Talk:Plovdiv Medical University

page move needs to be reverted
The institution calls itself "Medical University - Plovdiv" on the English version of its website, so the move to a "better" name should be reverted. Can't do it as not logged in. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the above request has gone unnoticed for 5 years. I'm not sure what the naming conventions are for this. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Plovdiv medical university controversy.
This section, up until 01:28, 15 March, is copied over from the Wikipedia helpdesk 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello i would like to ask you what actions should be made in order for the part of the wikipedia page about Plovdiv Medical University named Controversy to be removed given the fact that are completely insubstantial and extremely offensive to students of the medical university and generally to the university as a whole.These false statements are based on gossip columns and in no way portray the truth about the university and its staff.These statements hurt the credibility of the university as well as the hard work that is done in this institution.Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.92.35 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The section Plovdiv Medical University has seven supporting references. Can you provide references to support your claim that the statements in them are false? Maproom (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thes references do not support any of these statements they just reproduce the insubstantial accusations in local news channels.They are not any form of proof that validate these statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.92.35 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

These accusations against the university are based on a letter send on those news channels without any signature of the author of the letter.Thus anonymous accusations without proof shouldnt be base for creation of articles on wikipedia.Plus the credibility of the referencesshould be checked before they are accepted as supporting references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.92.35 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I think you have some valid points, and that the 'controversy' section is given undue weight. I am about to remove part of it. I think possibly some of it is valid, but...


 * Please can we discuss it on Talk:Plovdiv Medical University. I will copy this over there. Let's go through it, and try to come to some agreement. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Copied text ends here 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "European Business Assembly" - I definitely think this part is WP:UNDUE, and so I just removed it, with this edit. I hope nobody will object.

My reasoning is: nothing about this EBA award actually indicates any wrongdoing on the part of the University. There are many such "fake awards" around, given to companies and organizations - it's certainly a dubious business. However, I don't see how we can blame the university itself for being given an award by one of them. The coverage of it seems very tabloidesque, trying to claim there is some sort of 'scandal' but with scant facts.

I say it's WP:UNDUE because the university has been around for over 70 years, so to have a large amount of the article focus on a non-incident that occurred in 2013 does not give a balanced, neutral presentation of the subject.

I hope that is OK.

As for the rest of the 'controversy', I've not really assessed it properly yet; also, I cannot speak Russian, which doesn't help. My initial opinion is that the 'controversy' section should be largely trimmed down, possibly to one or two sentences. I welcome input from others, I hope we can discuss it here, come to an acceptable solution to all parties, and end up with a better article. Pinging 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now looked at the source in Bulgarian, which Google translated for me. It reports on the accusations, states that they were made in an anonymous letter, and casts doubt on their truth. So I've deleted that paragraph. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that edit. I notice it was undone once, and re-applied. I think it's best removed, because of the source basing their entire 'accusation' on an anonymous letter, with no actual evidence. It seems to be rather a non-story 'filler' item. Also, there's the WP:UNDUE issue. So I hope it stays out of the article. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again,i would like to report that the same offensive and insubstantial content has been reuploaded again without any articles supporting its validity.I would like to ask you if it is possible for it to be removed once again and if it is possible to block this user from uploading such offensive content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.92.35 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)