Talk:Durrës

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Europe Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Albania task force. (with unknown importance)

Removed: [[Serbian language|Serbian]]: Drač (Драч) from the article. There is no point in giving the Serbian name here. You can add it to this article if you want: Latin names of European cities. If we were to add the spelling in each language it would clog up the article. It's not like there is a large Serbian minority in the city, so I see no point in mentioning it here. The city was invaded by Serbs, but it's not like you can't use the Albanian form for that. --Dori 03:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I think the Serbian name (and other names differing from the Albanian form) should be mentioned here (although not in the first paragraph), as this is very useful information (if we know the name, we can seek information under it). It should be in the paragraph where "Durazzo" is mentioned. The article won't clog up because most languages use the Albanian form.

The article Latin names of European cities is for Latin names only. And even then, I would mention the Latin name in each article.

When an article contains too much information, we might write a summary and link to more specific articles. As to now, it makes no sense to me to have a link to the Serbian name instead of citing it. And if we have no link, then probably it cannot be found. One has to suspect about the existence of the Serbian name in the first place. Andres 08:34, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[1] lists Albanian variants (including definite forms) of the name and some forms in other languages. Drač is both Serbian, Croatian and Czech. Draç is Turkish. Is Durz or Durts German? And "Enver Hoxha" apparently used to be the official name some time. Andres 09:15, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Драч seems to be used along with Дурес in Bulgarian. Andres 09:52, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't Durazzo be mentioned in the beginning? Cities who historically have had mixed ethnicities or have come under the rule of multiple states frequently have alternate city names listed in the beginning or clearly listed later in the article. For examples, see Antwerp, Ljubljana, Szczecin, Bratislava, Vilnius, Skopje etc. Also, shouldn't the history section be expanded to include information concerning the years between 1107 and 1878? Olessi 02:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes and yes, I think. The important thing, let me add, is not ethnicities at all, but names commonly used in English. Durazzo is very commonly used in English and is, perhaps, still a more well-known name than "Durrës" - it was certainly used as the principle name until well into the latter half of the twentieth century. john k 03:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, isn't this sentence rather bizarre: "During much of antiquity the city was known as Epidamnos, and later the Romans popularized the name Dyrrachium due mainly to the fact that Epidamnos was unfamiliar to their ears."? Surely there were other reasons for the Romans giving it a new name - and why that particular new name? john k 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From 1911: "As the name Epidamnus sounded to Roman ears like an evil omen, as though it were derived from the Latin damnum, loss or harm, the alternative name of Dyrrachium, which the city possibly received from the rugged nature of the adjoining sea-coast, came into general use." Olessi 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Greek term for the city

Removed: [[Greek language|Greek]]: Δυρράχιον / Dyrrhachion from the article of the same reason as the user Dori mention above.

The city was a Greek colony in the begining of 6th century B.C. known as Epidamnos/Epidamos and not Dyrrhachion., The Greek form Dyrrhachion comes from the Latin name Dyrrhachium, and the Greek form is not known by others then modern Greeks. The paragraph where Durazzo and Dyrrhachium is mentioned should remain since this two form are very popular, Dyrrhachium is the ancient name for Durrës and Durazzo is another name for Durrës, while Dyrrhachion is just a Greek modern name for Durrës and not known by others then Greek speakers. The Greek form is very irelvant, Dyrrhachion gives only 681 hits on google search and almost all the website are in Greek, while the latin form Dyrrhachium gives 6 130 hits and almost every site is in English. Then we have Durazzo that gives 71 300 hits and many are in english... The Greek form is not used in English and is not a bit popular for english speakers or anyone els then Greeks.. there is also no Greek minority living in the city, not likely, so why mention the new Greek term for the city?... The Greek name is irelevant and not a good headword, it will not remain in the article.. --Albanau 07:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that doesn't make any sense. Dyrrhachion is exactly the same as Dyrrhachium. You wouldn't have Dyrrhachium at all without the Greek. Nor would you have its current name! And the Greeks founded the city! I don't care what your problem with Greece is, but this is ridiculous. Adam Bishop

The city was founded 627 B.C. under the name Epidamos/Epidamnos. The Romans who ruled over the city between 200 B.C. and 300. A.C. called it Dyrrhachium, thereby the name Durrës. The city was only a Greek colony and was already populated with illyrian tribes when the Greeks from Korfu arrived. The ancient Greeks called the city Epidamos, Dyrrhachium/Dyrrhachion is the Latin name that Greeks adopted.

Whats the point of giving the Serbian, Bulgarian and the modern Greek name for the city Durrës, those are just some foreign names and not known by the outside world.

The only two name for the city that should remain on the paragraph is "Durazzo" cause it's another name for Durrës, and "Dyrrhachium" cause it's the ancient name for the city. Give me a equal reason why the modern Greek name for the city should remain on the article as paragraph, is there any significant Greek community there? --Albanau 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're overlooking the fact that the city was ruled by the (Greek) Byzantines for many years in the Middle Ages. It features in Anna Comnena's Alexiad (book XII), in which she speaks of "Epidamnus, which we call Dyrrachium". I'm pretty sure she uses Δυρράχιον in the original Greek version. Does anyone have a Greek copy of the Alexiad to check this? Given that it's a valid historical name for the city, I think it should definitely be mentioned for its historical value. The name does not imply any territorial claims, any more than calling London Llundain implies that the Welsh want to claim that city. -- ChrisO 09:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish people would stop deleting the Greek name for obvious POV reasons. None of the deletionists have explained why Durrazzo is acceptable but Dyrrachion is not - nor have they bothered to answer my point that the city had a Greek name well into the Middle Ages. -- ChrisO 06:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris above you have gaved hypothetical evidence of the useage of the name. However, the Greek name is not a good headword and irelevant. The Greek name for the city, along with the Serbian and Bulgarian are already listed on alternative names, and should of course not mention on the paragraph on article but you can mention on the section of History of Durrës that under Greek Byzantine times the city was known by Greek-speakers as Dyrrachion. The Latin and Italian name can stay on the paragraph because of the many good reasons, the city Durrës was generally known outside, and still is, as Durrazo, and the Latin Dyrrachium is the ancient name for Durrës. Durrazo and Dyrrachium are good headwords and relevant, the name Durrazo is a synonym to Durrës. I judge you action as POV reasons, here, take a look you dealted the Albanian name for the city. Athens before becoming the capital of Greece the majority was Albanian so the city had a Albanian name well into the 1800s. You and Theathenae have been intellectually dishonest by feigning neutrality. --Albanau 01:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, now it says the Latin was Dyrrhachion...and as you should know by now, Dyrrhachion and Dyrrhachium are exactly the same, they simply have equivalent Greek and Latin endings. I don't really care anymore about which names are mentioned, but it's aggravating to see you accuse people of intellectual dishonesty when you being even more blatantly dishonest. Adam Bishop 05:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I gaved you valid proff why he is feigning neutrality, see the link above. Theathenae and Christo have not explained why the Serbian and especially the Bulgarian names are mention on the paragraph, and they have said nothing against why the Greek name is so irelevant and a bad headword. The Greek/Serbian/Bulgarian name are already listed on the alternative names, they have no place on the article's paragraph, the only remaining should be the Latin and Italian. Also here, I have explained why only this two should be mention on the article. Durazzo is a synonym to Durrës, and Dyrrhachium is the ancient term for the city, while the Serbian/Greek/Bulgarian name are not any synonym or a ancient term. Albanau 11:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if you are willing to accept a name that was used 2000 years ago (Dyrrachium), why are you not willing to accept a name that was used 1000 years ago (Dyrrachion) when the city was ruled by the Byzantines? Your position makes no sense at all. -- ChrisO 11:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No your position don't make any sense. The ancient term is relevant, a good headword, where the modern term derives from.

ChrisO, can you restore this? --Albanau 11:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is the ancient term relevant? Why don't we remove that as well, and simply mention it in the alternative names section? Adam Bishop 19:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historical names aren't really alternative names in the same sense. I've tried to compromise by moving the Latin and Greek names to the history section - it's undeniable (I hope...) that both names were used until the Middle Ages. As for Durrazzo, I've left that in the top paragraph. I think it's fair to say that in the English-speaking world, the city is still well-known by that name. -- ChrisO 22:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Durrazzo is NOT well known by that name in the English speaking world, well certainly not in the UK. Putting a Greek name is unnecessary since there's no Greeks in that City. Why don't you go and add an Albanian name for Skopje, at least 20% of the population there is Albanian. Tonycdp 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably nothing represents the rich history of this city as all the names it's generally known by. Durazzo IS very well known in the English speaking world (just take a look at the 1911 Britannica). I can't think of any single reason not to have a good informative "Name" section in the article, except misplaced nationalist animosities.

Fellow editors, let's remember what the idea of Wikipedia is: providing accurate information for people from the whole planet. Let's enjoy doing it, especially in things like Durazzo's rich heritage, something that makes anyone interested in history love the very mention of any of its many romantic names :-) Best regards, Evv 22:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Durazzo is almost certainly better known than the current title, which can only be found in recent atlases and reference works, I'd imagine, whereas "Durazzo" is going to be the name used in virtually any historical account of the city's last thousand years or so. I don't understand, either, what the problem is with mentioning "Dyrrhachion" as a Greek name of the city - the city was Greek for a long time. john k 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I second jonh k's edit: those are the names that have to be "on top", to avoid disorienting anyone with Durrës alone. Now, regarding Durrësi: does it come from a dialect of Albanian or is it a declined grammatical form ? An explanation in the parenthesis would be very much appreciated :-) Regards, Evv 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other names of the city

This city is not so well-known as Durrës, for most history books mention it as Durazzo, Epidamnos or Dyrrhachium. Seeing "Durrës" alone will be disorienting for most readers not principally interested in modern Albania.

Therefore, I would like to revert back to the "least shocking" version, the one that puts "Durrës" into context. - - Regards, Evv 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but, and there are many buts. Skopje was known as Scupi and noone bothers to modify that article. Also about 20% of the population is Albanian but there are only slav descriptions. I don't mind your edit, but I do mind double standards. Skopje has a section "Other Names" and it works fine. Why can't you accept that for Durres?Tonycdp 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I just saw in the article on Skopje, Scupi is mentioned in the very first paragraph, and the (nicely done) "Name" section does mentions the other important names of the city (including the Albanian one, as it should), instead of just directing the reader to another page.

Furthermore, the name "Skopje" is better known than "Durrës" (which has yet to replace the widely known Durazzo), while ancient Scupi was far less important than ancient Epidamnos or Dyrrhachium, and so got less press :-)

In short, I fail to understand what "double standards" are you referring to. What elements of my preferred version for Durrës aren't already present in the Skopje article ? - - Regards, Evv 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Scupi is mentioned but not stuck in brackets right at the top to confuse people. You could have a line similar to that of Scupi i.e. Durres was also known during Roman times as bla bla bla. A Greek name has no significance here whatsoever because there are no Greeks living in the city and it has been a millenium since they last set foot in it. There is a "Names" for that purpose and could be expanded to include other names. Tonycdp 10:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A millenium? That's too long. Wouldn't you say several centuries, better? The City had Greek, Romanized Latin (and thus, Italian) and Slavic (Serbian) populations before it became the main Albanian city in the Ottoman Empire and the Late Medieval Era. --PaxEquilibrium 10:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not start a revert war.You can include different names for the city in the designated section.Tonycdp 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

<---------The names stuck in brackets right at the top do sometimes look confusing. I agree :-) However, some names have to be there to avoid an even more confusing "Durrës" alone.

Those names are not there to reflect how the city was referred to by the peoples who lived there at different historic periods (the "Name" section should take care of that, going into great detail), but simply to provide the English-speaking reader with a quick first glimpse of the five different names these city is commonly referred to in English books and maps.

Those names are not there to support Roman, Greek, Byzantine or Venetian claims on the city, but to provide context for all those readers consulting about Durazzo, Epidamnos or Dyrrhachium after seeing those names in countless English books, and who are not familiar with "Durrës".

It's just a short & quick way of telling the readers: "yes, the title says "Durrës", but you're in the right place. :-) Doing it "the Skopje way" (Durres was also known during Roman times as bla bla bla) would only be longer and more cumbersome, having to deal with not one but five names.

Let's revert to my preferred version, taking the English-speaking readers into consideration, instead of having just "Durrës" (not even Durazzo!!!), and forcing readers to check the whole "History" section to see the different names. - - Regards, Evv 15:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree. Durazzo could be put in as per Encarta version. Greek and Slavic versions are relevant also but not to such a great extent to deserve the "bracket space", and could be put into the Name section for further clarification.Tonycdp 15:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Any Slavic version should only be in the "Name" section, of course. As far as I know, so should any Turkish, Arabic or Scandinavian names, because they're not commonly used in the English language.

But the other versions (Durazzo, Epidamnos, Dyrrhachium) are commonly used in English-language books and maps related to Ancient, Medieval and Modern times. In many books and maps "(mod. Durrës)" is indicated, but in many others it's not. This city was more important in Greek and Roman times than it is now, and this fact is reflected in the way books refer to it.

I should emphasize that the Greek names have no relation to the modern Greece whatsoever, but are merely employed in English history books.

Again, the idea is to avoid disorienting the reader with "Durrës" alone, and not laying claims on the city. - - Regards, Evv 16:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Point you've made on the Historical names is valid. But, I still maintain that there are double standards though elsewhere, but I'm not going to bother changing those. P.S. You didn't sign your last post with a smile Evv, thats very much unlike you Tonycdp 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now and then I do manage to spend several hours without laughing :-)

I really like your simple "historical names bracket" more than the version I was proposing: it accomplishes the goal without hindering readability. Good call !

Now, we can expand the "Name" section, to give a detailed explanation on the lines of the Skopje "Name" section. For the moment, I'm just reverting it to John Kenney's wording. - - Regards, Evv 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Put it back in

Its about the place, put it back in [2]Megistias (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Taulant is right here, there's absolutely no need to include that map in every single Epirus-related article. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the city in antiquity.Taulant "attacked" me in the past and tried to remove my maps from wiki.Thats history and sources.You can keep your politically correct views to yourself.Megistias (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What "PC" views? I think you're both jerks, to be honest (heehee). He's still right, though: the article mentions the early history of the city pretty clearly. There's no need to use your map on every article...it's used in the main ones, Epirus (region) etc.. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the feeling is mutual.Glad we reached some consensus.....Megistias (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but do you at least agree regarding the map? Silliness. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really.The city was ancient as well and both should be mentioned.First goes the map and then slowly other things start disappearing.Seen in other pages.And suddenly its all different.You think it wont? It has been attempted at most of the other articles.Megistias (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Put it back in.Its a fact of history.A sourced and referenced fact.Its pov removal because they dont like historical facts.It has 5 images belonging to a tourist guide.....Megistias (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring it back in and remove one of those "fillers".This is an encyclopedia not something else.Megistias (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There already is a map. We don't need a map of Epidamnos, it's in the same spot. Do we need a map of Dyrhachium and Durazzo too? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to present each era of course.It now has 5 filler images with no encyclopedic value.If we could present each location with a map of each era the reader would get a complete historic view-in all articles where this may apply.Megistias (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone remove the dead image and bring back the map.[3]Megistias (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)