Talk:Bulgarian Socialist Party

Link

That link (archived, from external links from the issue) is by interest mainly of researchers: Records of the Open Media Research Institute. Bulgarian Subject Files (also include files for BSP) [1] (in Bulgarian) --Aleksd (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 Protests

I suggest that this page is locked for editing by unregistered members, due to the incredibly complex political situation in Bulgaria. I fear that history will be "touched up", for the purposes of forming a new political leader. Georgi Marinov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.138.141 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess not. It doesn't seem like this article is getting "touched up". -- Kndimov (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Populist?

Please, provide neutral, preferably scholarly, sources in support of such claims. Is a left party adopting flat taxation populist? I failed at tracing sources that confirm the statement, but a user continues reinserting it. I understand it is a retaliation for a similar statement, albeit well-sourced, in the article of this party's political opponent. I would really appreciate it if the user in question agreed to take part in any form of discussion, as he has failed to respond up until now. --Laveol ^T 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Minority government 1990?

This article states that the Socialists formed a minority government after they won a majority in 1990. How does this make sense? Were there mass defectors? I know it takes 2/3 majority to pass the constitution, but it still takes only a simple majority for regular legislation, no? -- Kndimov (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bulgarian Socialist Party. 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/20100329202447/http://www.bsp.bg/bg/pages/board to http://www.bsp.bg/bg/pages/board
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313203340/https://www.24chasa.bg/Article/5300656 to https://www.24chasa.bg/Article/5300656

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

BastianMAT, can you please understand, and stop putting misleading edits, that I did not remove any source? A source is considered to be removed if the same source is completely removed from the article (we have a references removed tag which did not appear in my edits) but I simply moved it to the lead, where it can be contextualized, e.g. social conservatism is misleading, and given sources do not exactly say the party is social-conservative, just that some leaders are, while the contextualized lead say others are not.

To be perfectly clear, I am pro-LGBT rights but context is important; as far as I understand it, parties and societies in the Eastern European region are much more or slightly more conservative on social issues than in other European regions, so centre-left parties simply reflect this; they are an exception to most Western European parties but are the norm in Eastern European ones. It also makes no sense to describe a socialist party in the context of a liberal-capitalist country as social-conservative (note that the academic source does not say social-conservative ​but that it "has been somewhat socially conservative"; again, it is contextualized as "pander[ing] to its traditional communist membership").

As an European, I understand social conservatism as a clear ideology of preserving traditions, including liberal-capitalist institutions, which may overlap with socially conservatism but is not the same. So this socialist party may be somewhat socially conservative (a political position, not a proper ideology) but not social-conservative, which is more accurate to describe certain right-leaning parties. Either way, all of this it is moot, as the academic source is more nuanced — just like me. Davide King (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this ("one user should not be able to remove ..."), see WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF. "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Davide King (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No responses so far, but I am going to explain again. Contrary to misleading edit summary, I have not removed any single source. The references for the social conservatism claim do not support it, only say that some party leaders, such as Kornelia Ninova, oppose same-sex marriage (again, the linked source does not even mention social conservatism at all), and the lead makes this much more clear, also keeping in mind the more conservative context of Eastern Europe. The academic source does not describe the party as social-conservative but rather as social-democratic, which is why social democracy should be the main ideology in the infobox, only saying that it is somewhat socially conservative and qualify it as pandering to its conservative, communist membership (see also what I wrote above).

Pro-Europeanism and Russophilia are not proper ideologies, so they should not be at the ideological parameter. Here, I have actually proposed to add parameters to reflect this (so that we may have Social democracy at ideology and (Socially) conservative on a Social policy parameter) but until they are actually added we must follow the rules of the infobox and not create new parameters under the Ideology parameter (I did that in the past but I have since changed my mind because the infobox should summarize, the body should clarify). Finally, we need to stop adding to left-wing or to right-wing to mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties; all such parties have more centrist and left-wing/right-wing factions, that does not make them left-wing or right-wing, which should be used as the sole position for parties to their left (in this case, the Communist party) or right. It makes more sense to use for centrist parties, as in Centre to centre-left, but this can be qualified in the lead while leaving the main position in the infobox.

As a pro-LGBT rights Western European myself, it reeks of Western European bias to place such label (social conservatism, rather than socially-conservative; again, see OP), which lacks context. Most mainstream Eastern European parties are socially-conservative, some of which can be accurately labelled social conservative as well, but we do this only for centre-left parties ... why? I guess just because in this they differ from Western European centre-left parties; in this case, it is much better to actually explain the strong social conservatism in many Eastern European countries and explain the difference from like-minded parties in Western Europe rather than place a label which is even unsupported by given refs. Unless sources, preferably academic books, are provided that support the claim the party as a whole is social conservative rather than social democratic, or simply saying some party leaders are socially-conservative or oppose same-sax marriage, which is already better explained in the lead than placing an unverified label in the infobox ... unless such academic sources are found, do not just revert and actually respond here and provide them. I would be the first to self-revert if I was proven wrong on this.

Davide King (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)