Talk:Plovdiv/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article needs to be rewritten in standard English

One problem with this article is that it is quite obviously written by a Bulgarian.

Don't misunderstand me: I love Bulgaria and Bulgarians. But since this is an English "encyclopedia", it's supposed to be written in standard English. The article is full of non-idiomatic phrases and word usages, not to mention random and non-standard punctuation. I've started cleaning it up. Plus, there's a little too much "chamber of commerce" type promotion and over-flowery language used to describe things here. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Founding Date

Does anyone know in what year Plovdiv was founded? If so please add the year to the article.--Moosh88 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it has been a settlement since prehistoric times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.78.231 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 September 2006

Reference, please? +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Burago

I'm hoping that somebody who lives in Plovdiv could help with this — I've created a stub on Captain Aleksandr Burago, and it would be great to have a photo of the monument in Plovdiv for the Wikipedia article. Also, could somebody please help exacting his first name — some references suggest that he might be Aleksandr and not Constantin? Please respond over at Talk:Aleksandr Burago. TIA. --BACbKA 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Metro

The population of Plovdiv's metro area is bigger than 400 000 I don't know who changed it but it will be good if shows a source. A more precise number is listed in the operational programme " Regional Development" 2007-2013 created by the Ministry of regional Developments and Public Works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidius (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Population

I have updated the population figures according to a more reliable source. This source is also used as reference for the population of other Bulgarian cities e.g. Varna. Avidius (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

External Link - Plovdiv - Granada of the East

The article (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/plovdiv.htm) is extremely biased. First of all Plovdiv WAS NOT 125,000 in 1878 - this is a grave overestimation - if there were an exodus of 90,000 people, this would have been recorded by the western media... None of this happened. The western media however DID RECORD the massacres in nearby Batak in 1876, so it is not fair to say that it was not interested in the region. The article may mention historical thruth, but it also wrongfully accuses and humiliates the current christian population of the city... I thought that this is an encylopedia, and not a religious propaganda machine...

Further on, the link cites incorrect population numbers - there are not 60,000 Turks + 30,000 muslim Romas in Plovdiv - the data from the last official census (2001) states 60,000 muslims for the ENTIRE PLOVDIV PROVINCE. Plovdiv Province has a population of over 700,000 (please see http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm). These incorrect numbers in the 'artcle' further diminish its historical significance - the author does not provide us with correct information for today's demographics of the city, and I do not see how he can be trusted about events that happened 130 years ago... In addition to that, the article states 'formerly insignificant town which had flowered under the aegis of the Sultan and the Islamic economic system' - this is extremely incorrect - Plovdiv was a major centre in the Roman empire. In the Roman times Plovdiv was a capital of Thrace province, and one of the biggest cities in the peninsula. In the Middle ages the city was (among with Constantinople and Tessaloniki) one of the most important centres in the region! How come this can be underestimated! I believe that the article creates a wrongful impression that the city thrived ONLY when it was part of the Ottoman empire. In addition, the author states in the second paragraph that the Muslim and Jewish population of the city fled after Plovdiv was taken by the Russians - this is not true. Bulgaria was one of the few countreis that saved its Jewish population in WWII, and it has also preserved its Muslim population (despite the disgusting attempts of the communists to destroy religion in the country), and I do not see how the Bulgarian population would have started massacres in 1878.

I have nothing against adding a link that discusses the muslim connections of the city, but this is just outragious. The article does state some truths about the Communist rule, but most of the other stuff in there is extremely twisted. Cnn lies 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with him. This link semms to me as a falso Turk propaganda and many of the thing written there are lies. For instance may I ask how many churches survived during the ottoman rule from the medieval period?! They are perhaps fewer than 20 in the whole country, and there used to be thousands, and it was the muslims who destroyed them. When the ottomans conquerred Bulgaria, it had a population of around 3,000,000 as England, and when Bulgaria liberated five centuries earlier, it had the same population, while england had more than 40,000,000. And there is almost no cultural legasy left from this peroid, so tell me is it not an age of setback and decline?

And, the Muslims should not complain because now they have more than 1,000 mosques in Bulgaria against 5,000 churches, while they are 10% of the population. And there are 2 large mosques in Plovdiv, one of them in the very centre where there should be a cathedral.

The link is outragios. --Gligan 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that. The article is anti-Christian and anti-Bulgarian, and it represents a strong and unsupported point of view; it also totally messes up facts and statistics. It has no place in External links or anywhere else. We don't need propaganda, end of the question. Todor→Bozhinov 10:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

+ the user that constantly adds this is well into all sorts of propaganda --Laveol 14:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The link has just been reinserted, so the issue is still with us. Let me try to take this discussion in a slightly different direction and see if that gets us anywhere.

Certainly the linked article is written from a Turkocentric and Islamocentric point of view; that should be obvious to the most casual reader. And let's leave aside, for the moment, the veracity of the claims made in the article. In fact, let's assume for the sake of discussion that the article does contain historical inaccuracies. My question is then, does this automatically disqualify the article for an inclusion as an external link to this article? Mind you, this is a different question from "should this material be incorporated into the article?". We're only discussing whether this belongs here as a link, one which may or may not be followed by readers of the article.

I'd also like to point out some of the obvious baggage connected to this article, at the risk of pissing off people of various ethnicities. Having been to Bulgaria, I can confidently say that, in general, Bulgarians do have a kind of blind spot when it comes to Turks, and possibly even Muslims. This is completely understandable, as the fact of 500 years of Ottoman occupation is inescapable as one travels around the country. But it leaves Bulgarians somewhat in the same position as the Turks themselves, say, regarding their (Turks) insistent denial of the Armenian holocaust; that's another gaping historical blind spot. In general, it seems that no discussion among Balkan people can occur without large amounts of accusations of various crimes against humanity, dredging up of ancient histories, and all that. As a Western observer, it sometimes seems as if people "over there" never forget the slightest injustice, whether it happened last week or a thousand years ago, and this tends to make some of us in the West throw up our hands and say the hell with it. Some of that historical sparring seems to be occuring here. Fine: I understand that there are reasons for this. But perhaps, maybe just this once, people here could put their swords down for a moment and try to look at this somewhat objectively.

My own opinion of the Murad article really doesn't matter, as I'm not qualified to comment on this area of history; it does strike me, though, as very well written, somewhat colorful, and possibly a useful addendum to the article, even taking into account whatever inaccuracies, perceived or real, it contains. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think that you have said it for youtself - the article contains historical lies and bias. I am sorry, but I will not favour the inclusion of the link. The article is an obvious propaganda - my opinion is that it does not have a place in an encyclopedia that claims to give a comprehensive and neutral information. Can you see any Bulgarian nationalistic links around the article? There are some of them around the Internet I am sure, but where is the reason for their inclusion - they will not add anything useful to the contents of the Plovdiv article and I thought that this is the purpose of the external links. Does the existence of a radical theory/article/work make it absolutely necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Your comparison with the Armenian genocide is completely flawed. The oppresions of Turks during the communist rule has been aknowledged by different Bulgarian governments many times after 1989. Also a FORMAL appology to the Turkish side was issued by one Bulgarian government - the one led by Ivan Kostov (1997-2001). I do not know the exact date when this happened, but I am certain that this is true. I do not think that ANY Turkish government has come anywhere close to that with regards to the Armenian genocide.

Now, I, myself, do not have any prejudice or bad feelings against Turks - I used to study with some of them at university, back in Bulgaria and with one of them here in Vancouver; and even hang out with them (you may think that I lie, but I DO NOT). It is true that there exists some tension between the two groups, but this is NOT comparable to what has been happening in the neighbouring countries, and people must give credit to the citizens of Bulgaria for that - unfortunately, this is something that noone does. Instead, people are constantly spreading propaganda and hatred around just for their own good feeling... Currently I live in Vancouver, Canada, and there are some Bulgarian Turks and Muslim Bulgarians among us here, and we DO socialize - the distance from the Balkans drives people to a slightly different view of life. But the only thing that I can say is that articles like this one, fueled with obvious and intentional historical lies, are the moving force behind ethnical distrust and hatred. For me, this is a question of principles - being neutral does not necessitates the inclusion of tons and tons of propaganda from any two extremes, it requires support of the middle ground.

If you want to place pictures of the two mosques, do it, no one will stop you from that, otherwise I do not see a reason there should be two links (surprise, surprise) to the article. I want to ask you to stop the game and edit and discuss from ONE USER ACCOUNT. I do not think that editing as 2-3 separate users will help you here - it's against the rules. Cnn lies 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On that last note, just for the record, I have nothing to do with the editor[s] who put that link in the article, nor do I have any vested interest in that link one way or the other. (I guess I can forgive you for being suspicious.) Just trying to reach some reasonable accomodation here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comments about this link, I believe it is being allowed to stay because it is written by a prominent Muslim scholar, but the article is too biased and doesn't represent a true picture of the time period. +Koal4e 12:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link due to the following violation of Wikipedia rules

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

The article is misleading as it does not offer an unbiased view of the true history that happened. It talks about horrific massacres of the Muslim population without talking about what the Ottoman Empire had done to the Bulgarian people of Plovdiv thus giving the view that the Ottoman Empire had not caused attrocities themselves. The article also talks about mile after mile of empty shells of communist era factories when the truth is that the Plovdiv of today is one where the economy is thriving greatly and new buildings are being erected at a fast pace to keep up with demand.

The writer is clearly against Bulgarian people as he writes about a mosque in the city "The outside walls are used as a urinal by Bulgarian drunks," to me an external link that is factually incorrect and demonises the same people this article is about does not belong here. +Koal4e 15:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove that link once and for all! It is full of lies writen by this Tim guy who has converted to islam and is now preaching his lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.93.24 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly removed this external link because I and all other Bulgarians who have shared theit thoughts on the duscussion page findit bias and fual of false information that may mislead its readers.Further more I live in Plovdiv and I find the contents of that article insulting. By the way why don't you write the authors new arab name and not his old one at least the readers may understand why was that thing written. Avidius--Avidius (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you gave no reason for the removal in the edit summary. Sorry, I did not notice the discussion on the article talk page. Please use the edit summary when removing content/links to avoid any future confusion, as it may not be clear why you are removing it. I will not restore the link now that I know the reason you removed it. I have moved this from my talk page, as I think is more relevant on the article talk page.--CoJaBo (talk)

---

I have once again removed the link due to the following violation of Wikipedia rules

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

The article is misleading as it does not offer an unbiased view of the true history that happened. It talks about horrific massacres of the Muslim population without talking about what the Ottoman Empire had done to the Bulgarian people of Plovdiv thus giving the view that the Ottoman Empire had not caused attrocities themselves. The article also talks about mile after mile of empty shells of communist era factories when the truth is that the Plovdiv of today is one where the economy is thriving greatly and new buildings are being erected at a fast pace to keep up with demand. I also want to add that there is no Leningrad avenue in Plovdiv (you cant even put Leningrad and avenue together as one is masculine and one feminine) but there is a Leningrad Boulevard which is full of shops, new hotels and apartments etc so this is another inaccurate comment.

The writer is clearly against Bulgarian people as he writes about a mosque in the city "The outside walls are used as a urinal by Bulgarian drunks," to me an external link that is factually incorrect and demonises the same people this article is about does not belong here.

My knowledge of Plovdiv is quite strong given I am there for a few months a year and my wife is from Plovdiv. +Koal4e 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

За линка "Пловдив - Гранада на изтока"

Няма ли българи, които да ми помогнат да спрем постоянното включване на тази гнусна статийка написана от някакъв си псевдоучен, който на всичкото от горе туко що приел исляма и вече за да се покаже угоден на Алаха пише тези лъжи. Avidius--Avidius--Avidius (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this concerns the link to the article "Plovdiv, Granada of the East" from what little Bulgarian I know. Do you mind writing in English here, as this is an English-language project? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation...

For link "Plovdiv - Granada of the East"

Isn't there Bulgarians who can help me stop the constant inclusion of this disgusting article written by someone who calls himself a scholar who on top of everything else has accepted Islam as his religion and in order to show himself good to Allah is writing these lies. +Koal4e 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up External Links

I have removed two external links, one from zonebulgaria which had a small paragraph about Plovdiv and that was all, the other was a link to photos that just came up with items not found.

I left the external link - Plovdiv - Granada of the East as there is a deep discussion regarding this although my opinion is that it should be removed until it has more fact based information included and is less biased against the Bulgarian people. +Koal4e 12:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The link Plovdiv-Granada of the east should be removed it has strong antibulgarian purpose and manipulates history e.g it tries to make Plovdiv a historically musslim town and talks about musslims being slaughtered while omitting the fact that when the Ottomans captured it they promptly slaughtered the christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.93.24 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

None of you have given any compelling or valid reasons for constantly removing this link. So far as the objection of the linked material being "biased" goes, so what? It's not part of the article proper, where biased material should be removed: it's an external link. The ridiculous accusation of being "against the Bulgarian people" is neither here nor there: again, such a perceived bias doesn't matter. The article is a scholarly one, and it presents a valid alternative view to the "official" Bulgarian one, which (understandably, perhaps) seeks to erase much of the historical past, especially the parts pertaining to being occupied by the Ottoman Empire. So until someone presents a valid, compelling reason why it shouldn't be here, I'll continue to restore it. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A "valid alternative view" ? How can any view be valid when it is based on false information and lies ? Your behaiviour on the other had makes me wonder what your real motives are, perhapes they are personal ? One thing more Bulgarians have nothing to be ashamed of they were not the one who carried ethnic clensings, as your so called scholar tries to convince us.

+ Avidius--Avidius (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. I do happen to know a bit about Bulgarian history, having been there, and understand that the country was under Ottoman occupation for a very long time (~500 years), and that they were brutally oppressed, etc., etc. (I also know that the Turkish minority in Bulgaria has suffered discriminatory treatment in the very recent past as well.) But that is all beside the point here. The point is that this is a scholarly look at an aspect of Plovdiv's history that one will not get from any official Bulgarian source. It is relevant to the subject and sheds light on it, even if you happen to disagree with some of its conclusions. Even if the article contains inaccuracies, as those minor ones pointed out below (mis-naming of streets), that is not a reason to remove it. If such statements were in the article proper, then of course they should be removed. But this is a piece written with a particular point of view by someone who knows about the history of the place, and as such is a valid link for the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A particular biased point of view to be exact which should not be typical for a real scholar. Knows about the history of the place ? How can he know the history of the place when almost everything he writes is wrong ? Sure, everyone can read Evlya Chelebi but that does mean everybody will know the history of the place after that ? I have an idea why not insert a similar link on the Instanbul page describing some real historycal facts ? +Avidius--Avidius (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have given much evidence of the article being factually innaccurate and have mentioned this one more than one occasion on your own talk page without any comment from yourself. The issue here is that factually inaccurate information, scholar or not, is against Wikipedia TOS as shown below.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

Just a few of the reasons that this article is factually innaccurate I have mentioned on here and your talk page ILike2BeAnonymous are

1) There are many issues with the article such as its bias against Bulgarian people as it even has the following inaccurate comment written in it "The outside walls are used as a urinal by Bulgarian drunks," while talking about a mosque. Can the writer clearly say that he knows Bulgarians choose to walk up to the mosque after a night drinking and use it as a toilet?

2) There is no Leningrad Avenue or Industriyalna Road in Plovdiv, actually there is not even a Leningrad avenue in Bulgaria at all because Bulgaria does not have avenues and you cannot even put Industriyalna and Road together as Industriyalna is feminine and Road is masculine. There is a Leningrad Boulevard which is full of shops, new hotels and apartments etc so this is another inaccurate comment.

3) The article also talks about mile after mile of empty shells of communist era factories when the truth is that the Plovdiv of today is one where the economy is thriving greatly and new buildings are being erected at a fast pace to keep up with demand, again this comment is about the Industriyalna Road mentioned above.

To me an article that is factually inaccurate has no place on Wikipedia whether it be biased or not. We need to find common ground with this link otherwise it will keep being removed and reinserted for a long time to come. +Koal4e 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to find a true scholar who would write bias and demeaning content about a culture to the point where they are even talking about drunk people urinating on historical monuments. I feel that this goes way beyond what I would call acceptable bias.

I only use the examples above of factually innaccurate information in the article when there are many others. One thing you have accepted is that there are factual inaccuracies which is against Wikipedia TOS as mentioned previously.

I would also like to mention that you talk of these factual inaccuracies as minor yet they are absolutely huge, which if you have travelled around Plovdiv you would concede. The article talks about the Plovdiv today as if it is a place where there is no economy and just empty shells of communist era factories which is the total opposite of the truth as Plovdiv is full of brand new commercial and residential buildings and a thriving economy.

This link has been added and removed so many times that I feel its time to ask for arbitration on the matter to gain an outsiders perspective.+Koal4e 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Old town replaced by office buildings

Are the rumors true that the old town cottages will be destroyed and replaced with small office buildings and a mall?83.228.121.186 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cottages ? I wouldn't call them that but anyway the Old Town is a protected area and no mall will be build within it.--Avidius (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected? As far as I know only some of the houses are protected, a bit more than 50%. If this is true, the other houses can be destroyed, because they are not protected.T kanemska (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is Plovdiv - Granada of the East external link warranted here?

+Koal4e

Dispute over external link due to discrepencies in factual accuracy and also bias deemed extreme by some editors

The revert war over this link is out of control, and is probably disrupting other contributions to the article. Please stop endlessly reverting until consensus is reached on whether or not the link should be there, it is getting nowhere.--CoJaBo (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How in the world could it be "disrupting other contributions to the article"? Other changes can happen (and have happened) irrespective of the conflict over this link. This sounds like conflict-mongering to me. For chrissakes, it's one lousy link at the end of the article.

And I still say that people's energies would be much better spent on more pressing problems of fact here, namely the still-tagged and uncited "metro" population figure. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I raised this comment and believe the link should not be included in the article, but I also agree with CoJaBo that the link should remain until consensus is agreed one way ro the other as this has become a ridiculus fasade whether reverts are happening two to more times a day.

Please could those involved comment on the link here and find resolution.--koal4e (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that’s an unreliable source. Just a couple of examples:

... and yet the gem of the neighbourhood is neither a church nor a mosque, but a house. This was built in 1848 for a Muslim family, the Kurumjioglus ... The house of the unfortunate Kurumjioglus thus provides yet another reason to be annoyed etc.

As a matter of fact that family was not Muslim. The house was built by the Christian merchant Argir Christov Kuyumdzhioglu ([1], [2]). His family name apparently originates to the profession of some ancestor of his (Turkish ‘kuyumcu’ – ‘jeweller’), the first name originates to the Greek word for ‘silver’, and the father’s name is Bulgarian ‘Christo’. Turkish family names like ‘Kuyumdzhiev’ are not uncommon among Bulgarians even today, however no Muslim in Ottoman Turkey would have had a Christian first or father’s name.

Due to a negative birthrate, the national population halves every generation. ... over sixty percent of babies are born to Muslim families. ... a Christian country created when most of its population was Muslim etc.

Quite absurd indeed. Sources that make such fantastic claims are hardly appropriate here I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine I will not remove the link until this matter is cleared. However what disturbs me is the propaganda character of this article. Is Wikipedia a place were such things should exist? That last quote about the babies etc. is especially important because it suggests that the author is in a way hopping that bulgarian christians will become a minority in their own country and this is seen as an "asset" by this scholar. Afcourse Mr Abdal-Hakim Murad being a muslim himself can be expected to be biased in some of his comments but I am afraid that in this article there is no objectivity.(Avidius|talk) --Avidius (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.eufunds.bg/docs/OPRD_29August_FINAL_Revised.pdf Look up the Metro number here. I think it was page 39.--Avidius --Avidius (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay clear it as much as you like. A source should either give the right perspective, or be informative. Sources that are both biased and factually grossly misleading are no use. It is my impression that the author's problem is his being even more ignorant than he is overjealous. While he may have researched some books, and he may have even visited Plovdiv, the result is too 'Balkan' by Balkan standards even :-) A link like that wouldn't have lasted a day elsewhere in Wikipedia, but this article apparently enjoys a special treatment. Anyway, I'm not wasting more time on it. Apcbg (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus so far is showing that the article is innaccurate and bias with an outside perspective showing that it should not be included in the article (thank you for your contributions Apcbg) I am hoping others make comment on here so we have a broader view to make an informed decision as to whether the link should be removed or not.

Avidius, I agree with you that the link should be removed but feel a thorough review of the link to gain agreement that it should/should not be included should take place as I can see you have put a lot of effort in to making sure the link is not on the article but the link still reappears.--koal4e (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is a general agreement that the link should be removed. Only one user, the user who inserted it, seems to be opposed. As that user shows no interest of arguing his case here and the general opinion is for it to be removed, I'll remove it. The article it links to is of very low quality and of very dubious WP:POV. If no strong case can be made for keeping it, I don't see any reason for it to be re-inserted. JdeJ (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that even though we have gone through the comment process and everyone is in agreement that the link should not exist on the article one editor keeps putting it back in the article. I feel that this process has not done what it was meant to achieve and feel that we should move to third party mediation.

Before initiating this process I would like to give all concerned the opportunity to discuss the article further and/or agree to the third party mediation as we seem to be going round in circles. --koal4e (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Population

Look at the BG version, Постоянните жители (живеещите в България и живеещите в чужбина, но с български паспорт) на община Пловдив през 2007 г. са 705 121 души, което я нарежда на второ място по население и 224-то по площ в страната. Според данните на НСИ от 12. 06. 2008 реално живеещите в Пловдив са 705 121 жители[7].

when did plovdiv became a 700k + city,that damn funny.especially if we take the fact that soon plovdiv will(or may be is) be overtaken by varna in term of size ,and the city is very behind from Varna and Burgas in term of investments

The population of Plovdiv Province is 705 121 according to NSI. GRAO is used as a population reference for all Bulgarian cities.--Avidius (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Avidius is right, the figure of 705121 is for the province not the city. --Koal4e (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Isnt the time to write in the article the real ranking of Plovdiv -3rd bulgarian city ,afterall Varna overtaked Plovdiv in every aspect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.188.66 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "pld" :
  • [http://old.plovdiv.bg/istoriq_grad.htm История на Пловдив]
  • [http://www.plovdivcity.net/bg/plovdiv_history.html PlovdivCity.net], посетен на 10 ноември 2007 г.
  • [http://www.focus-news.net/?id=n819663 Агенция Фокус - Цар Калоян получава корона, скиптър и знаме от кардинал Лъв], посетен на 17 ноември 2007 г.

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

new image

The skyline image for Plovdiv has been deleted.I'm sorry because it was really an amazing picture.Any suggestions for a new skyline image?GvmBG (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)GvmBG

Unfortunately it is very difficult to find a really beautiful picture. I suggest that we return the old picture from the infobox or use that one made by Avidius. Would you suggest something else? --Gligan (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Or this one.You can affcourse try to find something better.Avidius (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Filibe

Filibe was a name of Plovdiv during the Ottoman rule (XIV — XIX century). Nowadays Plovdiv in Turkish is... Plovdiv. I think it is not needed to give names in other languages than national as we have multilingual encyclopedia and making an article in different languages is very easy.--Valkov 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

When (day-month-year) the name was renamed? Which legal act determines this change? --212.70.133.175 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Period

I do not know about the National Revival Period, but the city article definitely needs a section about the period of Ottoman occupation. After all, the town was Ottoman for more than 500 years. I intend to write a part about this in the history section. Also, since the history section may thus become huge, we may eed to create a separate article for it. Any suggestions/objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.91.72 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The history section looks good as it is now. I think it would be much better to create a new article called "History of Plovdiv". In fact I wanted to create a separate article myself but I have very little time and so many articles to edit that it would be nice if you make History of Plovdiv : ) --Gligan (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What about demographics in Ottoman era? 1600s, 1700s, 1800s... --212.70.133.175 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Philippopolis retaken by the Byzantines in 855-856

Two Bulgarian sources refer to a conflict between the Byzantines and Bulgarians started in 855-856. The Byzantine forces, were successful in the conflict and reconquered a number of cities, Philippopolis, Develtus, Anchialus and Mesembria being among them, and also the frontier region between Sider and Develtus, known as Zagora, in northeastern Thrace. Gjuzelev, p. 130 (Gjuzelev, V., (1988) Medieval Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire, Black Sea, Venice, Genoa (Centre culturel du monde byzantin). Published by Verlag Baier) and Bulgarian historical review, p.9 (Bulgarian historical review (2005), United Center for Research and Training in History, Published by Pub. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, v.33:no.1-4). Urselius (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"One of Europe's oldest cities"?

Isn't Plovdiv Europe's #1 oldest city? If so, why not rather say that in the article? Deusveritasest (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd need some pretty tough sources to back up a claim like that. --Laveol ^T 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. It's simply that the first European city listed on the list of oldest cities on Wiki is Plovdiv. I assumed that was an indication of a claim that it was the oldest European city. But you're right that's very possibly not even the case. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not older under any circumstances and other tourist pamphlet stuff

"It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople" is unreal.Phillipopolis became a polis sometime after 342 BC.Rome was founded at 8th century BC and later grew to a city,Byzantium 671-662 BC,Carthage 814 BC,Troy and Mycenae sevearl millenia ago.Megistias (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true! Phillip II only conquered the city he didn't found it or turn it into a polis.It had other names before it was renamed by him.Also many books including in English for instance "Conservation and Sustainability in Historic cities" by Dennis Rodwell confirm it.--Avidius (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thracians never built cities their "cities" were large villages at best.And "Conservation and Sustainability in Historic cities" talks about habitation since 4000BC times which is not related to cities as there was no City thereMegistias (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The book clearly states " Plovdiv is one of Europe's oldest cities". So do not play games that you can't win. Also the thracians had cities after all civilazation in Europe didn't begin with the Greeks.--Avidius (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So when it's against your agenda, an official municipal website ([3]) is "tourist pamphlet stuff", but when it serves your purpose, a clearly tourist website ([4]) is perfectly reliable material. Down with the double standards. Todor→Bozhinov 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That book mentions continued habitation.Thats it.Also regarding Thracians,they did not built cities

• The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond ,ISBN 0521227178,1992,page 612: "Thrace possesed only fortified areas and cities such as Cabassus would have been no more than large villages.In general the population lived in villages and hamlets
• Its impossible for Plovdiv to be older than those places.Megistias (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just count?"It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople" is unreal.Phillipopolis became a polis sometime after 342 BC.Rome was founded at 8th century BC and later grew to a city,Byzantium 671-662 BC,Carthage 814 BC,Troy and Mycenae sevearl millenia ago.Megistias (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, and what has been happening to the settlement before if officially became a polis? Recent research puts it at 4 or 5 thousand years BC. Bulgarian research, that is. I notice you use Bulgarian sources only when you see fit. --Laveol ^T 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And further - didn't Philip conquer an actually existing settlement? --Laveol ^T 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You cant be serious this is beyond fringe and unreal.Its Neolithic.Megistias (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Better check Neolithic Europe. So it is older then rome and Constantinople for sure.--Avidius (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe + Unreal and unEncyclopedic.Megistias (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do you see it as fringe? You've found a scholar dating Plovdiv's history differently? --Laveol ^T 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So far the only unreal things around here have been your claims.--Avidius (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Ancient Greek idea of a polis was by no means universal. Even so, Mycenae and Troy were not poleis as they preceded the very idea of a polis, which dates to the Archaic period (650–480 BC). Mycenae thrived in the Late Helladic period (1550–1060 BC), and the earliest archaeology of Troy dates to 3000 BC. Rome was legendarily founded in 753 BC, Carthage in 814 BC, and Byzantium in 671–662 BC. All before the Archaic period and its idea of a polis. Not to mention Rome and Carthage have nothing to do with Ancient Greek cultural concepts in the first place.

Basically, my research above makes Megistias' point that we should compare "city status" rather than "actual chronology of continuous inhabitance" invalid. Which it was in the first place. Todor→Bozhinov 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The area that Rome was built was inhabited since 14,000 BC,(Earliest Italy: An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology) by Margherita Mussi (Hardcover - Nov 2001)page 60: "... The Sites of the Via Aurelia (Latium) The environs of Rome, and the capital itself, are rich in Paleolithic sites. ...")How can Plovdiv be even as a region older than that? And how is relevat comparing them in the article?Megistias (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the area, it's about the mostly smooth and certainly continuous existence of a single settlement from a given point in time to this day. Todor→Bozhinov 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that Latium is an area that included settlements other then Rome? While in the case of Plovdiv we are speaking of habitation in what is now the center of the city for thousands of years.--Avidius (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no place for that sentence in the article.Its irrelevant.Megistias (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is completely and utterly impossible to be older than those cities as you are comparing Historical cities against Neolithic sites because it suits you.Megistias (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or in another words, there's something in the whole topic that obviously does not suit you.--Laveol ^T 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a little hard for him to disguise it.--Avidius (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical cities against Neolithic sites.Not logical to say the least.Megistias (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So Plovdiv is not a historical city? Perhaps you can tell us the exact day and hour when Rome became a city?--Avidius (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, Megistias, last time I checked, the Neolithic was part of history. Is it now an astronomical term? And you do know that humans had settled down in the Neolithic, forming settlements, right? [5] Todor→Bozhinov 21:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In that sentence you compare Historical cities against Neolithic sites to "prove" something already irrelevant and inapprorpriate.Megistias (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who do you mean by 'you'? What sentence? Can you please quit repeating an argument that is already out of the game and start making some sense? Todor→Bozhinov 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Try reading a topic before you start writing comments."It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople" is unreal.Phillipopolis became a polis sometime after 342 BC.Rome was founded at 8th century BC and later grew to a city,Byzantium 671-662 BC,Carthage 814 BC,Troy and Mycenae sevearl millenia ago.Megistias (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate having to break it to you, but you've been repeating that bit since the beginning of the whole argument. We already tried to explain that the city officially turning into a police does not mean it hadn't existed prior to that. --Laveol ^T 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Its simple.That part is

• Un-Encyclopedic
• Definetely unreal and illogical
• Befitts a tourist article and not an encyclopedic articleMegistias (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh, you're back to the even more ridiculous was not a polis until 342 BC phase now. Polis ≠ city, man. I'm bored. Todor→Bozhinov 21:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, while, in principle, I do agree that the lead sentence might need a tweak or two, just to make it sound less pompous and more befit here, I do not agree with your tone and the removal of the whole section. How exactly is it unreal? Or illogical (where did you come up with that)? How is it unencyslopaedic? --Laveol ^T 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How could this have a place here? Its not just pompous its like the opening night at the Theater."It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople".Megistias (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The passage "It is a contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople" is ridiculous and does not belong in an encyclopedia. It reads like something from a tourist brochure, which Wikipedia is NOT. --Athenean (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, now that Megistias (who has an unfortunate tendency of sounding like a broken record in such discussions) is no longer here, perhaps we can get this to a slightly more rational level. Todor, you said somewhere above that "it's about the mostly smooth and certainly continuous existence of a single settlement", and I agree that this could be a reasonable criterion. But what makes you think the pre-history of this place is significantly more "smooth and continuous" than that of, say, Athens, Corinth, or Rome, or any of the many many places around the Mediterranean that have similarly old prehistoric archaeological layers? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What I was merely trying to prove is that the idea of Plovdiv's age cannot be that easily regarded as ridiculous, as some Greek users have put it. Also, we're not comparing "smoothness and continuity", we're establishing relative smoothness and confirming continuity, then comparing age.

In fact, if you're requesting my opinion, I'm not a great fan of the whole "Plovdiv is the oldest, the best, better than the rest" thing. It was the annoying attempts to prove this wrong that brought me to this discussion. Megistias was all about proving Plovdiv is not old or not an old city or dismissing the referencing of the claim rather than suggesting alternatives or asking for co-operation.

If he had done that, he would not have encountered that resistance, at least on my part: I would have happily gone with "With a history dating back over 6000 years Plovdiv is one of Europe's oldest settlements. The government of the city claims Plovdiv is a contemporary of X and older than Y and Z." To be frank, I'm happy with the current wording, which omits the comparisons. I appreciate the fact that the comparisons add measure and perspective to Plovdiv's history, but they do sound a bit flamboyant. They cannot be dismissed as "ridiculous" though, as they surely have some reasoning behind them.

It's the aggressive, war-waging and "broken record" attitude displayed by Megistias that repulses me. If he didn't insist on minimizing the history of Balkan nations other than Greeks and if he adopted a friendlier, more co-operative approach that relies less on active article editing and reverting, but on discussing and suggesting, his contributions would have much more success. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Europe's oldest city"

The claim that Plovdiv has a history going back 6000 years is sourced to a single, inappropriate source. The Dennis Rodwell source is primarily environmental, not archeological in focus, and hence off topic and inappropriate. Even worse, the phrase is lifted verbatim from the source, and then cut-and-pasted twice in the article (first in the second sentence of the lead, then again in the history section! Further on, it is claimed that an established settlement existed there since the 7th millennium BC, which is sourced the Plovdiv Museum website (a dead link) and to two Bulgarian language publications. This is utterly ridiculous. These are exceptional claims, and exceptional claims require high-quality sources. If the claim that Plovdiv is Europe's oldest continuously inhabited city were reflected in the international academic consensus, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream English-language reliable sources that would reflect this consensus. This is clearly NOT the case here, the case here being one of "antiquity frenzy", fringe-POV pushing, not to mention violation of WP:DUE and manipulation of WP:RS. The arguments put forth by the users that support these claims are even more outrageous [6], using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sarcasm and sophistry. --Athenean (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is utterly ridiculous is your attitude.It says it is one of the oldest, not the oldest continuously inhabitated cities and that is a fact.May be you should get used to the fact that the world history doesn't revolve around Ancient Greece.--Avidius (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Avidius, please stay civil. And I agree that such a claim needs to be cited better than via inaccessible sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Following this [7] and this [8] edit, I have modified the lead accordingly. Plovdiv was removed from the list because a better source is needed per WP:REDFLAG, and traces of a neolithic settlement do not amount to the same thing as continuous habitation. Hope it's ok now. Athenean (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same ethnographic information from 1884 is repeated in the "Eastern Rumelia" subsections and the Demographics section. Not that it's a big issue, but thought I'd let everyone know. Athenean (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate

The data seems to indicate much higher values for the summer months than in actuality. I don't know much about Plovdiv, but the values seem unusual for the area. Plese, see http://www.weatherbase.com for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoanC (talk • contribs) 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Koppen scale climate

I think the city fits into the humid subtropical category of the Koppen classification. See link, Koppen —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoanC (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Name

Well now, this is interesting: I did a search on Google books for "Plovidv" and got approximately 2300 hits [9]. When I do a similar search for "Philippoupolis" and its variant "Philippopolis" I get 417 [10] and [11] 1850 hits respectively, or almost the same. Considering this, the fact the place was known as Philippopolis in the English-speaking world for most of its history, it's large former Greek population, I think inclusion of the Greek name in parentheses in the lead is fully warranted per WP:NCGN, particularly clause 2: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.... Now, because I expect nothing more than edit-warring and the usual howls of rage, I am posting this on the talkpage. However, I believe my case is rock-solid and fully backed by wikipedia policy, and any edit-warring will be dealt with accordingly. --Athenean (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, why not move it down to the name section? It's a former, not a current population. It'd be like adding the Slavic name of Thessaloniki ([12]). Btw, pardon for the question, but why do you undertake something that you presume'd start an edit-war?--Laveol ^T 02:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, you will note that Solun only gets about 800 hits, while the various Greek-derived forms (Thessaloniki, Thessalonica, Saloniki) get roughly 5000 apiece. But you're right, it's guaranteed to lead to an edit-war, and thus not a good idea, so I will re-work it. --Athenean (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar gives some interesting results which kinda make it a borderline question. I got 2,410 for Philippopoli and 20,300 for Plovdiv. I think there is something else worth considering. Some of the hits represent materials with galleries, hotels, restaurants and other places of interest in the contemporary city. They are not part of works on the city (or to be precise, do not actually mention it with this particular name). --Laveol ^T 02:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I get 17300 for Plovdiv (English language sources only), 1380 for Philippopolis. So the story on google scholar is indeed different. Re your second point, are you referring to the google books hits? --Athenean (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm pretty sure I saw a ref to a hotel I spent a night last December in. :) --Laveol ^T 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I changed it, what do you think, is it ok now? --Athenean (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One to a restaurant. I have to say there are not that much of them, though.--Laveol ^T 02:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's alright now. Thanks for the co-operational attitude and I'll be wishing you a good night. It's high time I made the journey to my bed :) --Laveol ^T 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility and cooperative attitude. If only all disputes on Wikipedia could be resolved as amicably. Best, --Athenean (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is really unfair to have the Greek name in the lead section while for Thessaliniki we don't have the Bulgarian name. When I tried to put it in the lead years ago, the explanation for the removal was that it was already mentioned in the name section. And it was at that time that we agreed with the Greek editors to do the same for Plovdiv. --Gligan (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the two situations are comparable. The Greek spelling isn't used here as part of a list of names in the lead - it is given in the context of discussing the city's former name. In any case, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument.--Ptolion (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, why is then the other name of Thessaloniki not discussed in the lead? In that case discuss the name in its section. Don't use double standards please.

Furthermore the same solution is used for Istanbul - you have Constantinople and Byzantion in the lead but without Greek spelling. --Gligan (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that the name Solun is notable enough to merit a paragraph of its own in the lead at Thessaloniki, there's nothing stopping you writing one. I am of the opinion though that Solun is not, it is just one of the many foreign names by which the city has been known. It has never been the only name and it has never enjoyed any significant use in English, quite unlike the name Philippopolis for Plovdiv. As I said, the two situations are not comparable. About Istanbul, you have a point, however their solution works because Constantinople and Byzantium are separate articles.

Gligan, I note that you are still advancing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. To be honest, I don't understand why you find the prospect of including the Greek spelling of the Greek name, which even you admit is too notable to be suppressed from the lead, so threatening. What is so objectionable about it? Or are you just trying to score nationalist points?--Ptolion (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying is to avoid double-standards. The reasons for including foreign names depend on whether the city has been part of another country or whether it had significant foreign population. Plovdiv has never been part of Greece (nor has been Thessaliniki part of Bulgaria, unless we call the vassalage of Epyris between 1230 and 1246 rule) and the number of Greeks according to late 19th century census had been circa 16%, that of the Bulgarians is Thessaloniki has been circa 10% which is relatively close and if that is considered, we should have both names written in the respective language or none.

Yet again, Solun as a name is really important in Bulgaria since the creators of our alphabet were of that city which makes it very significant for the Bulgarians and the Slavs and worth mentioning it with its Slavic name, and more precisely its Bulgarian name.

And I really don't understand what is the problem the Greek spelling to remain below? It is already there, so there is no need for it in the lead. Since the city was known as Philipopolis to the English, then it could remain in the lead but only spelled in Latin, after all the English did not use Greek alphabet and if someone is interested to know more about the origin of the name, he can go in the name section and see how it is spelled in Greek. --Gligan (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The way it works in wikipedia with names is not because some ethnic group used to live in the city. The main reason for including a name in the lead is whether a significant (~10%) number of reliable English language sources refer to a city by that name. In the case of Plovdiv, a significant number of sources on Google Books and Google Scholar (see above) refer to the city as "Philippoupolis" or "Philippopolis". Note that raw google searches are not acceptable because they include all kinds of crap. Only reliable sources matter, and these can only be found by searching Google Books and Google Scholar. In the case of Thessaloniki, the overwhelming majority of reliable English language sources refer to the city as Thessaloniki, Thessalonica, Salonika, or some variant of the Greek name. Very few refer English-language sources to it as Solun. Thus it doesn't matter whether the city is important in Bulgaria, or that many Bulgarians used to live there. The only thing that matters in the English wikipedia is how it is referred to in the English-language literature. --Athenean (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Gligan, that you are looking at this as a tit-for-tat issue (I don't get my name at the lead in their article, so they won't get their name at the lead in mine). As I have said, the situations are different, and this is best illustrated by the fact that Solun isn't notable enough to be mentioned at the lead in Thessaloniki whereas no one is proposing removing the name Philippopolis from this article's lead altogether. Philippopolis is a Greek name (or are you disputing this?) so, when introducing it, the original script should be provided alongside. In any case, Greek satisfies your test, since Plovdiv was a Byzantine city of some significance and they referred to it as Philippopolis in the scary Greek alphabet.--Ptolion (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But it does not need the Greek spelling. It would be left in the name section. Philipopolis in Latin is well enough. In English literature they do not use Greek alphabet. Furthermore in Istanbul which is way more important for the Byzantines there is no Greek spelling in the lead. The same goes for Izmir, there is not even Smyrna in Latin. No double standards please, I repeat that again. --Gligan (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But Constantinople, Byzantium and Smyrna all have separate articles, so the need to add information in parentheses is dispensed with.--Ptolion (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if I were paranoid, I'd suggest that removing the Greek script from the newly introduced term could serve to play down its Greekness. Just a thought...--Ptolion (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in Plovdiv there is a name section for the names. Since Philipopolis was used in English literature and that is the main reason to stay in the lead, then it should go the way the English spell it. For the origin and the original way of spelling of Philipopolis, we have a name section. --Gligan (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So according to Gligan's argument, the Greek alphabet shouldn't be used anywhere in Wikipedia, since the English literature doesn't use it. Philippopolis is the Greek name for the city, so it makes perfect sense to include the Greek spelling, for the simple reason that it is helpful/interesting to our readers. --Athenean (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Quite, Gligan, however, Philippopolis is/was also an alternative name, not just a foreign language corruption of Plovdiv (or vice-versa) and it is in the lead in this capacity. This is evident from the way the information is presented - the text doesn't read "in older English publications the city was known as Philippopolis". If it did, I'd agree that the Greek script is unnecessary.--Ptolion (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also interesting and helpful to have Solun the way it is spelled in Bulgarian in that logic.

The Greek name should be written if there is no section for names. Since Plovdiv has such section, the Greek spelling is inappropriate for the lead section.

Philipopolis is no longer alternative name in English, it used to be in the past. It could be an alternative name in Greece probably, but not in the UK or the USA. --Gligan (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are suggesting removing any mention of Philippopolis in any script from the lead? I disagree, the name is too significant in the city's history; it is conceivable that readers may come to the article while looking for information on "Philippopolis" - not everyone knows that they both refer to the same city.--Ptolion (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What I suggest is Philippopolis to stay in the lead only in Latin script. If someone comes looking for Philipopolis, he will surely understand this. And if he is really interested in that, he wouldn't miss the name section where its origin and original way of spelling is written. --Gligan (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you're going to have it in the lead, the Greek spelling should stay. And it should be in the lead because even though it is no longer contemporary usage, it is still widespread in the literature. --Athenean (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the Greek spelling is not needed since we have a name section. --Gligan (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Gligan, my point is that the Greek script is warranted by the manner in which the information is presented. The passage discusses history, not obsolete English names for the city (although it also indirectly serves that purpose as well), therefore the Greek script is relevant at that point.--Ptolion (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I still can't shake off the suspicion that this dispute is really about an attempt to play down any Greek influence in the city's history.--Ptolion (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not relevant in the lead. The lead is for basic information. For history we have history section, for names we have name section. That is what Athenean said "Thus it doesn't matter whether the city is important in Bulgaria, or that many Bulgarians used to live there. The only thing that matters in the English wikipedia is how it is referred to in the English-language literature." Since only English matters and provided that we have the specific sections, then the Greek spelling is not needed. --Gligan (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On your suspicion - no one denies Ancient Greek and Byzantine influence, we do not alter history in Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact the city was referred to as Philippopolis in the West for most of its history is basic information. --Athenean (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why it should stay in Latin. And for more details you can go to the name section and see how the Greeks spell it. --Gligan (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Right... so if it's just the script that's bothering you, if I suggested removing the script but mentioning that Philippopolis is a Greek name, you wouldn't object?--Ptolion (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because it is a Greek name, therefore the Greek alphabet should be also included. I'm getting the impression we are going around in circles here. I think I've said all I've had to say on the matter. --Athenean (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious that it is a Greek name. But in that case we use Philippopolis only because it was used by the English in the past, not because it is a Greek name or because it has anything to do with the Greeks. At least that is what Athenean tried to explain me I think. The basic here is Philippopolis, for other details such as spelling and origin there is a dedicated section. --Gligan (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not mentioned "only because it was used by the English in the past", this is clear from the context in which the name is mentioned (it doesn't even mention the English, the Americans or whatever...). I agree with Athenean, we are going around in circles.--Ptolion (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, look here WP:Naming convention, General guides, 2. The Lead - it says that all alternative names without the official one can go in a name section. Among the reasons for having an alternative name are included "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place)". In that case "a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" is as relevant as the first one and undoubtedly the Bulgarians used to inhabit Solun as the Greeks did in Plovdiv. --Gligan (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that convention isn't talking about situations like this. It's guidance on whether to say "Plovdiv (Bulgarian: Пловдив) is a city in Bulgaria" or "Plovdiv (Bulgarian: Пловдив, Greek: Philippopolis, Turkish: Filibe...) is a city in Bulgaria". No one is suggesting that though, neither here nor at Thessaloniki.--Ptolion (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just intervene to say "it is a Greek name, therefore the Greek alphabet should be also included" is stupid. Please call me Todor (Greek: Θεόδωρος) from now on? Todor→Bozhinov 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, hence my above suggestion. I've tried it in the article, will that do?--Ptolion (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is better that way. --Gligan (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. It implies that the name is Greek (and Greek only), not an international name of Greek origin. I prefer Philippopolis (Greek: Φιλιππούπολις), which shows the origin of the name but doesn't imply that the name is, err, a Greek possession or something. See latest edits and please provide feedback. Todor→Bozhinov 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your version is confusing. Was it known in ancient times as "Philippopolis", "Pulpudeva, or "Trimontium"? What you have written, while not false, is somewhat contradictory and will confuse our readers. "Philippopolis" is a Greek name in the sense of Greek-language name, not owned-by-Greeks name. You seem to think that saying Philippopolis is the Greek name of the city somehow implies Greek territorial claims to the city. Nothing could be further from the truth. --Athenean (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, that's hardly an improvement. The problem persists, it is still convoluted and bizarre. There really is no need for the Thracian and Roman names in the lead, since few sources use them. Also, a reader who does not know that Philippopolis is a Greek name may wonder why the name appears in the Greek alphabet out of the blue. In my opinion, Ptolion's solution is the most elegant. It tells the reader what he needs to know efficiently and with a minimum of fuss and verbiage. --Athenean (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But why do we need to mention that Philippopolis was a Greek name? First it is obvious and second those for whom it is not obvious can read that in the name section. According to me the best solution is "Known in ancient times as Philippoupolis, it was originally..." --Gligan (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You and I know it's a Greek name, but we can't assume that about all of our readers. Many American readers, for example, might not realize that it is a Greek name (I live in America and I know what I'm talking about. Believe me, you would be amazed at some of the things I hear.). And like I said, "Greek" name here means Greek language, not claimed by Greeks, so there is no need to be alarmed. If you want, we can link "Greek" to Greek language, not Greeks, i.e. "Known in ancient times by its Greek name Philippoupolis, it was originally...". --Athenean (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be underestimating our readership so much, but I'm fine with the current version. It's too little a thing to really discuss so heatedly unless one of the sides is insisting on something ridiculous, which it is not. The suggestions are reasonable, so let's stick with the current one. Todor→Bozhinov 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since everything is still fine I don't see a reason why we should change it now, as per wp:ninja.Alexikoua (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

3000 BC foundation

Recent ip editor insists to add information of poor quality like "the city was founded at 3000 BC as Eumolpias meaning the Hell". Needless to say that we don't know the 3000 or 2000 BC name of any city founded in Europe that time. Since Eumolpias isn't attested on Ancient Egyptian or Messopotamian scripts of 3000 or 2000 BC this type of nonsense has to go.22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I get sourced information from the Bulgarian Wikipedia that Thracians founded their Eumolpias in 1200 BC so I will take the name back to the intro because deleting proven earlier name than the Greek is clearly tendencous and if you continue you should explain here why you are deleting the name besides the statement 3000-2000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.25.241 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to add the source in this wikipedia article, in general we can't use wp as a source in any article. Moreover, removing sourced info about the known name of the city in most of its history, can be considered really disruptive. I would also suggest to use more civil edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see Eumolpias was named after the mythical king Eumolpus, son of Poseidon.Alexikoua (talk)

File:Plovdiv-Collage D.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plovdiv-Collage D.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Europe's oldest city"

Superlative statements such as "some regard [Plovdiv]] as Europe's oldest cities" need to be sourced to high-quality sources. The more superlative the claim, the more stringent the criteria for source quality. However, this claim here is sourced to websites such as "Eurochicago.com", "About.com", and "Telegraph.co.uk". Such sources are not of sufficient caliber to back this claim. I can accept that Plovdiv is among Europe's oldest cities, but for the claim "Europe's oldest city", such sources will not do. Athenean (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Guess the edit-summary says it all [13]. So it's out of a sense of competition relating to Athens that it boils down to for some people...Unbelievable, though I had the feeling this was the case. Athenean (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in that kind of conversation. To avoid an edit war, I looked for a successful example of wording that you would be fine with. I found it in what I expected you would have referred to, and judging by your lack of further arguments (only accusations), I seem to have succeeded. So what exactly was the purpose of your bitter post? You're bored and you're looking for someone to talk to? — Toдor Boжinov — 11:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If I were bored and looking for someone to talk to, you would be among the last people I'd want. Athenean (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

po or pou?

There seems to be an inconsistency in the spelling of the former name of the city. It is sometimes (most often) written Phillipopolis and sometimes Philippoupolis. The last version seems to me to be the most correct transcription from Greek, and this is also the form used by Bilinis (note 4). Anyone care to clean up? Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to "clean up", both forms are grammatically (and historically) acceptable and interchangeable. Ivan Marinov (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two Theaters

There are NO two ancient theaters in Plovdiv. Designating the odeon as a theater is more or less the equivalent of designating the National Assembly building in Sofia as a cinema. Ivan Marinov (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics

Please, discuss any moves to a title with diacritics prior to performing the actual move. Try and explain why the title need the symbols and why it cannot possibly stay without them. Mind you, neither Bulgarian, nor its standard transliteration include diacritics. You will not see a sign pointing to Plòvdiv‎, that is for sure. That does not mean I do not appreciate diacritics or your work providing us with information on stressed syllables, but I really think the title is better without them. Feel free to start a discussion on the topic, though (I guess, technically, it has already started). Cheers. --Laveol ^T 00:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Another city of Seven Hills?

Lt's see, there is Roma, Byzantium, Cincinnati, and Plovdiv! How many others are there? PS, the rest of this "talk" page is basically childish stuff! 96.19.159.196 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Contradiction

In 72 BC it was seized by the Roman general Marcus Lucullus but was soon restored to Thracian control. In AD 46 the city was finally incorporated into the Roman Empire by emperor Claudius,[21] it was called Trimontium (City of Three Hills) and served as metropolis (capital) of the province of Thrace. It gained a city status in late 1st century.[22] Trimontium was an important crossroad for the Roman Empire and was called "The largest and most beautiful of all cities" by Lucian. Although it was not the capital of the Province of Thrace, the city was the largest and most important centre in the province. Er? There's a need to resolve. - 92.100.171.81 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Early nickname

When Philip of Macedon founded Philippopolis, he settled numbers of "difficult" Macedonians in the town. He reasoned that men who were a menace in their homeland would be more useful in a frontier town in the wilds of Thrace. Because of this the city of Philippopolis became familiarly known as "Poneropolis", which might be translated as "Thugsville" or "Crook CIty". See: The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. edited by Glenn R. Bugh, p. 18. A quaint fact that might be useful to add to the article. Urselius (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Greek name of the city

In this article, it firstly says Philip II of Macedon rename the city as Φιλιππούπολις in name section, then says Philip II of Macedon rename the city as Φιλιππόπολις in history section. I am not an expert of Greek, but I know they are different. Can anyone explain this? --Qijiang ok (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Very good statement, but also you are very rude, the Greek name Filipopolis and Filip II must be repeated in every section of the article, noy just in three. (Im joking). The current version is completely missing sense, irrlelevant and confusing for the readers and you really made a good statement and evidenced this very well. All this is probably made as a result of Greek users propaganda with the help and silent submission of Bulgarian ones. In three places, - the intro, the name section and the history section it is said how "Philip II of Macedon renames the city as Φιλιππόπολις ". Oh, wait the article is fullfilled with all the needed information, the only thing that the article is missing to say about this homosexual is "Philip II of Macedon was actually a God", this is what I propose to include in the article, to extent the innformation about the master of the city. Another mine proposal is to include the greatest gay creed of the God:

(The Sacred Band of Thebes, a separate military unit reserved only for men and their beloved, is usually considered the prime example of how the ancient Greeks used love between soldiers in a troop to boost their fighting spirit. The Thebans attributed to the Sacred Band the power of Thebes for the generation before its fall to Philip II of Macedon, who was so impressed with their bravery during battle, he erected a monument(and maybe smt else) that still stands today on their gravesite. He burst into tears for the male lovers and said:

"Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful.")

I also have another kind of proposal, which i would say would be far more constructive - let's not extend the propaganda and normalise the article - I hope you'd like this one more. The article is clearly propagandic and needs complete reconstruction, better somebody recalls for reconstruction of the article, the only thing I wonder is whether all this is LGBT propaganda or Greek propaganda or both. Anyway how could be the event of conquest of the city by the Persian Empire which occured before Philip missing? And why meaningwhile Philip and Greek Filipopolis repeated in three places instead??? HOLY GREEK TRINITY ? Is this a Greek nationalist website? I am also personally doubtfull if Philip II and Macedonians were Greeks, so heterosexuals if any don't get offended by my statements about him, if I was a Greek personally I would not claim him but being ashammed of him. Anyway I am sure that the etymology of Filippoplis is Greek. Why a real human - the ancient Thracian king Eumolpus after whom the settlement was named is directed to Greek mythology manipulatively shown as a son of the Greek god Poseidon?(thats what its said in the article of Poseidon but he may was in Thracian religion too) Even the non-Greek hisotrians state "Macedonians" conquered the city, not "Plovdiv was Macedonian Greek city". I have the following constructive proposal corresponding to the truth - add the Greek name in Sofia's introduction and remove it here. Just because the etymology of Sofia comes fromt he Greek word for wisdom. This is a fact, I may dislike it but this is the truth I am neutral, not exagrating nationalist claims as it is done in this article. The Greek name has nothing to do with Plovdiv's etymology, neither was Filipopolis as this form used throughout most of the city history, maybe- only if including the similiar Turkish form Filibe for 6 centuries more. Philipopolis is just a past for Plovdiv and the only place correspoding to it is the historical name section I think, the Greek love pride times of the city have gone, now Plovdiv is a beutiful Bulgarian city with Thraco-Slavic name and this propaganda with Philipopolis is ridiciolous. It is welcoming place and LGBT people have the same rights as during Philip II, anyway please don't exaggrate the Greek love. Although as being neitral I recognise the Greek etymology of the capital p Sofia and as a sort of truth the Greek origin may be added there, for Plovdiv I think the Greek name is just irrelevant, and currently in three places stated - nothing more than a cheap propaganda. Please don't make divine worship of Philip II and exaggration of the Greek name, it is simply a past. So why some Greek users don't add the Greek name in Sofia article, it would be relevant and furthermore it is a capital city and would further fulfill your nationalist claim needs. I would not have a problem with that if you remove the spread of the Greek bacteria which have made three copies already(excl. additional infectious codes over much of the info) in the article because present Plodiv has not anything even remotely relevant to the Greek name and because Sofia in contrast has for a name the Greek word for wisdom. I think it is simple. I mean seriously, no joke, add it in Sofia article and remove it here. Not because I would ike that but because to fix the inaccuracies, I live in Sofia not in Plovdiv, I just try to remind you the true facts, that Sofia is a Greek name and Plovdiv is not, it is claimed to be the opposite in Wiki and irrelevant and I try to correct you, this is the truth what can I say, as I live in Sofia I wish Plovdiv had Greek name instead of Sofia(I would like it to be called Serdica) but the truth is the opposite way. So, after all, I am against the Greek name in Plovdiv article, but in favour of including it in Sofia's article intro, pointing out the city name's origin, it corresponds to the facts. -- I am not a homofobe don't get offended I use sarcasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:260:0:0:0:0:1A12 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. What your said does have a point. This article should focus on modern Plovdiv. Maybe the past history of Plovdiv can be moved to a separate article. But you still have not answered my question. What is the correct ancient Greek name of this city, Φιλιππούπολις or Φιλιππόπολις? Qijiang ok (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Historical names in name section

Although the additions in this edit [[14]] might be correct, they are still not supported by academic or in general secondary sources, as stated per wp:HISTRS. Off course the use of travel guides or primary ancient texts is not the best option in the history related sections of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Plovdiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061018015407/http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org:80/_bg/?id=main&prm=welcome to http://www.archaeologicalmuseumplovdiv.org/_bg/?id=main&prm=welcome
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206104954/http://www.artacademyplovdiv.com:80/home_en.htm to http://www.artacademyplovdiv.com/home_en.htm

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Plovdiv

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thracians and earliest settlements

The juxtaposition of the following two sentences creates a falsehood, even if each of the two might be sourceable on its own:

"Plovdiv's history spans 6,000 years, with traces of a Neolithic settlement dating to roughly 4000 BC,[3] ranking it among the world's oldest cities. The city was originally a Thracian settlement […]"

The same goes for the sentence in the name section: "It was originally a Thracian settlement by the name of Eumolpias (Εὐμολπιάς) […]"

There were no Thracians in 4000 BC. If the neolithic traces from 4000 BC are to be counted as part of the history of Plovdiv, then it can't possibly have been "originally" a Thracian settlement, and a Thracian name cannot possibly have been its "original" one. The Thracian settlement may of course be the earliest historically attested one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)