Talk:Denko Krstić

POV

The role of the Bulgarian Exarchate is shown scandalously biased in the article based on biased sources.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Алиса Селезньова, how exactly? The Patriarchate–Exarchate schism and its effects are well-known.--Zoupan 21:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Harris Mylonas (18 February 2013). The Politics of Nation-Building: Making Co-Nationals, Refugees, and Minorities. Cambridge University Press. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-1-139-61981-3. As a result: "In these newly—constituted dioceses nearly all the churches, schools, cemeteries, and other ecclesiastical property with their revenues, although virtually belonging to the Greeks,42 were seized and appropriated by the Bulgarians

In the article only the point of view of the Exarchate's rival is shown not to mention it is based exclusively on biased sources. Is the above mentioned quote referring to Kumanovo? I think it is very irrelevant to the article - too big part of the article about the man is actually about how evil the Exarchate supposedly was in general, based solely on Serbian sources completely ignoring the other point of view. This is not neutral by any means (not to mention relevant - all that can be said in one sentence). In my opinion it is better to summarize the text to something neutral rather than including both points of view. Thus the beginning of the fourth paragraph (up to ref 10) can be replaced with something neutral like "After the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, two parties formed in Kumanovo - Exarchist and Patriarshist. Denko Krstic was a leading figure in the Patriarshist party and opposed the influence of the exarchists." And then it continues with "He was instrumental in securing the..."--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)