Talk:2013–2014 Bulgarian protests against the Oresharski cabinet

Nature of the protest

Page seems to be promoting a future protest, rather than reporting on one. Events under Oresharski are probably a continuation of the 2013 Bulgarian anti-monopoly protests, which indeed went well beyond the monopoles issues. --68.194.82.9 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Protests are entirely different, unlike the winter ones they are more environmentalist and also right-wing as political orientation, in the winter the original high-bills protests were later occupied by organizers from Che Quevara movement followed by Ataka football fans who were lied about the right-orientation of Volen Siderov, leader of Ataka, who now walks around with heavy security guards being afraid of the love of his own electorate. --Aleksd (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to delete this one and move whatever is relevant to 2013 Bulgarian protests. Demonstrations of less than 500 people occur on a daily basis everywhere, this doesn't really deserve its own article. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

NO! Today we gathered thousands of people, in Sofia 10000 at least. --Aleksd (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have independent sources for that? The Banner talk 23:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources as usual can be seen in the proper section of the article. Do you need more specific instructions how to locate it there? --Aleksd (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see some people are trying to politicize the protests (as in which party(ies) stay(s) behind it), which is wrong. There are people from various political and non-political fractions, who take part in the protests. It is not right against left but new against old. Yes, some people probably protest again against high prices in their everyday lives but the greater part just wants a new political model and new faces not connected to the old ones, who rule Bulgarian on a rotational principle for the last 2 decades.Rbaleksandar (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently 2 different protests are mixed on that page

Currently two different protests are mixed on one page:

• Initial protest at the end of May against the Oresharski cabinet and the way it was negotiated between the parties.
• Protests against election of Delyan Peevski as director of Bulgarian State Agency for National Security (in Bulgarian: ДАНС - Държавна агенция за национална сигурност).

These two protests should be separated in two independant articles. Unfortunately almost all sources of information at the moment (16.06.2013) are in Bulgarian only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentinmilev (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources in the English language are preferred, but not mandatory! The Banner talk 17:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose. These are a continuation of the 2013 Bulgarian protests - same anti-government sentiment, just a different occasion. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an idea to introduce sub-headers to differentiate between the different strands of protests? The Banner talk 18:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My proposal stands as before - delete this article and merge the content to 2013 Bulgarian protests. The current and occasions here are different, but the movement is still the same. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you should do a formal merge-proposal conform Wikipedia:Merging. The Banner talk 19:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, there doesn't seem to be much resistance to a merger. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess there is opposition, as Aleksd already removed the merge-proposal. Could you beef the arguments up a bit? The Banner talk 22:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really consider "today we gathered thousands of people" to be an argument. The initial rallies were much smaller, the largest had about 2,000 people present and the others were organised by political parties [1] - as I already said, too small to have an individual article as protests of such a scale happen almost daily. Also, demonstrations have occurred since mid-May, when Oresharski was not yet in power [2]. It's the same anti-government trend as before, just gaining new momentum because of recent political moves. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday the rallies gained 20'000. I will put video for those who are lazy to read news in the article. --Aleksd (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about the nature of the protests, not about "putting a video". - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What we need are reliable sources. Not your personal opinions and videos. The Banner talk 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we'll see them, but this article is useful, the rallies were against this government and the political parties, including the one previously in power. There isn't much reason to keep the info here separated from 2013 Bulgarian protests. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Because nobody really did something, I have placed the templates proposing the merger of Protests against the Oresharski cabinet into the article 2013 Bulgarian anti-monopoly protests. After merging the namechange of 2013 Bulgarian anti-monopoly protests can be undone and moved back to 2013 Bulgarian protests.The Banner talk 22:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the protests are connected and should be merged. Charles Essie (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, winter protests were left-wing and these are right-wing. In winter protested the poor, now we have protesters from the middle class and even the rich. Winter protesters fought the police, now they are bringing to police water and expect the police to protect them since political party Ataca is sending them paid bodyguards to beat them. And so on. --Aleksd (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not that different. The whole "lower/middle/upper class" divide IS BEING PROPAGATED BY SOME NON-NEUTRAL NEWS OUTLETS AND POLITICAL COMMENTATORS in order to sow division. Much the SAME people are coming out then and now, only difference is in February there WERE enough paid provocators to sow fear and a "non-happy" atmosphere among the normal people.

BOTH the protests are about the ENTIRE political/business elite taking the people for schmucks.

I say get back to the way it was before - 2013 Bulgarian protests to be a disambiguation page, as it was until last week, BUT with a brief explanation that the two waves of protests ARE loosely linked, but separate enough to merit their own articles, simply because, if we have it as one HUGE article, the REASONS behind the protests will get diluted for readers who are not familiar with the topic (i.e. almost everyone in the world).

Also, on the disambig page, have a "See also 2012 Bulgarian protests" link, and create a new, short article, detailing the Orlov Most Eco Protests of last year, which, while differently-themed, were a sort of prologue to the current protests in terms of mounting public discontent. BigSteve (talk)

There's no need to even discuss it, all of this is part of the same anti-government movement that errupted in February, there's not much else to add. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In any case, we need to decide what to do – either merge it with two broad titles within one article, namely "Winter anti-Borisov cabinet protests" and "Summer anti-Oresharski cabinet protests" OR have 2013 Bulgarian protests be a straight disambig page leading to the two separate articles.

BUT – the way it currently is is unacceptable, as the 2013 Bulgarian protests page completely ignores what's currently going on. BigSteve (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I still support merging the two articles. There is no need for separate articles on every wave of protests. Beside that, 2013 Bulgarian protests deserves a nice clean up and neutralisation. The Banner talk 08:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Read above - the proposal is to merge this to 2013 Bulgarian protests, which will cover both the winter protests and these, along with the smaller ones, and political events like the elections and nominations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Goody, how long has a merge proposal to run before being closed? Let someone help this POV-article out of its misery. The Banner talk 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the articles be merged manually, or we have to wait for an administrator to do it ? Haven't merged before so I'm not exactly aware. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still against it – aside from a few dozen people who protested throughout, the protests were a full four months apart; against different governments; and were sparked off by different reasons. Yes, they were both against "the Oligarchy/the shadow puppeteers", but that's a bit too much of a generalization – after all, would you have a single article for the 2011 Egyptian revolution and 2013 Egyptian coup d'état??? Yes, they could both arguably be linked to the same thing - "opposition to presidential power", but does that make them one event? Obviously not. Bulgaria is like a microcosm of Egypt in this respect.

AGAIN, however, I say to have 2013 Bulgarian protests as a disambig page, because there are TWO separate waves of "2013 Bulgarian protests" - February/GERB/monopolies and June-July/BSP/Peevski-oligarchy.

I say after the main disambiguation in the lead, to then have the 2013 Bulgarian protests article as a central timeline page, which will then not delve too much into reasons and analyses – merely have a chronology there, peppered with blue links to other articles, similar to 2012–13 Egyptian protests, but much more brief!. BigSteve (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria is not a "microcosm" of Egypt, any such association is very far-fetched. Bulgaria is not in a revolutionary state and, aside from the early elections, the protest movement has achieved almost nothing. Also, the protests are not four months apart. The first wave continued until March (April if we take into account the campers near Parliament), and there were sporadic demonstrations in May. The demands are still the same, despite the different government. It's all the same trend. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The demands of Egyptians are also the same then and now - they don't want to be ruled by an autocrat, whether that be Mubarak or Morsi. And how did I know you were going to reject the association - by your logic no comparisons of anything are valid. Get a grip.

The Bulgarian February protests stopped on Feb 19, when Boyko resigned. I did not deny that SOME people did comtinue protesting all the way through, but 20 people in tents do not make it the same protest, by any stretch of the imagination. The point is that the two waves of protests were sparked off by different events, are against different governments (even though the "puppeteers" are the same, but by WP's rules that qualifies as "own research"), and are completely different in character (February were violent, the current ones are, thankfully, peaceful.)

Why do you so much insist on confusing these ideas?

February's began from high bills, the current ones began because of Peevski (10,000 people organizaed in 5 hours - NO WAY can you link that to the hundred or so people that kept protesting into March.)

NOT A SINGLE BULGARIAN NEWS OUTLET makes any kind of serious link between the two waves of protests. Comparisons - yes, obviously, but they actually make more comparisons to the January 1997 protests than to the ones from 4 months ago! And they count the days - currently it's day 23 of the protests. NO ONE links February to today as being the continuation of a single protest.

You need to present a stronger argument than mere philosophical intellectualizing. BigSteve (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been on both protests and my opinion is they are all against the political system in Bulgaria, thus - they should be merged.

No, the winter protests, and the protests against the current government should be covered in separate articles. There are significant qualitative differences between the two, which would be (intentionally or unintentionally) swept under the rug if the two are merged. If someone wants a summary "Bulgarian Politics 2013" page, then that summary page can link to the individual protest pages.

I don't hear anyone giving valid arguments for merging the pages, save for "they both happened in 2013." Well? If not, I re-propose making 2013 Bulgarian protests a disambig + brief summary + chronology page, linking to the two detailed but separate articles. BigSteve (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are SEVEN of the biggest media organizations in Bulgaria which, as I said above, count the days of the protests as of June 14 –

• • • • 24 Chasa - "20th day of the protests" - 3 Jul 2013
      • Pressa daily - "25th day of the protests" - 8 Jul 2013
      • bTV - "30th day of the protests" - 13 Jul 2013
      • Nova TV - "32nd day of the protests" - 15 Jul 2013
      • Bulgarian National Television - "35th day of the protests" - 18 Jul 2013
      • TV7 - "37th day of the protests" - 20 Jul 2013
      • Dnevnik - "38th day of the protests" - 21 Jul 2013

You will not find a single respectable news source that counts them any different. Since I am not getting ANY argumants to the contrary, I think this is about as conclusive as you're going to get, especially by WP:V & WP:OR requirements, that the current protests are SEPARATE from the ones in February. Therefore, I will get rid of the merge proposal in a couple of days' time. BigSteve (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

I am saddened by the disruptive edits being done by certain editors (Tourbilion, a leftist pro-BSP editor and Banner, person who likes to post templates with or without a reason) and will try not to call them vandalism. --Aleksd (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And Aleksd who isn't discussing the merge-proposal but starts a political motivated editwar. Very helpful. The Banner talk 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You said there isn't independent sources for the number of protesters, I wouldn't call Reuters 'non independent source of information and news'. --Aleksd (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You have made clear enough that you have a politically driven agenda here. And your attitude is less than helpful. I advice you to calm down, going on like this is completely at your own risk. The Banner talk 23:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Aleksd, your grammar and political motivations are leading this article in the wrong direction. Please stop. --Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.18.254 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, do you call repair of grammatical errors your factological fallacies (look in the history)? --Aleksd (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Links

(I am looking for galleries and videos, please pick up to put in sources or external links)

Pictures

• [3] (16th June), Dnevnik
• (gallery), protest in New York (30th June) - Bulagarians abroad (who study or work there) also protest in many countries - Spain, Brussels, etc.
• (gallery) (10th July) - the daily protests that started as 'drink coffee in front of the Parliament' and now continue with working people with BYOD again there, some thrown tomatoes too.

Video

• [4] (14th June), bgnes
• [5] (15th June), Dnevnik
• Brussels, welcoming of Oresharski's visit (21th June)

--Aleksd (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Facebook event

Sorry too say, but Facebook nor Facebook events are reliable sources. The number of people ticking that they are going has no value at all, as it has nothing to do with the real turn out. The Banner talk 09:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Total rewrite and neutralisation

I have taken the liberty to tally rewrite the article, based on the provided sources. The article was evolving into a emotion-laden politically-charged demonstration diary instead of a rather distant and neutral description of the events. In my opinion it is now a much better article to fit into an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 17:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And as expected, Aleksd is reverting it to get his POV in. The Banner talk 18:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You delete sources in the article. This time I put a speech of our President as a source. Do not edit this article, vandalizing it. --Aleksd (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted sources that were not reliable. And I restored that presidential sources as it seems useful. Stop your POV-pushing please and calm down. You don't write an encyclopaedia on adrenaline, emotions or own research/experiences. You do that on facts, based on reliable sources. The Banner talk 19:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that some of the statements are not in the Bulgarian-language citations given for them. And I still believe this should be lumped into the main article, there's little valuable information other than day-to-day reports here. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection was requested

Please see an entry at RFPP where full protection of this article was requested. As of this moment, no decision has been made. If the revert war continues, some kind of admin action may be necessary. Please comment here if you think admin action is needed. Note that WP:DR gives you some options for resolving this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:: I'm not taking any action on the page itself because of it needs to be completely overwritten, which I do not intend to do as I believe the events here shouldn't be described separately from the main 2013 protests page. The history suggests that User:Aleksd is blindly reverting edits. I'm not sure of any kind of protection would yield results, the user's record on the Bulgarian Wikipedia is far from favourable when it comes to disputes. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that Aleksd is reverting just to get his POV in, can you provide examples? EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just look at Talk:Protests_against_the_Oresharski_cabinet#Disruptive_edits for the opinion of Aleksd about other editors. Makes his POV quite clear. The Banner talk 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[6], [7], [8], [9], etc. ... The Banner talk 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please block the access to the talk page too, because I will post here documentaries of the offensive government we have if you refuse me the right to write in the issue itself. --Aleksd (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Aleksd, are you announcing that you are planning to edit war on this subject? Please reconsider, because it is easy for admins to block your account. It is better for you to discuss on this talk page and try to persuade the others. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well blocking me on political grounds wouldn't be the first time for me in Wikipedia. And as I remember from my previous time, I simply wrote a few articles that Bulgarian administrators felt a need to add irony to that I wasn't agreeable with. I usually do not engage in deleting others content and making pun of sources if that is what you are referring to. Do not think I insist on editing any type of article related to the personality of Oresharski or Stanishev as I much dislike them both. But as you can see from the history of the article I did started it of course only after such protests were active. I did not take part of the first protest to be honest. Neither I initiated them in any way. Nor the later protests. I went only later. As you can see people are gathering on their own, even not uploading media to commons while there are many photographs and video in youtube and other sharing platforms. So I guess there aren't many English Wikipedia Bulgarian editors and that is why I started and wrote on the article. If you are asking me for my personal political opinion, I do believe in parliamentarism and I am not a huge fan on protesting. :) For that reason I feel no need to engage in any quarrels on the issue myself. But of course when I wrote something and it is disputed on accuracy I am the one who has to defend and try to show it is true. Of course improvements always could be done and I am not against that, on contrary. But of course keeping good practices in that.

Personally I could only say I am saddened that parliamentary opposition is unable to make its stand and that is needed that the people go on streets and insist on mafiotic figures and other inappropriate appointments to be removed, and of course expressing disappointment of the whole government with asking of its resignation. But this is how things are for now. --Aleksd (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

First series of protests

Hey, I see you've had some heated debates here. Hope I don't interrupt. I've made some changes to the article lead which I think bring some clarity to the topic, plus giving it a bit of depth, as far as global news coverage is concerned. Now I want to discuss the so-called First series of protests which was in fact a series of really small-scale and mostly non-notable events (I am saying this although I support the issues raised by them). They did not bear any resemblance to the events that followed Mr Peevski's appointment. Hence, the current article structure seems a bit of misleading to me, as it sounds as though these were two series of one and the same protest. They were not and the fact is best showcased by the like of any foreign coverage (of pre-June 14th events) whatsoever. I propose either merging the current sections about the first and second series into one section or rename the first one to something more suitable along the lines of: Initial protests against cabinet decisions or something.--Laveol ^T 21:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion to merge the whole page with 2013 Bulgarian protests. Look above. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I moved most of your edit to better fitting places, the addition itself was okay. (It just did not belong in the lead) But you are very welcome to edit here! The Banner talk 09:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, you really made the article sound smoother. --Aleksd (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Initial protests against cabinet decisions sounds well, there could be a change in structure since Peevski protests got more public attention. --Aleksd (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are quite a few articles on Dutch media about protests in Dutch media nu.nl. Unfortunately, there is only ONE article about the present series of protests (mentioned in the article), the rest is about the protests that brought down mr. Borisov. On independent.ie I can find no article about the protests. I would not dare to say that there is a significant international impact at all. The Banner talk 10:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know English media is considered as a world media. We too don't have in Bulgarian media much news about Holland. --Aleksd (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Both in the Netherlands and Ireland the protests against Borisov made the papers. Not that many times, but it made the papers around ten times in each country. The tally for this series of protest is one each. I guess the row around mr. Drumm and the Anglo-Irish Bank made the papers in Bulgaria! The Banner talk 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Will you DANS with me

Sorry to spoil the party, but the article Will you #ДАНСwithme? How Bulgarian protesters are using social media is not really of value for this article. For almost every protest, here, there and everywhere, there is a wide spread use of social media as Twitter and Facebook. The article itself states already the wide spread use. And because the article describes the use of hashtags instead of the protests, it is in my opinion a useless source! The Banner talk 13:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I provided it as it showcased what Bulgarian media regard as one of the main features of the protests: the use of social media. The hashtag is the self-assumed protest title and is used by media when describing it. The news coverage usually starts not with something like "It is the tenth day of protests", but with "The tenth day of ДАНСwithme". Non-Bulgarian media have also noted the use of social media (both Facebook and Twitter). Plus, it is Euronews - surely a reliable source. What makes it notable is that it is the first Bulgarian protest of such scale that features such a wide-spread reaction in social media. Traditional media are not used to such a thing and the people themselves are still getting used to it. It might be a common thing around the world, but it is new and unique in this particular case. I hope this kinda explains my thinking behind this source's inclusion.--Laveol ^T 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be true but one of the difficulties is that Facebook and Twitter are not representative for the Bulgarian people (nor any other country) due to the uneven spread of it. The Banner talk 14:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And the source of due to the uneven spread of it is? Or this is your own idea of things that you have no proof of? As usual. Disregarding real sources, promoting self. --Aleksd (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you translate this gibberish in English, please? The Banner talk 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Counter-protests (in support of the Oresharski government, demanding impeachment of president Plevneliev)

These should probably be mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.15.224 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Text about the German DW in the Article

Guys, I can't see anything in the sources supporting the statement "DW publicly denied this to be linked to a recent letter of complaint from the CCB". In my opinion, they were just talking standard legalese and never denied the fact explicitly. Please, someone with more Wikipedia experience decide on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Georgiev (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Links

[10](Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)).

Undue Weight Issue

The text added today about "Columnists associated with the Ataka" should either be deleted, or the name of the section "Expert Opinions" should be changed to "Expert and Other Opinions". I mean, it is certainly undue weight if we regard this particular opinion as an opinion of an expert who has studied the social attitudes in Bulgaria for decades, and is more independent than some "columnists" (although, admittedly, never 100% independent). I prefer the deletion to the renaming. Martin Georgiev (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is already deleted. It is obviously not an expert opinion. Just look at "Protests ... sponsored by Western-based activists and organizations." What a Soviet-Turkish propaganda! (Since the left-wing cabinet of Oresharski (coalition between Bulgarian Socialist Party and DPS + Ataka). Let's face the fact, Bulgaria is currently part of the West (EU and NATO membership). Olsonspterom (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who made this addition and I actually agree with both of you, as I now realize that it's not exactly an expert opinion (though Professor Stanislav Stanilov who subscribes to this sentiment could arguably be considered a prominent intellectual)! I mentioned "columnists from the Ataka party" in order to qualify the statement (it's definitely far from a mainstream view), but it may be worth including somewhere else in the article, as some opponents of the protests refer to "elements associated with Soros" as being behind them ("Duma" newspaper has also made such allegations). Of course there is no solid evidence for that (as far as I know), but it's a frequently mentioned conspiracy theory by those who are against the demonstrations. I am not sure whether adding a "purported conspiracies" section would be advisable. Thanks and keep up the good work! Oleg Morgan (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted materials (article locked)

I don't understand why quite a few of the statements/sections that were well-cited and not subject to dispute with regard to the facts were deleted without consensus being sought. One of the contributors expressed suspicions that I am Russian and the assertion was made that my edits pertaining to this article cannot be trusted due to bias. I hope that the other editors (some of them have been very helpful by expanding upon sections that I had previously drafted) will confirm that I have always assumed good faith and have been willing to discuss any of the implemented changes. I want to clarify that I am a Bulgarian from Sofia (my nickname was randomly chosen, I cannot speak or write in Russian and do not have any personal connections with the country in question) and am neither for nor against the protests. I am genuinely confused as to why some of my insertions are considered to have violated the principles of Wikipedia. Oleg Morgan (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article could no longer be considered neutral....I have listed it for protection. Editor @Aleksd is insulting anyone who posts materials that are not pro-protest and well-cited sections (which were not even controversial or anti-protest have been removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.27.226 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a note on one of the comment's left by the user in question, should an admin decide to dwell into the issue. This edit summary roughly translates into "red waste", a highly derogatory term used to insult footballers and politicians in Bulgaria.--Laveol ^T 10:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Volume of the Article

It's funny that afters weeks, not just days, of very week protests there is an enormous amount of edits of this article. It is actually larger than the quantity of edits in the months of really strong protests. I wish I could believe that this is done in good faith, as the rules of Wikipedia command, but just in case it isn't, the obvious aim would be to make the article unreadable. And this seems nearer and nearer every day, unfortunately. Martin Georgiev (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, to tell you the truth I have made quite a few additions to the article, but I only started contributing in late October 2013 when most of the heavy protest activities had already subsided. I was rather busy during the summer months and wasn't able to dedicate the matter much thought at the time. It seems as if the topic gradually grew on me and I hope that at some point in the future this could receive the rating of a "good article" (though it's not likely that the protests will officially be declared over or the government will step down, so it won't be possible to include a section on the protest aftermath). I agree with you about the volume - the article is still relatively easy to navigate, but it may be advisable to have more subsections with better organization (I don't think that sub-articles for each month should be created, as they won't meet the notability requirements on their own and there may not be enough material that is worth including). Keep up the nice work and thank you for making the wording more clear (without the unnecessary fluff)!

Thanks for appreciating my work, colleague! And if I may make a forecast: I bet my car and my year's salary that the government will certainly step down, whether in a couple of months, a couple of years or a decade. ;) So, one day there will be a section on the protest aftermath. Martin Georgiev (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, you are very welcome and well put - I agree with you regarding the future eventualities! :P Поздрави! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.234.153 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013–14 Bulgarian protests against the Oresharski cabinet. 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/20141006081939/http://video.bgnes.com/view/41781 to http://video.bgnes.com/view/41781

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) 15:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013–14 Bulgarian protests against the Oresharski cabinet. 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/20130618114406/http://bnt.bg/bg/news/view/102907/plevneliev_chuvstvam_se_omerzen to http://bnt.bg/bg/news/view/102907/plevneliev_chuvstvam_se_omerzen
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://bg-bg.facebook.com/NOresharski

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) 15:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)