some) euro-scepticism is one of the factors. Anti-EU is presented, issue is that the Pro-EU side is not as quite. When the vast majority of the protesting parties and third party international coverage, do not state the protest is against the EU and report Pro-EU demands, if no Pro-EU is listed the article risks giving a very distorted picture. Perfex78 (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Perfex78: the following sources: do not refer to "Pro-European demands" as you claimed. Nor the other sources provided, do support any pro-Europeanism. Claiming that the source states something it doesn't, is called Source Falsification. Its highly recommended that editors refrain from such practices which can mislead readers or other editors. Information not explicitly confirmed by the sources, falls under WP:OR. To me it looks like that the same arguments are being repeated here in this discussion over and over, but no solid sources explicitly supporting your claims have been provided yet. Sorry but I can't help you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Pro-Russian and pro-Serbian sentiments in North Macedonia

What evidence there is that the protesters stated their "Pro-Russian and pro-Serbian sentiments" as cause for the protests? From the thext all I see is Bulgarian opinionist statd it. Is there some direct evidence from the protesters or pro-protest political leadership for this? Perfex78 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There are the organizers. For example What is interesting in Macedonian politics is the problematic position of the opposition party, VMRO-DPMNE and its leader Hristijan Mickoski. The party was previously pro-European and pro-NATO but has shifted towards pro-Russian, pro-Serbian and anti-Western. For more see: War with Russia and what it means for the Western Balkans by Alice Taylor and Zeljko Trkanjec on EURACTIV from Feb 25, 2022. Jingiby (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with that EURACTIV as a newssite is WP:BIASED 77.29.228.189 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

And so that's your reason for launching a WP:1AM edit war?

Kindly retain the WP:STATUSQUO until this has been resolved.

Why do you consider Euractiv biased? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Euroactiv article is from february. Nothing to do with the protests and their causes for protest. So it is not relevant to the question. Euroactiv adresses the war in Ukraine stances and position. (off topic the article does not state the specific reasons for considering him "pro-Russian, pro-Serbian and anti-Western". Even more so considering he/his party voted in favor of condemning and sanctioning Russian invasion in Ukraine, few moths post this article). Perfex78 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: EURACTIV defintely may be or not be biased but that was never a problem in Wikipedia. See WP:BIASED. The way the IP uses the term "biased" however, suggests that they do so in the essense that -in the IP's view- EURACTIV is an unreliable or unfit source for use. However, even that claim is not true either; EURACTIV fully meets Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria. If the IP or anyone else has their doubts about that, they are welcome to open a proper discussion at the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Calling this source "biased" here on this talk page, without proof, to me looks like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case and nothing more. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

From the three articles supporting the claim two are Bulgarian. Of them, the first does not state Pro-Russian or Pro-Serbian, the second is an opinion piece. The only international article europeanforum, does not state Pro-Serbian, and states Pro-Russian only for one very small party (Levica).- jamestown.org lists "VMRO-DPMNE party, as a pro-Russian and pro-Serbian party" citing nova.bg bulgarian opinion. The original nova.bg cited article considers VMRO anti-European, but not mention of Russian or Serbian. - segabg.com the only place where pro-serbian and pro-russian are listed is a opinion piece by a Bulgarian journalist.- europeanforum.net States only for the "smaller Levica party that is pro-Russian". Other Pro-Russian is not present in the article. the word Serbian is not present in the article. Need more evidence that the protests were "Pro-Russian or Pro-Serbian motivated" Perfex78 (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Kolozova

Kolozova was critical of the french proposal and recommended abolishing the joint historical commission. She suggested taking the historic issues from a political level to an accademic level.

I think the context is quite different from the suggested option. As far as I can see, one more editor is of my opinion, so I move this rather questionably interpreted opinion of Kolozova for discussion. Jingiby (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

@Perfex78 Discuss it here, instead of trying to include your own wording, especially when there are editors objecting to it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 Thank you, discuss here your objections instead of engaging in revert wars. The wording is her literal quote from the article. Perfex78 (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Since there is apparently no agreement on the recent changes done by Perfex78, and the editor who made them was blocked due to an edit war, I will return the article to its view before these unilateral actions until they are agreed upon, or not here. Jingiby (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)