Talk:2013 Bulgarian nuclear power referendum

To Belene or not to Belene

Please, stop altering the question. It reads as follows: "Should nuclear energy be developed in Bulgaria through construction of a new nuclear power plant?" and this is indicated in the article. See, not a word about Belene or any actual project. While the original question indeed envisaged Belene being mentioned, it was later changed. So to say the referendum was about this particular project is plain wrong.--Laveol ^T 13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm, did you read a single word from the article besides the headline? Let me help you: The January 27 referendum asked the question "Should nuclear energy be developed in the Republic of Bulgaria through the construction of a new nuclear power plant?" As in Bulgaria, voter turnout has been very low. 51% ( 2 210) have said "No" to the question which for many has a direct link with plans to build a second Nuclear Power Plant in the Danube town of Belene.--Laveol ^T 13:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Although Belene is not mentioned in the referendum question, it is clear that the referendum is about restarting construction at Belene. Otherwise, why would every source about the referendum feature it? I have now sourced that particular statement ([51% of Bulgarian Expats Say 'No' to Belene NPP]). If that's not enough, see also Bulgarian socialists push for Belene referendum Bulgaria votes in Belene nuclear power plant referendum Officials Verify Signatures for Bulgaria Belene Referendum Bulgarian Right Wing Queries Belene NPP Referendum Bulgaria’s Belene referendum campaign sends political rivals into meltdown etc etc. Number 57 13:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And particularly relevantly: Bulgarian referendum question on Belene will not mention Belene, majority in parliamentary committee decides. Number 57 13:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And again all sources note that the referendum is not about Belene although it is undoubtedly linked to the very same project. But see, Wikipedia does not work with what something implies or what somebody claims. It works with facts alone. And the fact is that the question did not concern Belene. Whatever some parties imply or wish was true could be clarified in the article body. As it is. Please stop reverting. If you wish we could bring the issue up and see if facts are better held than rumours and claims. --Laveol ^T 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia works on what reliable sources say. As the text in the links shown above, they say the referendum was about Belene (your claim that "all sources note that the referendum is not about Belene" is simply untrue). Per WP:BRD, please stop reverting (especially when it involves removing sourced material). Number 57 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, with the claims you put forth, you undermine the very information introduced by said reliable sources. Please, make familiar with the topic. The word Belene was indeed removed and for a reason. Saying that it is means ignoring all recent publications (the ones that were published after the parliament decided on the referendum question). The only two recent sources you mention say that deliberately removed the Belene project from the referendum ballot in Parliament and that the question will not mention Belene. The referendum was supposed to be about it, but the question was changed. Please, read the source through and you'll see what I'm talking about. --Laveol ^T 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, boy, please, read the articles before posting them. One of those you added now read: The ruling party GERB's committee initially also intended to campaign in favor after it was GERB who changed the referendum question omitting the Belene NPP from it. And another is from a really odd website that mentions neither its source nor the date when it was published. Should we really escalate this to WP:DR? --Laveol ^T 14:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please tone down your language a bit. Using "phrases like "oh boy" and "Please, make familiar with the topic" are hardly conducive to a collegiate atmosphere and in many cases will only make your adversary more determined to oppose you. Using bold text also isn't particularly good practice (although I suppose at least it's not CAPS).

Back on topic, I did read the articles before I posted them - that's why I cited specific sentences in them when I referenced it. You conveniently omitted the context from the last sentence you quoted in bold - the full quote was "The ruling party GERB's committee initially also intended to campaign in favor after it was GERB who change the referendum question omitting the Belene NPP from it. Subsequently, however, Prime Minister Boyko Borisov changed his mind, and urged GERB voters to vote with "no" because the referendum question anyway referred to Belene".

Anyway, I have amended the article again - to make it clear that whilst it was not in the referendum question, everyone knew it was about Belene. I hope you will at least agree that this was true. Number 57 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The, oh, Boy part was not aimed at you. I wanted to use an exclamation like My God or something but decided against any references to gods etc. I did not intend to call you a boy and I'm sorry if it looks like that.

And yes, it will work that way. And that's why I added the but about the initial petition. You. see the actual question is indeed important. Otherwise, why would they have changed it in the first place? The statements by Borisov and Mladenov are odd in the sense that it was their party that made the change in the first place. The fact of the matter is that the referendum concerns both Belene NPP and any other possible NPP project in the country. And this fact cannot be amended by any statement whatsoever.

I did not conveniently omit anything. You were the one that added statements to the article, taking them out of context. Without the context it would sound like that the decision, if it was binding and over 60%, would concern the Belene project. A possible "no" would have concerned both this and any other potential project in the future. That is why I insisted you got more familiar with the topic.

Everyone knew is also plain wrong for the reasons I already posted. No problem since it's not in the actual article though.--Laveol ^T 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about other editors' familiarity with topics, or "insist" that they improve their knowledge. That kind of attitude will only serve to turn people against you. Number 57 15:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if my attitude turned you off. I have to say the same goes for constantly introducing contradicting info. Glad it's all cleared now. --Laveol ^T 17:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)