Talk:Bulgarian Communist Party

Logo

Logo of the Bulgarian Communist Party as used on the bulgarian wikipedia article.

Why does this article show another logo as the bulgarian wikipedia article does ? They look totally different so it seems only one of them can be correct, but I don't speak bulgarian so I can't ask there. -- Juergen 37.24.212.73 (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The September uprising?

There’s very little info here of that period…..the period leading up to and the decades beyond the September uprising of 1923. Who was its leader? Blagoev opposed it, so it wasn’t him. The September uprising article has a hatnote about expansion possibilities, using the corresponding article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Boscaswell talk 11:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby

Jingiby: You are very blatantly vandalising this page. Българска Комунистическа Партия is EXPLICITLY presented with the first letter of each word in capitals, in the introduction to the page. It is also shown this way where it says (Bulgarian: ) at the start. Additionally, the bold name in English is shown in this format. However the native name only had the initial Б capitalised. This is an obvious anomaly which I corrected. Please stop vandalising people’s edits. 86.165.199.48 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no such rules in Bulgarian spelling. In the article about the party in Bulgarian Wikipedia, the party-name is written in lowercase letters everywhere except for the first word: Българска комунистическа партия. Jingiby (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources about regime ≠ RS describing the party

@ErickTheMerrick, your single source for three "ideologies" doesn't mention the party, at least not in the quote you've used. A source that describes actions of a regime isn't an OR-compliant source for describing the ideology of the ruling party. Why is it that you keep restoring your revision? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I keep restoring my revision because it is correct. The regime was the regime of the Bulgarian Communist Party over Bulgaria. Therefore, the ideologies of the regime are in fact, the ideologies of the party. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Turkish and Anti-Muslim aren't ideologies in the first place. The source also doesn't describe them as ideologies, only as policies. Policies don't belong in the infobox's ideology section, I'd have no objections to including a description of the policies in the body and/or lead. Is that a suitable compromise? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that policies of a state = ideologies of a ruling party. Regardless, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, you have to add proper context in the article body first. Restoring the additions places undue weight on information that isn't explained or even mentioned in the article body. Yue🌙 04:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly believe that they deserve mention in the government infobox as the regime was one ruled by the party and therefore, the ideologies would have also been held by the party. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Please revert your recent edit, it doesn't matter how strongly you believe it, because it goes against WP:OR since your source doesn't describe the party's ideology. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It describes the ideology of the regime which was led by the party of which was the only party and which had total control of the state therefore it would not be wrong to add these as the ideologies of the party as the party was in total control of the state. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't keep repeating myself. To add ideologies of a party to a party's page, you need reliable sources that describe the party as adhering to said ideologies. If those sources do not exist or are unverifiable or otherwise inaccessible, then a source describing something else as a certain ideology OR describing the party as a different ideology or the party's policies OR describing the party as anything other than the actual ideology that you want to add to the page, then using that source to back up your edits is WP:OR. If you have sources that don't violate original research then I have no problem with their inclusion whatsoever (although per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, they need to be included in the body as well). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It. Is. Not. WP:OR. The sources say the ideologies of the regime OF THE PARTY. I can’t keep repeating myself to YOU. This superfluousness of yours is unneeded in this discussion and contributes absolutely nothing here. This is getting boring from you. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

They objectively don't describe the ideology of the party because they don't mention the party in any of the quotes you used on this article. It absolutely doesn't matter that they were the only legal party, because that's not how Wikipedia works. The transitive property of, for example, "source A describes Putin as Fascist, source B says he's the leader of Party X, therefore party X is fascist" is WP:SYNTH, a subcategory of WP:OR. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to draw their own conclusions from sources, everything added to Wikipedia needs to be based on conclusions that someone else has drawn in a published secondary source. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 21:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)