Talk:GERB

Political position of GERB
There are reasons to doubt the centre-right position of GERB. The doubtful fact is GERB's memnership in the EPP, so I propose to have that as Gerb's location in the lefty-right spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircha (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a reliable source verifying the positioning. Or do you doubt the reliability of the Financial Times article that describes GERB as centre-right? And how is their membership in the EPP contradicting the centre-right position? EPP is centre-right as well, so this fact rather confirms the placement of GERB on the centre-right than contradicting it. --RJFF (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting nationalism as one of GERB's ideologies?! What kind of a sick joke is this?! This is a serious case of vandalizing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:4D62:382D:BA8E:B4F9 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is supported by the cited source. Unless you analyse this source and show that it cannot be considered reliable, you have to accept this content. That is Wikipedia's policy: verifiability and no original research. The same applies for other Bulgarian parties, like every article on Wikipedia. --RJFF (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

'''What "source"?! The reference was empty, without a link. And even, if there is a "source" claiming that GERB is a nationalist party, so what?! You can probably find a "source" that can dub Hitler - a humanist, Bush - a communist, or Schwarzenegger - a woman! Please inform yourselves, please stop flooding Wikipedia with ridiculous disinformation, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia!''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:98F8:5EA8:FB3D:3D88 (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This source that you deleted with your edit: . There does not need to be a link, as offline sources (books) are at least as valuable and legitimate as online sources. You may dispute the reliability or notability this source. But in this case, you should present arguments here, on the talk page and not edit war. (In case you did not now: "WP:edit warring" means to undo other users' edits again and again and is forbidden on Wikipedia. And using bold type on a talk page may be understood as "shouting" and is considered uncivil.) If you really want to edit and improve Wikipedia, please make yourself acquainted with our rules and policies. And please talk to other users in a civil and constructive way. Maybe we can find some compromise. But: at any rate, you have to stop edit warring, "shouting" and imputing bad intentions to other users. ("WP:Assume good faith" is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). Otherwise you will not get anywhere. --RJFF (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the principal that books are valid reliable sources, such as a North Korean newspaper is valid to get the list of active politicians in DPRK. So, please sign your text on the talk page. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 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) 11:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Weird at first glance but there you go. Jenks24 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change in article name of party. It is stated that only name of party is "ГЕРБ". it was similar situation with Czech ANO and TOP09 partie's names which aren't abbrevation.

Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria → GERB – GERB (Cyrillic ГЕРБ) seems to be a "pseudo-acronym" or "orphan initialism" like BP, AT&T, KFC or Czech ANO 2011 and TOP 09 parties. The party seems not to use the full name "Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria" any more. -- originally proposed by User:Aight 2009 at 08:45, on 2 June 2014‎

Support: GERB is registered with the Central Electoral Commission as "PP GERB" (Political Party GERB): http://results.cik.bg/ep2014/rezultati. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Support:So I think that article name should be GERB but it should be mentioned that party is registered as PP GERB Aight 2009 (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Already all Bulgarian parties are PP at first name so it is no need to include it to the name. Aight 2009 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on GERB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708093638/http://www.angus-reid.com:80/polls/view/14267 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14267
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002010621/http://www.angus-reid.com:80/polls/view/14698 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14698

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over election numbers
As suggested by the admins, I decided to bring my dispute with in the hope that more editors belonging to the Elections and Referendums WikiProject will help me settle the matter. As I pointed out in the past, I believe that is engaging in a series of disruptive edits of this page. More specifically, he keeps insisting that in the electoral history section of GERB the seat count should refer to the whole GERB-SDS coalition, while according to me (and according to the usual implicit rules followed in these situations) the seat count should refer solely to the seats held by GERB, while those held by the coalition as a whole should be inserted in the coalition page.

In support of my stance I can bring numerous examples, but I'll stick to two for practical reasons: a Bulgarian one (the Democratic Bulgaria coalition and its members), and an international one (the Greek KINAL coalition and its members). In support of his stance, brings his personal, subjective perception that GERB's coalition member, SDS, is too irrelevant and deserves to be incorporated into GERB. Now, creating ad hoc exceptions to consensus rules based solely on one user's perception seems to me quite unnecessary and in contrast with Wikipedia's usual line of work, but I'm open to feedbacks from other users. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Party ideology
Firstly, is it relevant any longer to designate GERB as a conservative party? I’d say that the party has shifted to a more liberal-conservative stance by following the common EPP narrative and that of the formerly Merkel-led CDU. Additionally, in contrast to the Revival and ITN parties in Bulgaria, GERB seems far more moderate. For example, the party has advocated for tolerance to ethnic minorities and LGBT people. Therefore, I suggest replacing conservative with liberal-conservative when describing the party’s ideology. Secondly, I propose including fiscal conservatism to the list of the party’s ideology, considering its conservative stance on issues regarding the national debt. Jorkdkskakaksjjsk (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jorkdkskakaksjjsk Please provide several sources for this proposal, specifically with it being referenced to as Liberal-Conservative; we don't change ideology because they made a one off statement. Your personal beliefs cannot completely change a party's ideology on the page. Also, talk pages are typically used first to get consensus on a topic and then once several people have replied, the change is made or not made, rather than just one person imposing their unsourced claim on an article. Regards Quinby  ( talk ) 21:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)