From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albania (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Durrës is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Foreign language names[edit]

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)

The Greek term for the city[edit]

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)

The name "Dyrrhachium" is not Latin but Greek, too. It is from Dy (two) and Rachis (hill-top). Notice the doublication of the "r" according to the Greek grammar. I mean, the grammatical rule is that if you add a word or prefix in front of a word starting with R, then this R is douplicated. The assumed change of the name by the Romans is an allegation of a Roman writer.
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
His problem with Greece is the fact he is an Albanian, so he can't accept the Greek influence there. I agree, it's ridiculous. --Zik2 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Other names of the city[edit]

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)

Put it back in[edit]

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'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)

Name: pronunciation[edit]

I suggest to have a phonetic transcription of the name (in English or, preferably, in Albanian). It would be helpful. Of course, even better would be a sound file to listen to (Ogg format?). Thanks to whoever can provide this (not me, I'm afraid). 2A02:120B:C3DB:D590:21E:C2FF:FEF4:5868 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Name translated in other languages - not accurate[edit]

Greek, Italian, Serbian, or Latin languages are not official languages in Albania. Therefore, there is no need to include the translation of the names of Albanian cities into those languages. I am editing the article accordingly. --Arbër T? 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not interesting these languages are not official in Albania. Consider Prague for example - although English language is not official in the Czech Republic, the English name and other names are present there. So I'm giving it back. --Zik2 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I would like to add Bosnian and Croatian language as well since the word "Drač" is not only Serbian, but also Croatian and Bosnian (also Montenegrin, but I will leave that to someone else to add). Mujanovic (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I told the foreign names will be there! Give me arguments, or don't try it again. If you want, we can solve it with administrators. Who do you think will be banned for vandalism, me or and the user who deletes it? --Zik2 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably you. This is why the "names" section was created. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Rule - where do these claims come and can they be substantiated?[edit]

This city was renamed as Dıraç, the city did not prosper under the Ottomans and its importance declined greatly. By the mid-19th century, its population was said to have been only about 1,000 people living in some 200 households. Its decrepitude was noted by foreign observers in the early 20th century: "The walls are dilapidated; plane-trees grow on the gigantic ruins of its old Byzantine citadel; and its harbour, once equally commodious and safe, is gradually becoming silted up."[4]

This is a very general statement with no solid arguments. The reference link is not working. Mujanovic (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Alba[edit]

Can anyone clarify why the link to operation Alba is needed if all it does is revert back to the Durrës article? a1979s (at the office) (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Folk Etymology[edit]

The etymology that "Dyrrachium" derives from Albania "dy" (two) "rrahe" (ridges) is a folk etymology. Albanian was not spoken in antiquity, when the name "Dyrrachium" first appears. The folk etymology assumes that modern Albanian was spoken in antiquity. The purported source, an Albanian scholar by the name of Jup Kastrati, doesn't have a single publication in international peer-reviewed journals. Unless a truly reliable source is provided (extremely doubtful), I will remove it. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jup Kastrati, was one of founder of Luigj Gurakuqi University. He is decorated with orders, "People's Teacher" and "Grand Master of Labor" by President of Albania. Has been the Head of the Department of Albanian language in the Higher Pedagogical Institute of Shkodra in 1973-1990. Jup Kastrati has held scientific lectures at universities in Tirana, Pristina, Skopje, Tetovo, Calabria, Naples, Salerno, Perugia, New York, etc.. He is the author of many books. Within the years 1956-1999 he published 35 books. Scientific titles include of Jakupi: Docent, Doctor of Science, Professor. Now, we are discuss something that is universally recognized. I was born Durrës, I'm from Durrës and if you ask all Durrës citizens they will respond like Jakupi. Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what Scientific titles include of Jakupi: Docent, Doctor of Science, Professor. Now, we are discuss something that is universally recognized. I was born Durrës, I'm from Durrës and if you ask all Durrës citizens they will respond like Jakupi. is supposed to mean, but what I do know is that Mr. Kastrati doesn't have a single publication in a peer reviewed journal [4], let alone anything in English. Clearly not a reliable source, despite your protestations that the fact that you are from Durres seems to imply that he is. Athenean (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ernst Eichler is editor of Namenforschung: Ein Internationales Handbuch Zur Onomastik. The cited chapter (pages 718 and 719) is titled "Illyrian-Albanian Toponyms", written by Rexhep Doçi. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now we're in a quandary. As far as the objective merits of this proposed etymology are concerned, I totally agree with Athenean – it's pretty obviously nonsensical. Not because it's implausible for a placename in that area to be Illyrian, and not because it's implausible for the Illyrian roots to also have reflexes in modern Albanian, but because the author of the proposal seems to be projecting a form of modern Albanian directly back into classical antiquity, making no attempt to take into account the phonological changes that must have intervened between the supposed Illyrian/pre-Albanian of antiquity and its modern descendant.

Now, about the source: my personal, professional assessment would be that the paper by Rexhep Doçi is of abominable quality. He is citing that claim as a mere "according to", without providing any argumentation as to its credibility, but, in context, appears to be suggesting we should take it for granted as a fact; he also may be citing it second-hand, because the paper of Jon Kastrati he cites is, according to its title, about yet another writer, a guy called Girolamo (or Jeronim) de Rada, an Italian-Arberesh writer of the late 19th century. So we may have a situation were de Rada thought up an etymology (probably without any linguistic basis, and without any academic qualification to back it up [not unlike that Greek guy Byzantios Skarlatos some other editor was obsessing about the other day, who was making up stupid Greek etymologies related to Constantinople]), and then Kastrati and Doçi were simply parroting it.

The trouble is, this trashy paper found its way into a very highly regarded series of handbooks, the Onomastics volume of the Handbooks of linguistics and communication science. There is no doubt this qualifies as a "reliable source" under our formal criteria. The editors of the handbook made a mistake in letting this sub-standard contribution slip in, possibly because they couldn't find any better contributor on this specific language. So we have a "verifiability–not–truth" type of situation, which is awkward. Probably our best bet is to put the claim in the article with a wording as unobtrusive as possible, and then hope that some better treatment can be found somewhere else. Fut.Perf. 08:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, another proposal that might well be equally naive but at least isn't totally impossible connects the name to Greek "δύσ-" + "ῥαχία" ('shore' or 'flood' Liddell), an explanation that was already hinted at in antiquity by Cassius Dio [5] and was still reiterated by some 19th century authors, but rejected by others as outdated and unscientific even back then [6]. Fut.Perf. 09:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There are some hints that the δυσ-ραχία etymology may have been endorsed by Hans Krahe, "Vom Illyrischen zum Altereuropäischen", Indogermanische Forschungen 69 (1964-65), p. 202. This is worth checking, and would definitely take precedence over Doçi if true. Fut.Perf. 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, verified Krahe. He is treating the name as definitely Greek, not Illyrian, and is assuming the correctness of δυσ-ραχία ("bad, rocky coast") as a matter of course. Krahe was a highly influential authority in ancient European placename studies. Fut.Perf. 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Full quotation: Krahe is talking about distinguishing Illyrian names from "'foreign' names, i.e. those obviously originating in other languages, of peoples who are known to have lived in these lands either before or besides the Illyrians. Among these there are for instance some Greek names, such as that of the southern Illyrian city of Dyrrhachium (today's Durazzo), which is composed of δυσ- 'bad' and ῥαχία '(abrupt, rocky) shore, surf, roar'" [my translation; original: "'Fremdnamen' [...] nämlich solche, welche offenkundig von Völkern und deren Sprachen herrühren, die nachweislich außer (entweder vor oder neben) den Illyrierns einmal in dem soeben beschriebenen Gebiet ansässig waren. Das sind [...] z.B. manche griechische Namen wie der der südillyrischen Stadt Dyrrhachium (heute Durazzo), der aus griechisch δυσ- 'übel' und ῥαχία '(steile, felsige) Meeresküste, Brandung, Getöse' zusammengesetzt ist"] – Fut.Perf. 09:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"There are more anthroponyms, patronymsand toponyms of Illyrian-Albanian origin in ethnic Albania which are connected with theword rrah (the names of present and medievalvillages: Rahove and Rahavec in Kosovo; Re-hove and Rinas in present-day Albania; Ra-hovicë and Reincë(?) in Southern Serbia; Ra-hovë in Montenegro etc.); cp. also the word i,e butë in the names of villages: Butoc in Kosovo; Butka in Albania; Bytol and Boutelis in Macedonia (Doçi 1990). According to the German scholar J. G.von Hahn, the name of the Illyrian tribe Dardan and its ancient territory Dardania (now diminished Kosovo) has its origin from the Illyrian-Albanian word dard — dardhë. E. Çabej agrees with him about the words Dardan and Dardani, but he associates them even with the names of the ancient Dardan towns and the present-day towns of Nish and Shkup, which, according to him, are wordsbuilt up on the basis of the historical phonetics of Albanian."- "Illyrian-Albanian Toponyms", written by Rexhep Doçi
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, so what? And what do you mean to imply with your underlines? Fut.Perf. 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why such hostile comment?
I think that my contribution could only be positively characterized because I:
  1. clarified who is the real author of the cited text
  2. presented a link to the integral version of his text
  3. explained who is editor of the book which contains cited text
  4. and presented a link to the integral versions of the whole work
I meant to imply the consequences of your incorrect assumption about the reliability of this text.
You incorrectly assumed: "The trouble is, this trashy paper found its way into a very highly regarded series of handbooks... There is no doubt this qualifies as a "reliable source" under our formal criteria."
Let me remind you what WP:RS says:
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability.
In this case let me remind you that you characterized the text written by Rexhep Doçi as "trashy paper" (among many other similar descriptions). Taking in consideration Athenean's arguments about the author, I think it is easy to conclude this text is not reliable because two out of three related meanings of reliability of the source are not met.
I underlined parts of the text which point to other "Illyrian-Albanian toponyms" in ethnic Albania because they show that this work could be used as source for other wikipedia articles if you incorrectly proclaim its reliability here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Who cares whether other places he mentions are in Montenegro or Macedonia?!? In any case, the WP:RS policy is pretty clear here – we may have our ever so well-founded reservations about the paper (I, personally, unlike most others here, happen to be in a position of having a professional opinion on the matter), but it's all irrelevant as long as it was published the way it was. So even though it makes my heart bleed, I could raise no objections if anybody wanted to use it for further refs in other articles. Fut.Perf. 15:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I still think you are wrong and wish you were less hostile.. The policy is indeed pretty clear: Any of the three can affect reliability. Wikipedia articles should not rely on "trashy paper" just because "it was published the way it was". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, you are wrong. But if you think I've been "hostile" to you, you haven't seen me in a hostile mood yet. This was just mild impatience. Fut.Perf. 19:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up Krahe, that was some great work. Anyway, we all agree that Kastrati's etymology is about as folksy as folk etymologies get. And while it is true that it is mentioned in a reliable publication, even if in error or oversight, that however does not mean we are obliged to include it in the article. I am minded that it should be removed per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. If we are to follow WP:RS to the letter, then yes, we should include it. But would we be doing out readers a service by doing so? No, we would rather be doing them a disservice, particularly if we just leave it as is and don't qualify it as folk etymology. I understand that WP:IAR should be used with great caution, otherwise it can lead to all kinds of abuses, however, if there ever was a situation where it is called for, this would be it. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you are completely right when you say that although this paper was published in a reliable publication there is no obligation to include in the article. There is a consensus about abominable quality of Rexhep Doçi's paper. One user who is in position of having a professional opinion on the matter even referred to it as "trashy paper". So I agree with you that text based on Rexhep Doçi's paper should be removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Since no one objected to my rationale, I have gone ahead and removed the folk etymology. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I actually disagree with Athenean and will side with Irvi Hyka on this: actually I introduced this source and it is RS as admitted by all parties. FPS, with all due respect, you are defamating the authors here with your words, and I can't believe that you, an admin, would do that. However you demonstrated consistency with wikipedia rules in keeping the material in. Athenean, I understand you like the "trash" word, but that's not trash to me. Etymology mostly focuses in explaining a word through the language in which its root was firstly recorded. However there are reliable linguists that can get around that, otherwise we'd just get lost in the word loan process and end up explaining all languages of the world only through Greek and Aramaic. As long as the policies of Wikipedia allow it, I'll revert and restore FPS's version. Bolerodancer (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The mere fact that you like Kastrati's folk etymology is not reason to include it in the article. The only editor here competent to evaluate the source has evaluated it, and I think it's quite clear where he stands. Further reverts by you I will treat as disruption. Athenean (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides the point isn't it, the text reads "The Albanian philologist Jup Kastrati proposed an alternative etymology from..." We're not here to discern what's 100% truth, as the burden of proof is too high, in that sense, to 'prove' anything. All we can do is provide sources to what experts say. I agree with the change because a) it is properly sourced and b) it gives an alternative view which is very clearly acknowledged as Wikipedia:Fringe theories. What's the problem with suggesting alternatives? P.S. stop threatening users. - Ottomanist (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories says: A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. That is not a case here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to try to explain once more, even more slowly this time, why Kastrati's folk etymology should be removed. The etymology is not Kastrati's, but Jeronim de Rada's, who wrote in the 19th century. He dreamt up this etymology using the modern Albanian words for "two" and "ridges", without any academic or lingustic qualifications, and then Hoxha-era scholars parroted it as it followed the Hoxha-era government's policy of coming up with "Illyrian" etymologies for every toponym in Albania. We also have a very reliable source, Krahe, which states categorically that the name is Greek, not Illyrian. He does not include "Dyrrachium" among his list of Illyrian toponyms. I'm sure there are many Illyrian toponyms in Albania, but this is not one of them. Debunking nationalist myths, anyone? Athenean (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is denying any of that. However, as per wikipedia:fringe theories "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group..." It warrens attention because it draws the reader to wider debates about Albanian (however false you consider them) claims to different aspects of the regions' history. You keep removing sourced material, please stop that - Ottomanist (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Serbian name[edit]

I still don't see why it has to come right by the lede. It seems all those towns in Serbia (chiefly Vojvodina with six official languages) present additional translations on the first paragraph after lede. I think the inclusion of Serbian right by the lede makes the association look far more important than it is. The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Vojvodina example is good because it presents six official languages. If there are so numerous alternative names they are presented in separate paragraph. If not, they are presented in the lede, per wikipedia guidelines.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Six is just what is official, there are more relevant tongues for the region which are not included but have historical importance and these tend to be included, such as German. I've seen what you are saying, Tetovo is an example where Turkish and Albanian are right there at the top. OK with me. The Big Hoof! (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)