Talk:Plovdiv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulgaria Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Plovdiv:

edit · history · watch · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the priority scale.

1 Founding Date
2 Deleted Filibe
3 Article needs to be rewritten in standard English
4 Captain Burago
5 External Link - Plovdiv - Granada of the East
6 Clean up External Links
7 Metro
8 Population
9 За линка "Пловдив - Гранада на изтока"
10 RfC: Is Plovdiv - Granada of the East external link warranted here?
11 Old town replaced by office buildings
12 Ottoman Period

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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

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.

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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)