Talk:Butrint/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chaonians

Since when are Chaonians Greeks? They were not allowed to participate in the Greek games in the Olympics. They also had a separate oracle, at Dodona. They did not speak Greek and did not live in city states. All of Epirus was by definition different from Hellas. From Encyclopedia Britannica: "To the 5th-century historian Thucydides, the Epirotes were “barbarians.” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/190156/Epirus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.58 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

History

We must get this straight. Butrint was not a Greek colony, like Epidamnus, Apollonia, Oricum or Corfu. It was an indigenous settlement, very clearly an Epirot city, a centre of the Caonian tribe, under the rule of the Akkiad kings in Arta and then the Epirot League. Therefore we cannot call it and ancient Greek City as is constantly done done here (depsite my efforts to keep changing it). Whether Epirus was Greek, Illyrian, or something else entirely (my own personal belief) is neither here nor there and I'll leave others to argue over this point. But what I must insit on is getting its designation correct, Epirot, not Greek please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.182.17 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Chaonians were an ancient Greek tribe... A Macedonian (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, they were Epirots which is somthing very different. They had their own Kings and political and social traditions, distinct from Greece to the south. Related to the Greeks yes, just as they were related to the Illyrians, but with their own quite distinctive identity. They wrote in Greek and some of them at least may have spoken a dialect of Greek, but this is I'm afraid no indicator of ethnicity in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.182.17 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to remain on Wikipedia standarts we must take into account international neutral sources. The way that Hocxa books wrote in Albania history has no room in wiki. It was really a shame for some governments to express unhistorical statements like:

  • Butrint or Epirus is and was always Albanian and Illyrian in order to raise nationalistic feelings.

However, if someone wants to write this nationalistic stuff on wiki, he has to create an article with a title like:

  • How totalitarian regimes change historical event and books or
  • Propaganda and totalitarian regimes.

There is an interested article in prapaganda related to Nazi Germany in wiki, it would be very helpfull. I'm sorry but U.S. Congress library never agreed with totalitarian propaganda. Please read carefully wikis rules--Alexikoua (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia's attitude that Butrint is an ancient Greek city, I express my sympathies to Wikipedia's ignorance. First, what the Greeks claim about Epirus is based on only Greek sources. In order to be neutral, Wikipedia must base its articles on Albanian sources, as well. And the Albanian sources clearly point out the Butrint was and remains an Albanian city. It belonged to Epirus, an Illyrian tribe, and it belongs to Albania, the descendants of the Illyrians. If these sources are not enough or suitable, you could always confer with the U.S. Congress Library...--Arber (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Dear Mr "Rory"

Firts of all if you have doubts about my true identity you can contact me by telephone or I am happy to send you my address here in USA. I have no reason to hide my identity as you are doing.

Second those coments about Stalinism facts? Well I am to young to have been influenced by that epidemy, however I see that you write that you have been involve in Albania since 1960. Well we all know who was allowed to visit Albania in those days. Only people who belived in Stalinism or where close to albanian comunist regime and its secret service. You pick wich one. I see that even you write "democracy". Well to me it does explain a lot why you where allowed to visit Albania during the most brutal comunist regime in the Planet

Now back to our argument. Please read the annual Rapport of Butrint Foundation 2003 in regards to a collection of crusaiders coins bought by the english archaeologists under Richard Hodges in Butrint. Is this legal? Albanian Law doesnt allow this.

I am happy to give you more cases if you wish.

Museum of Albanian First Language School in Gjirokastra. Well your argument is very weak. It is the albanian museum of albanian language and it was made an Office for Richard Hodges, yes with aproval of the ex Deputy Mayor of the Town. But have you asked how much money that guy got? Why should a Foundation pay the state officials? You tell me my friend.

I am open to any debate on this issue. As far as Mr. Tare is concern? I do not know him or meet him. I only heard him lecture last year in Harvard University and I have to say I was proud of him representing Albania.

Alket Mertiri Boston


Oh Dear! Despite the odd thoughts on international legal definitions, libel, as expressed by this statement ‘Richard Hodges is accused of buying antiquety [sic] in Butrint’ remains libel and actionable. If there is evidence show it. Claims to have evidence to be shown to me or others in private (as if a meeting were possible) are evidence of nothing. If you’ve got it, show it here or stop writing this sort of drivel.

I’ve been doing some research as well. This historical museum in Argyrokastro, as I now understand it, yes it was converted into an office, with the full agreement of the city council and national monuments inspectorate of the time. Before the conversion it was a decaying wreck with a ‘roof like a sieve’ I am informed. It is at least now watertight, unlike much of the rest of the once wonderful, but rapidly crumbling marvel that is this museum city. But of course, I suspect that this neglect is also someone else’s responsibility.

Why did I edit out Mr. Tare’s name Well it occurred to me that if personalities were to be banned from appearing on this page then the best way forward was to delete them all! What is fairer than that? As for the complaints of Iris Orgicka and Arben Mirtiri about how I insult Albanians, no, I think it is people who canvass absurd publicity, write their own eulogistic Wkipedia pages for example, and twist facts and reality in a fine Stalinist fashion to their own ends, who give Albanians a bad name! It very much reminds me of the days I was involved in radical dialectics. In any case, given that these two complainants seem to share and IP address with my erstwhile opponent as editor of this page, someone who edits the Auron Tare pare page a lot, I have my doubts about the independence of their comments, or indeed their existence.

As for me, I have had connections with Albania since the 1960s, I visit on occasion even these days since ‘democracy’ has come, you may call me Rory. I have contributed on various things, an am interested in the politics of heritage, though the real work has been done by others.

I have left the current page unmodified as together with the history page discussion and history pages it demonstrates clearly the weaknesses of Wikipedia as a truly objective source. Far from removal of names showig the the 'site is not free' it demonstrates quite the opposite! I would concur though what information is 'manipulated by people who are giving false information'. The experiment though is good, and of course I reserve the right to return to editing at some point in the future…



Dear Sir

whom ever is removing the information about the work of albanian team in butrint is making a mistake. This shows that this site is not free and is manipulated by people who are giving false information.

Iris Orgocka


Dear rbremner

you are insolting the albanians by removing the note about the albanian managing team of BUtrint and Mr Auron Tare the person who has saved Butrint form illigal buildings as well as the attemps of certant "foreign archaeologists to control the albanian cultural heritage.

Arben Mertiri


Dear Sir

As a person much invole in the issues of my country and specialy in Cultural Heritage I am willing to prove to you according to official accusations by several albanian authorities, Gjirokastra Town Hall, Cultural experts and archaeology that the work done in albania by Prof. Richard Hodges is seen as a colonian attitude towards "the natives"

Do you know that the First Albanian School open in 1908 in Gjirokastra has been converted to an Office by Richard Hodges?

Would you like me to prove this fact?

Arben Mertiri Boston, MA

P.S Please do write with you name. There is not seriouse to have a debate without a name


Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers! Accusations and hearsay are not evidence and unless someone is willing to provide some solid, legally binding, proof of such allegations then it remains libel.

rbremner

From what I have read in the albanian press Prof. Richard Hodges is very much critisised for his arrogance and atemps to controll albanian archaeology. Albania does deserve better that is why people like Prof. Richard Hodges with a highly colonial attitude should not be alowed to work in the country.

Arben Mertiri Boston, MA

HI

I would like to ad something about Butrint but the page is protected. Can I please be alowed to write.

agron

For the benfit of Wikipedia I should point out that the comments in the last para of 'archaeological excavations' may be construed as libellous to the mentioned Prof. Hodges. The problem appears to be IP 217.24.244.230 (anon) who I see from the history has made several similar changes, a number of the latest of which I have already tried to edit. Can nothing be done against this sort of vandalism? Butrint and Albania deserve better than this!

rbremner

The beginning should be changed, namely the phrase: "Its ancient name was Vouthroton, the modern name for the Roman city of Buthrotum." An ancient pre-roman name cannot be modern for a Roman name ?!? I would sugest something like this : The modern name of the city is Butrint, ancient Greek ( or old name given in Greek, Hellenistic or pre-Roman texts Vouthroton (or with a more correct pronunciation Boutroton), Roman Buthrotum. Also, the phrase "Greek colony of Corfu" doesn't make sense, since there were no other established nations on the island at that time. It should be "Greek settlements" or just cities or just colonies or, to be more precise, "corinthian colonies", if one is sure that the colonies referred to were corinthian and not others.

Richard Hodges is accused of buying antiquety in Butrint


“ ... Greece affected very little the social life and political organization of Epirus. It remained a stranger for this country, to which it granted an extremely high civilization and invested a lot, in order to profit from trade exchanges or obtain a harbor, when advancing toward Adriatic Sea ... ”

P. Marconi Newspaper “Drita” March 8 1938

Will bring more proofs as i consider the Butrinti article by wiki, very innacurate and disgusting by histical standards. --Pinjolli 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was an epitote city thus Greek

Epirus.It wanst illyrian and is merely on albanian soil today.Megistias (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


If it wasn't Illyrian care to enlighten to which one of Greek Polis-es it belonged too?

P.S. The article about Butrint is a disgrace. Please include more sources, there are many historians and archeologist studies for Butrint. --Pinjolli 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote to OP , "== It was an epitote city thus Greek ==" correct this, and wether "Epirus" should be considered Hellenic or not, it's a question to debate yet.--Pinjolli 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinjolli (talk • contribs)


Roman city

Butrint was a Roman a city so please don't label that as weird(scholars deal with the Hellenistic and the Roman Butrint, not with an ancient Greek Butrint), since the remains of the city are from the Roman era, when it was rebuild and almost all the material found in the museum are Roman.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved the page

On Google books: Buthrotum: 29700 hits Butrint: 14300 hits

Therefore, since Buthrotum is twice as common, I have moved the page to "Buthrotum" per WP:COMMONNAME, the policy guiding article names. Athenean (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved back to proper English name, in case there are desent arguments for this move a proper move request should be initiated.Alexikoua (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buthrotum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buthrotum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

*** Buthrotum into Butrint ***

Hey guys, what do you think about to change the name of the article, I mean the name nowadays is Butrint and like Durrës for example it was known as Dyrrachium in Antiquity, so its the historical name. Thank you!

The title should be "Butrint (Roman: Buthrotum)" and I tried without success to change it ... Rob Sherratt (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent manipulation of sourced parts

It appears there is an obsession to add various parts that are not backed by the available sources [[1]], for example the site appears to be of Illyrian culture & inhabited by Illyrians, though the inlines offer a quite different view. Wrong categories have also been added (Illyrian Albania etc.) Alexikoua (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to thank Ioaf. for removing the parts in question. However, this kind of unexplained changes without appropriate citation can't be considered part of a constructive activity.Alexikoua (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Quote Virgil Aeneid Text?

The Aeneid text is of great interest to people reading about Butrint. Suggest we include it. The Aeneid contains the following text, translation now free of copyright

SOURCE: Virgil, The Aeneid. REV. OLIVER CRANE, D. D., Corporate Member of the American Oriental Society. Published 1887, Cornell University Library PA 6807.A5C891. Minor edits made by me to remove unwanted colons that mess up Wiki formatting ...

Straightway we bury Phaeacia's airy castles, and onward coast by the shores of Epirus, and soon the Chaonian harbor enter, and straight draw nigh to the lofty city Buthrotum. Here an incredible rumor of issues absorbs our attention: Helenas, Priam's descendant, is reigning o'er Grecian cities [295]
Owning the spouse and the sceptre of Pyrrhus, the son of Priam! Thus to a lord of her country again has Andromache fallen! I was astounded, and kindled my bosom with wonderful longing now to converse with the hero, and know of his marvelous fortunes. Forth from the harbor I stride, forsaking the fleets and the seasides [300]
When, as it happened, her annual feasts and funereal presents. Out in a grove in front of the town, was Andromache making. Hard by a typical Samois' wave, and invoking her Hector's ghost at a green-turfed mound, which she had as a cenotaph hallowed there to his dust, and for purpose of weeping a couple of altars [305]
As she beheld me approaching, and noticed around me the Trojan armor, bewildered and shocked by the grand apparition she stood stark stiff in the midst of her gaze, and the warmth her bones has abandoned; Swoons she, and after a long time barely at length she bespeaks me; "Dost thou an actual person, an actual messenger greet me [310] goddess-born and alive? or, if fostering light hath departed. Where is my Hector?" she said, and she poured forth tears and the whole place filled with her crying. I barely in brief the delirious weeper answer, and bashed, and embarrassed, in faltering utterance stammer; "Yes, I'm alive, and am life through every extremity leading; [315]
Doubt not, for what thou beholdest is real — Ah ! what disaster anon, cast down from so noble a husband, singles thee out, or what fortune sufficiently worthy revisits Hector's Andromache? Art thou the marriage of Pyrrhus preserving?" Down she her countenance cast, and in humbled expression responded: [320]
"Blest thou alone above others, O virgin daughter of Priam, who at the tomb of a foeman, 'neath Troja's imperial ramparts summoned to die, didst never endure the allotting of choices; No, nor hast touched as a captive the couch of a conquering master ! After our country was burned, we, wafted o'er various waters, [325]
Bore the disdain of the stock of Achilles, the insolent stripling. Childbirth in thraldom enduring of him, who afterwards princess Leda's Hermion courting, and Lacedaemonian nuptials, handed me over to Helenus, slave by a slave to be holden; Yet him Orestes, inflamed with a passionate love for his stolen [330] spouse, and goaded by furies, of crimes the vindictive avengers. Takes unawares and assassinates right at the national altars. So, at the death of Neoptolemus, part of the realm fell duly to Helenus, who by the name of Chaonian moorlands called it, the whole Chaonia titled from Chaon the Trojan: [335]
Pergamus added he, and on the hills yon Ilian castle. But what breezes, I pray, and what fortunes have rendered thy voyage safe, or what god hath impelled thee unwittingly on to our confines ? What of the boy Ascanius? Does he survive, and the free air breathe, whom to thee while as yet at Troja: — [340]
O has the boy, though, any regret for the loss of his parent? Tell me to aught of their pristine valor and vigor of manhood. Do such a sire as Aeneas and uncle as Hector incite him?" Such were the strains she was weepingly pouring,and wakening long sobs vainly, when lo! there emerges the hero himself from the ramparts, [345] Priam's son Helenus, and, with many escorting attendants, welcomes his townsmen and leads them rejoicingly up to his thresholds, many a tear-drop shedding with every word that he utters. Onward I wend, and diminutive Troja and, type of the mighty Pergamus, yea and a dried-up stream by the name of the Xanthus [350] own, and a Scaean gateway's thresholds greet with embraces. Teucrans enjoy at the same time, too, their associates' city. Them was the King in his ample porticoes welcoming freely; There in the midst of the court they were quaffing their beakers to Bacchus; Viands were served them in gold, and they even were holding the goblets. [355]
Now has a day and another day glided away, and the breezes beckon the sails, and the canvas is fanned by the freshening south-wind: In these terms I appeal to the prophet, and thus I entreat him: "Native of Troja, a seer of the gods, who the pleasure of Phosbus knowest, who tripods, the Clarian's laurels, who stars, and the varied [360] language of birds, and the signs of the fluttering feather divinest. Say now, for thus far to me all of my course has auspicious augury spoken, and all of the gods have persuaded me on to seek for Italia, and search for the regions that lie in the distance. Only the harpy Celseno, a strange and unfit to be uttered [365]
Prodigy chants, and denounces upon us deplorable vengeance. Namely a loathsome hunger. What perils must I at the outset shun, or pursuing what course can I brave such onerous hardships?" Hereupon Helenus, first having sacrificed duly the bullocks, prays of the deities peace, and unloosing the fillets from off his [370] sanctified head, he himself, O Phoebus, on up to thy thresholds leads me by hand, as I shrank overawed by thy manifold presence. Then from his mouth divine thus discants the oracular pontiff; "Goddess-born — for that thou o'er the deep under auspices grandeur goest, assurance is clear, so the sovereign of gods is allotting [375] fates, and unrolling their issues, and this is the order assigned them — Few of the many behests, as to how thou mayest more safely traverse the alien waters, and land in Ausonia's haven, I will disclose ; for the destinies interdict Helenus knowing more that ensues, and Saturnian Juno forbids him to tell it. [380]

Rob Sherratt (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

RENAMING

The name of this article should be changed; BUTRINT is named in every other article in other languages.--Lorik17 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Each wiki uses the name used in the correspondent language. Albanian wiki Albanian name etc. etc.. English wiki uses the name used in English bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Move this article to Butrin. It is its common name both in Albanian and in English. Results in google prove it "About 92,200 results" for the actual one, and "About 2,220,000 results" for Butrint. Articles about Albanian cities cannot remain hostage to some Greeks with some bizarre Greek sources. Bes-ARTTalk 09:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me but I fail to see a modern city in this article. It's about an ancient site and sources about antiquity aren't bizarre (for future reference Buthrotum is Latin).Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The site in question is registered at UNESCO as Butrint, as is the case with Dubrovnik 1, which has the Latin name Ragusa. There is no single reason for this site to keep a name in a dead language, especially when it is not a common name and no one searches for this archaeological site in that name. I can list millions of newspapers, magazines, or other information sites, and they all name this Butrint. Bes-ARTTalk 10:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Missed the whole renaming discussion down below. Well done however for the change. Once in a while common sense prevails over triviality on Balkan topics.Resnjari (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a lot of heated debate here, but ultimately I'm seeing more solid arguments in support than opposition, as well as a numerical superiority in pure vote terms. In particular, solid numerical evidence that "Butrint" is the common name in general sources and in "official" sources such as the UN. It is also pointed out that this site has a wide-ranging history, and the Greek period is only one part of that, with the "Butrinto" name in use many centuries ago by Venetians. Although there is some substance in the opposition argument that we use ancient names for ancient sites, the fact that this site has many guises throughout history weakens this argument.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Buthrotum → Butrint – The official name of the archaeological site its Butrint, both in English and native Albanian languages. Officially known and registered from UNESCO and Ramsar Convention with the name of Butrint. Common name in google search as well with more than 2 million hits more than the actual name changed without consensus form a greek Wikipedian. Bes-ARTTalk 12:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Official nomenclature means nothing as far as article names. Google searches are meaningless because they contain mostly junk (especially lots of tourist junk). We generally use the classical name for ancient cities instead of the modern name used in the country the ancient city is located in (e.g. we use Ephesus instead of "Efes", Miletus instead of "Milet", Troy instead of "Hisralik", and countless other examples). Also the comment that the actual name changed without consensus form a greek Wikipedian smacks of WP:TEND, WP:NATIONALIST, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, etc. Khirurg (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I fail to see the definition of the 'official name of an ancient city'. wp:NC doesn't shed light on this. By the way the English hits for 'Butrint' are c. 160 [[2]]. Also, English Googlebooks return c. 220 for Buthrotum [[3]] and only c. 150 for Butrint [[4]]Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Alexikoua, you are using Greek Google results (in English, but using google.gr). I believe this has been discussed before. Don't do that. We go by English results. Here are English results-- raw Google -- Butrint excluding wiki is 1,850,000 [[5]]. Buthrotum? Um, only 70 thousand [[6]]. Now, Google Scholar shows a similar though less stark picture, but Butrint still wins in a landslide: with more than twice [[7]] as many results as Buthrotum[[8]]. --Calthinus (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus: If you mean that I've included Greek sites you are wrong, since I've enabled the English language filter. On the other hand you need to be carefull and to check the language google filter in order to exclude Albanian (and general non-English speaking) sites.Alexikoua (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Nah, that you used google.gr. It's fine, it's an understandable mistake, just that these aren't the results we use in these discussions.--Calthinus (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. All the sources we are citing in this article are apparently using "Butrint" rather than "Buthrotum" in their titles. I have no reason to suppose that this is somehow not representative of what the relevant literature at large does. I also don't see how the Google counts are meaningless: they are representative of what our readers are likely to be familiar with; that's why we use them for purposes just like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Search: 2,260,000 results for Butint and 87,100 results for Buthrotum; Google Books: 16,400 results for Butrint and 28,300 results for Buthrotum; Google Scholar: 2,790 results for Butrint and 1,340 results for Buthrotum. As mentioned above, the majority of article's sources uses "Butrint" and the site is registered by UNESCO as "Butrint". While "Buthrotum" is the name of the Roman period's site, "Butrint" is the site's common name in English. – Βατο (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you even look at your Google search results [9]?? It's mostly tourist junk like lonelyplanet and tripadvisor (and other tourist junk such as [10]) and a good deal of wikipedia pages (e.g. Butrint National Park). Similarly, most of your Google Scholar results are for Lake Butrint, not the ancient city. There is a national park called Butrint National Park; but the commonly used English name of the ancient city is Buthrotum, as your google books search shows. It's not "Butrint" any more than "Efes" for Ephesus or "Hisralik" for Troy. Khirurg (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
If you take a look at actual archaeological literature of the last thirty years, you will easily see that this is plainly not true. The common name of the place in the scholarly literature is Butrint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Normally we would have an article about a modern city at its modern name, with one or more subsidiary articles titled "history of..." or "ancient ...", potentially using the original name of the settlement. In this case we don't have a modern city, as the site seems to have been abandoned since Ottoman times. Logically it should be at either the Greek or Roman title, whichever is more likely to be encountered in English. Optionally there could be two articles, one about the ancient city, and another about the archaeological site; that would allow most of this page to stay at the present name, but also justify an article at the modern name. That seems to be the case with Troy/Hisarlik; "Troy" is about the ancient city built and destroyed in various phases; "Hisarlik" is about the archaeological site presumed to mark the ruins of Troy; there's some overlap, but the focus is different. This seems like a very similar case, in which case insisting on the local name instead of the name of the ancient city whose ruins are at that site is a bit like insisting that there be no article at "Troy", only at "Hisarlik". Number of hits on Google or Google Books are less probably useful than an Ngram of unique occurrences in English-language books: this shows that until 1992, "Buthrotum" was more common in English; "Butrint" doesn't even appear in print until 1949, and I suspect that its prevalence now has more to do with travel guides than classical history. An important source that probably should be cited and used to augment the current article, but which doesn't seem to be, is "Buthrotum" from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, an older but still valuable reference that has the advantage of citing ancient writers in detail. P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • One relevant difference between this and the Troy/Hisarlik example is that Butrint was not only a Greek and Roman place but existed into the Venetian era, and at that time it was already called Butrint(o). The other, and much more important, difference is that "Butrint" is what the majority of the reliable literature calls it. We go by what the sources do, no matter why they do it, it's as simple as that. You may well be right that this has only become common after 1990, but it's by no means true that it's only travel literature that uses it; if you look at, for instance, this academic publication, not only the book itself but virtually every other work cited in it seems to be using Butrint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem convinced that it's an open-and-shut case, but it's not. The majority of this article is about a classical site, not a modern one and not a Venetian one. You speak of "the majority of the reliable literature", but that would clearly keep the article where it is now, since the overwhelming majority of printed sources date to before 1992. And if you're familiar with Wikipedia article naming conventions, you'll know it's not as simple as counting the number of occurrences anywhere. There's also a specific naming guideline applicable in this case: "if the place does not exist any more, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used" (emphasis in original). Although the archaeological site still exists, the city this article is about does not (and that's all the guideline means, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense). So, both for practical reasons—the name most likely to be found in histories, all older literature, most sources printed before 1992—and by general policy for place names in article titles, the main portion of this article should stay at the present title, although it would be fine to split off the portions dealing with the history of excavation or the current physical description of the site under the proposed title. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not naively assuming it's an "open-and-shut case". But I've looked at the literature, including the literature we cite in this very article. I just cannot ignore the overwhelming preponderance of the modern name in this literature. That does make "Butrint" the "widely accepted historical English name" in the sense of that guideline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
That's the point: it's the "modern" local name for a place that hasn't existed for centuries; by definition it's not the historical name. And the question isn't what the majority of sources currently cited by the article use, but what readers are likely to encounter, or what might have brought them to this place. If you limit the scope of the inquiry to "sources published since 1992", you ignore the vast majority of available sources, including most of those that deal with the history of the city, rather than its significance to modern Albania. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think you misread the guidline: the "widely accepted historical English name" is, by definition, the name that English sources use today in speaking about the historic place. And that happens to be Butrint. Or, maybe we should say, Butrint is clearly the predominant name when talking about the place as an archaeological site, i.e. its present-day existence – but then, that's clearly also the main topic of this article. (Obviously, when speaking of historical events in antiquity, historians will still use "Buthroton", and so should we, no argument there.) Finally, if you take the criterion to be "what readers are likely to encounter, or what might have brought them to this place", then under that perspective of course "Butrint" will win hands down, as the name of a popular tourist destination. And again, English-speaking tourists go to Troy, not to Hisarlik, and to Ephesus, not Efes – but they do go to Butrint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
P Aculeius This has nothing in common with Troy, which was decisively destroyed (by Greeks, whose name we use for the city, not the name used by the natives who were not identified as Greeks by Greeks, and whose native name may have been Wilusa, as one major theory posits based on Luwian texts). Instead this argument is much more like proposing to rename Paris to Lutetia, because the current reality is that Butrint redirects to Buthrotum, including all its subsequent history where its pretty undoubtably Butrint. In particular, arguably the most important phase in terms of influencing the fate of other regions of its history was the Venetian and Angevin Albanian periods -- here it was a crucial military outpost, a center of trade, and a frontier in the southward and eastward march of the Catholic rite across the region after the Fourth Crusade -- in fact Butrinti -- or Butrinto as the Venetians called it -- it was the center of an Archbishopric. It's frankly preposterous that all of its Slavic, Venetian, Angevin Albanian, Albanian, Ottoman and etc history has it named "Buthrotum".--Calthinus (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support although side "Oppose" has mentioned WP:IDLI, WP:COMMONNAME is clear and the results look like a landslide in favor of Butrint once you use Google and not Greek Google [[11]][[12]][[13]]\[[14]]. On the other hand, we also have the Medieval inhabitation until the Ottoman Era, and the inappropriateness of applying "Buthrotum" to what was a Venetian, Angevin, and Albanian city clearly called Butrint(i/o). While we cannot attest a Slavic name for the city, the name Buthrotum appears to be clearly associated with Greek/Byzantine... and North Epirote... periods, which is an incomplete at best characterization of its long history. And at worst, a tasteless fumble that is insensitive to the modern political reality of far-right Greek nationalists claiming the city and trying to erase the wide ranging non-Greek aspects of its long and diverse history into a monoethnic tale rather akin to Turkish official erasure of Greek and Armenian history. Butrint, on the other hand, speaks to the historical multiethnic reality, as an Italian and Albanian name likely in some way related to the prior Greek one (perhaps via Slavic, which lacked a sound equivalent to theta, unlike Albanian and Venetian?). At the very least we cannot have the Medieval city described by Buthrotum, as this is just as bad as calling modern Paris "Lutetia".--Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're ignoring both Wikipedia's guidelines for place names involving historical locations, i.e. ruins, as well as the ngram, which is a much better indication of usage than simply counting Google hits in any language. And as far as I can see, nobody above has cited WP:IDLI... what was cited was WP:NATIONALIST and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which seem to be on point, since the proposer and most of the people supporting the move seem to be Albanian or at least spend a lot of time editing articles about Albania. I think that claims about Greek nationalism and cultural whitewashing seem to be coming out of thin air—but let's concede that some of those opposed to the move are clearly involved in editing mainly Greek articles. So what we really need here is the perspective of editors who are able to view the debate from perspectives other than "Greek" or "Albanian". I'm neither, but I've also already voiced my opinion. So let's see if we can get other editors' opinions on this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
And you are calling someone nationalist just because unlike the previous move, it is making a decent Request Move with an open discussion? Or just because someone else quoted WP:NATIONALIST? I may not be neutral but the discussion has been raised on other objective grounds. Bes-ARTTalk 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't calling anybody anything. The issue of WP:NATIONALISM and related guides were raised by someone else, based in part on your suggestion that the previous move should not have occurred without the agreement of a Greek Wikipedian, which is not a valid criterion for determining the proper article name. This raises red flags, as does the fact that the page has been moved repeatedly, often without prior discussion, but as you can see with vehement criticism. I'm not saying that you're guilty of violating any policies; another editor seemed to be implying that I was, even though the questions were raised by someone else, and concerned policies other than the ones that were being complained of. The same editor subsequently implied that I should be subject to official sanctions for suggesting that the editors already here might be too close to the subject to reach a consensus based on purely neutral grounds, and would benefit from outside opinions.
There are multiple links to topics concerning the supposed crimes of Greek nationalists in this discussion—surely not relevant to the article title; again they reinforce the impression that some sense of national pride or identity depends on the outcome of this discussion. But we're not going to get anywhere by assuming bad faith (or asking, "was that a personal attack?"). I believe the concern raised by the other editor was a valid one, although it affects both sides in this discussion: three or four editors who all seem to specialize in Albanian subjects advocating a page move to an Albanian name, strongly opposed by a few editors who have Greek names or seem to specialize in Greek topics. Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not suggesting for a moment that being Greek or Albanian disqualifies anyone from stating their opinion, much less editing the article. But the tone of this discussion from the very beginning strongly suggests that the two sides are breaking down mostly on cultural lines; and that's a good reason for seeking outside opinions from editors who are less invested in the article's title. P Aculeius (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Whoa there dude, commenting on the ethnicity of editors especially in WP:ARBMAC territory is not a good idea, fyi P Aculeius. As a matter of fact, I personally edit a fair amount of both Greece and Albania, plus Caucasus, Mid East, EEurope, ... -- and I'm not Greek or Albanian though I can speak some of both -- neither is Fut Perf, the main guy arguing with you here. Meaning half the "support" side is non-Albanian. Anyhoowwww, it seems you are more of a Classics oriented guy -- as am I in my personal prefered material (not what I edit -- this stuff needs less work). Which likely means you are unaware of some events of Balkan history and also current politics -- particularly that Greek nationalists, who remain a potent political and societal force and at one point captured 9.4% of the Greek electorate in 2014 and have an irredentist goal to take "North Epirus", ironically the birthplace of the Albanian nationalist movement, from Albania (no significant political force in Albania claims any part of Greece although there is some past other issues and a group of ethnic Albanians from a part of Epirus, some of whom want their Greek property and citizenship back after they got punished en masse because some of them collabbed). Now, as for trying to erase parts of history, reconsider the Greek version of the much better known Turkish placename policy (granted: one huge difference is that in the Turkish case the policy is also involved in genocide denial -- the historical erasure aspect is identical however). It's not that Albanians are somehow more tolerant than Greeks or anything like that, they just lost wars a bit more often and had fewer opportunities to get away with this sort of crap, and the result has been that the Albanian, Vlach, Turkish and Slavic heritages, which once coexisted with Greek heritage in the same places of large parts of Greece have been largely erased (thankfully Jewish heritage is better preserved to a degree in places like "Saloniqi"). --Calthinus (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
P Aculeius in case what I am saying is not clear here -- I am not Albanian so I cannot speak for any let alone all Albanian editors; however Albanian anger that Greek editors have changed the name of an Albanian city from an Albanian/Italian name to a Greek one (Latin speakers could not pronounced Buthrotum, either the aspirate stop or the fricative) does not need to be construed as WP:NATIONALIST or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS -- neither of which is a policy, by the way -- but instead as Albanians justifiedly objecting to what they perceive to be part of a larger attempt to erase their history (perhaps this is not AGF -- but it is not necessarily nationalistic is what I'm saying). Indeed perhaps I feel the same outrage, even though I'm a lefty who is not a fan of Likud, when I hear that UNESCO claims that "Al Aqsa" (aka the Temple Mount) has "no Jewish history" -- or perhaps an aboriginal American or Australian would agree where their placenames are removed, not to mention the feeling of Armenians about all the name changes in former geographic Armenia. I don't think that's nationalistic as long as you aren't also trying to erase the WASP/Arab/Turkish/Greek cultures on the other hand, of which there is no attempt.--Calthinus (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, rather, for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it doesn't apply when policy has also been brought forth. --Calthinus (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You're replying to your own replies to yourself. And clearly not reading the discussion carefully if you think I raised those issues; I was correcting your misidentification of them. Also, I think you may find that implying that other editors will face sanctions for disagreeing with you is not a good way to get your point across, particularly when their points are valid ones: everyone else in this discussion seems to have very strong ties to either Greek or Albanian subjects. And the fact that you keep raising the issue of Greek nationalists and ethnic/cultural cleansing and linking to completely extraneous topics really calls your POV into question. I suggested asking for outside opinions, and that's still the best option here. Why don't you wait and see what editors who don't have strong national ties to either Greece or Albania have to say about the proposed move? P Aculeius (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
P Aculeius If I was trying to "win" a move discussion I would not engage this as the issue here does not matter to wiki policy-- which does not take into account nationalism in any way (WP:NATIONALIST is not policy). Instead I was clumsily trying to explain to you why you need to (pretend to) assume good faith dealing with Balkan topics, because Balkan editors cannot. Many people have family relations affected by this stuff. You needed to be aware, before you kept spouting off about "based on their edit history" (your hasty interpretation), "Albanian editors" who have voted in favor are "nationalists". Not only is this not AGF, it is technically a personal attack. You seem to think I have threatened you with sanctions. The last thing I want is a stupid arbitration case, nobody has time for that. Seeing as you have gone and canvassed on a wiki project again calling accusations against your colleagues "credible given their editing history"[[15]].... clearly I'm no good at explaining this, I suppose I'll say. --Calthinus (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Now hold on there. I'm not going to say whether P Aculeius is right or wrong about invoking the problem of nationalism (though your response here makes it clear that it plays a role in these topics), but posting to the Wikiproject most likely to be interested in this issue, Project Classical Greece and Rome, is not canvassing. People who have come from that notice have voted in various ways too.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ermenrich: it's good that he posted to the wiki project. However, per WP:CANVAS, the topic should have been conveyed impartially. He did not. He backed accusations his colleagues were nationalists, and also falsely claimed that Greek editors had been accused of right wing nationalism -- the only one who brought up GD is me, and I never accused any Greek or other editors here of supporting it, but rather noted its context making calling modern/Medieval Butrint "Buthrotum" as a "tasteless fumble".--Calthinus (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, I didn't raise either "nationalist editing" or "righting great wrongs" in this discussion. Another editor did. And while they may not be policies in themselves, they relate to WP:NPOV, which is a vital policy that cannot be ignored in any article. Pointing out that the editors engaged in a debate are relying on arguments other than those strictly relevant to article naming policies (for instance, that past changes should not have been made without the agreement of a Greek editor, or that Greek nationalist movements want to take over part of Albania, or that this discussion is somehow related to whether Albanians are rightfully angry at Greece for past acts of ethnic cleansing), or that they seem to be breaking down into two camps, depending on which side of the border they seem to be on, isn't a personal attack. Neither is requesting outside opinions to help resolve a dispute in a more neutral manner. As Ermenrich just pointed out, the editors at CGR have differing views, and haven't been asked to vote in one particular way—that would be problematic—but instead are basing their views on their interpretation of the facts and practical considerations, including history and currency. Editors from other projects, or Wikipedia as a whole, would be equally welcome to weigh in. If you want to raise PA, AGF, CANVAS, etc. in an arbitration case, go ahead, but I don't see why you'd be opposed to getting opinions from editors who don't feel as heavily invested in the debate. P Aculeius (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I said clearly, it's good that you canvassed for more "outside" opinions, but you should have canvassed in line with WP:CANVAS, which you did not given the statement, your words Soon after the discussion began, editors who opposed the move suggested that those supporting the move were motivated by Albanian nationalism, which looks credible given their editing history. On the other hand, those opposing the move seem to be mainly Greek, and now they've been accused of promoting right-wing Greek nationalism.. There is one civility breach here, and one outright false statement.--Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization; I described the nature of a dispute between two sides that each seemed to be motivated by reasons other than those relating to article naming policy. If you have a problem with that, please open a complaint or refer the matter to the arbitration committee, which you yourself raised quite a few paragraphs ago. P Aculeius (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec) @Calthinus: You didn't directly accuse any Greek editors of being golden dawn members (not your style), you just let it be implied. The old guilt by association trick. And P Aculeius correctly called you out on it. Your furious denials fool no one. Khirurg (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Em no what I said was quite clear -- "tasteless fumble". I dont think you support GD.--Calthinus (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I dont think you support GD. This is the problem. Why would this statement have to be made in the first place? Allusions or references to Golden Dawn don't belong in a civilised discussion. This is just another variation of Godwin's Law and does not belong here or anywhere on wiki. The statement reminds me of Nixon's famous utterance "I'm not a crook". It shows that the mere existence of an association ("GD" or "crook") tends to stick, no matter the underlying truth. So it is best to be avoided. Dr. K. 16:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Dr.K.: Actually I completely agree that GD or any ultranationalist group, should not be invoked in a civilized discussion. Not sure I'd call this talk civilized. Also, I do regret my GD comment. It didn't come in a vacuum but it was one of many mistakes that poisoned the well here, starting with Besarti mentioning the perceived ethnicity of the unilateral mover, Khirurg saying that "smacked of WP:NATIONALIST", and Aculeius commenting that accusations were "credible" given editing histories. None of these comments, including mine, should have happened -- and I'm sorry. But I also clearly didnt accuse anyone here of anything.--Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Calthinus, for your response. Just to be clear, I agree that you did not accuse anyone of anything. But your response clears or reinforces many of the points I was trying to make. Hopefully, we can all learn from that. Dr. K. 21:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We could also perform a split whereby the ancient period of the same city is covered by Buthrotum which is the main article of a section on the holistic Butrint.--Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This split proposal sounds good. To be precise the Latin name was still in use when the site was under Latin (late medieval) rule.Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Good that we agree here, but I would not say "late" medieval. Until the High Middle Ages. We don't know the Slavic name, but clearly, from 1267 onward is clear "Butrint" time territory. --Calthinus (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. It does appear that Butrint is the common name. The British Museum calls it Butrint, so does the University of Notre Dame. So does the BBC, from the generalist point of view.
I am unconvinced by the argument that Logically it should be at either the Greek or Roman title, whichever is more likely to be encountered in English. The reason we often have ancient cities at their ancient names is because those ancient names are still commonly used in English, as at Ephesus and Miletus (to take two examples already given in this discussion). en.wikipedia is for the benefit of English-speaking, not Latin- or Greek-speaking, readers, and it is most useful to them to have the article at the common name in English of the topic. If there is evidence that Buthrotum is the English common name, I would support that, but it doesn't seem that it is. (Like Future Perfect at Sunrise, I suspect the fact that none of the English-language sources we actually cite in the article appear to use the name Buthrotum is further evidence against the idea that that is the common name in English...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, names of ancient settlements should be the original ones. I however support a move to Bouthroton, which was the original Greek name (Buthrotum is Latin). I can also support a split as proposed above, between the ancient Greek city state, and the current site (in which case the move to Butrint makes sense). In fact I suggest we do that for all the ancient Greek/Roman cities. T8612 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It is now the commonly used name, from UNESCO downwards. Andrew Dalby 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Noting a point that's being raised in neighbouring comments, yes, there could be a case for splitting the article (when we have enough text about the archaeological site: right now I don't think we do) but I'd still favour "Butrint" for the historical article. "Βουθρωτόν" is the Greek name, "Buthrotum" is the Latin name, "Butrinto" is the Italian name: all these were important for long periods in its history, but why choose one rather than another? We don't know under what name it was founded. Hence, in this case -- as often -- it's better to be guided by recent reliable sources: see the bibliography of our article, see guide books, see Google. Andrew Dalby 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the city was most notable for its ancient era, Buthrotum, and the ancient scholars all use this name for the city. When Butrint became a more common name for that place, the city was already declining and later abandoned. As an editor with Archeological studies both in Balkans and abroad, I used to be studying about this city but as Buthrotum. I assume this was due to the vast majority of the historical site's attested history being about its ancient times, not Venetian or later times. Now, if any Wikipedians here are favoring a move on WP:CommonName grounds, then fine by me. However I shall bear to everyone's mind that the current common name isn't the name the historical city was most known with. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name should reflect the ancient name, the place is uninhabited so it's nothing like Paris and Lutetia. Changing to Support, based on the sources provided by Furius. I would be willing to support a split of the ancient city and modern site if necessary.--Ermenrich (talk)
  • Support. The official excavation reports consistently use Butrint:
  • Gilkes, Liberati, The theatre at Butrint : Luigi Maria Ugolini's excavations at Butrint 1928-1932 (Albania Antica IV)
  • Hodges, Bowden, Lako, Andrews, Byzantine Butrint : excavations and surveys 1994-99 (2004)
  • Bowden, Hodges,Cerova, Butrint 3 : excavations at the Triconch Palace (2011) 9781842179802
  • Hansen,Hodges, Leppard, Butrint 4 : the archaeology and histories of an Ionian town (2013) 9781842174623 [I & II apparently don't exist yet]
The fact that tourist guidebooks use the name strongly supports the case that Butrint is also the name in common use (the case is thus unlike Troy, where tourist guide books regularly refer to "Troy") Furius (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Not quite [16]. Khirurg (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
i.e. Buthrotum: its history and monuments. Unluckily that book doesn't help us, because it has been published under both names. For the alternative title Butrint: history and monuments, see our bibliography ... and Google again. Andrew Dalby 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It is true, Andrew Dalby. Another book of Ceka is "Butrint:A guide to the city and its monuments" published by the Butrint Foundation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It's reasonable to use Butrint when we refer to the modern state Park, but this article isn't about it. However when a work is focused on the ancient settlement the ancient forms Buthrotum/Boutrotos are mainly preferred even in recent publications:
  • Bouthrotos (Butrint) in the Archaic and Classical Periods (2017) [[17]].
  • The Roman Colonial Settlements at Dyrrachium, Byllis and Buthrotum, (2012) J. Wilkes
  • Monuments, myth and small change in Buthrotum (Butrint) during the Early Empire, (2012) Richard Abdy

The Oxford Classical Dictionary also uses Buthrotum [[18]] Buthrotum (now Butrinto, uninhabited), founded traditionally by the Trojan *Helenus...Alexikoua (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That's amusing: the full sentence, as you quote it, suggests that the author is still living in the 1930s (or maybe 19th century) when the Italian name was commonly used! But the OCD is a good example for "Buthrotum", I agree. Andrew Dalby 08:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I've refactored the ngram to report on the frequency of the four variations mentioned here in English-language sources printed from 1800 to 2000 (i.e. mostly pre-internet). The Latin Buthrotum and Italian Butrinto are the only forms that appear in print until 1949, when Butrint makes its first showing. Butrint remains a distant third in the English corpus until after 1980, when it surpasses Butrinto, but still lags behind Buthrotum until 1993. The literal Greek transliteration Bouthrotos first appears in 1966, but remains almost unknown until 1994, when it suddenly spikes in usage, ultimately becoming about as common as Butrint in English-language sources. The Italian Butrinto had become relatively scarce between 1980 and 1987, but has since made a comeback, slightly surpassing Buthrotum in the last couple of years on the chart. None of the names is clearly "on the way out", although Butrint and Bouthrotos have obviously gained at the expense of the others.
What's my analysis (if anyone cares)? If you look at any sources printed before 1980, you're probably going to find either Buthrotum or Butrinto. The other forms only appear in recent decades, and their popularity spikes in the 1990's, just as Albania and the Balkans are opening up to the west. However, their dominance isn't attributable solely to travel guides or publications promoting Albania. While these do appear amongst the sources that pop up when you click on the spans of year adjacent to each version, there are also plenty of archaeological publications under each spelling.
I still favour using the present title for the historical location, since it hasn't been inhabited for centuries before either of the modern forms appeared or became current, and nearly all literature discussing them before 1980 will use either Buthrotum or Butrinto. Since the majority of the article, and presumably the town's significance, concerns the town's Greek, Roman, and Byzantine history, Buthrotum seems like the logical choice. However, I think there's enough room for at least a stub on the archaeological site, which could go at Butrint as the local name. Even though there's not a huge amount to split off currently, there's clearly enough material written about the excavations there over the last several decades to support a stand-alone article at Butrint. However, no matter where it is, all four forms will probably need to appear in the lead. P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If a new article is ever created, it should be named Buthrotum and elaborate only on the pre-Venetian period. This article's content concerns the entire history of the site: its early days, the Roman period, the Venetian period, the Ottoman period, today's activities. Today's most common name should be the name of this article that concerns the entire history of the site during which it has had several names. I agree that the lede should present the four historical names of the site. Anyways, the question whether a new article should be created or not is usually kept away from move discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The idea of splitting the article was proposed as a compromise between those who feel that an article about an ancient city should use its historic name, and those who feel that it should be located at the current local name of the site, much as we have for "Troy" and "Hisarlik": two articles, each with a different focus. P Aculeius (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Why Buthrotum? Bouthroton was the original Greek name and was likely reatined by its Greek-speaking inhabitants until the arrival of the Venetians. T8612 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Because in English, we generally use the Latin spelling of Greek names, as they were transliterated from the Greek alphabet into Latin. I also note that there are multiple spellings in Ancient Greek, and that modern transliterations directly into English, without Latinisation, are a relatively recent phenomenon—late 20th Century, for the most part. So with rare exceptions, you won't find them in references older than that. P Aculeius (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note For those interested in the history of Butrint/Buthrotum, especially after the Roman period, there are a few sources of help such as [19]. The history of the site, or at the very least of the area associated with it, continued after the Byzantine empire ceased to exist. Some content additions to the article would be of value, if someone has the time and desire to make them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Its later history is certainly very obscure, but it became one of the two mainland enclaves (along with Parga) of the French département of Corfu in 1797. That département was to have a complicated story, but I haven't seen any references to Butrint during later episodes. Perhaps the last inhabitants abandoned it at about that period? Andrew Dalby 09:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby: Apart from an Ottoman (&Venetian) outpost Bouthrotum/Butrint was just ruins that period. The settlement was long abandoned and no Ottoman census mentioned this place (from 1430 to 1880). Of course the site retained its strategic military importance but this doesn't mean that a city or a minor settlement existed.Alexikoua (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Andrew, indeed, the history of Butrint is largely obscure and those sources that elaborate on its post-Venetian history are rather murky. According to UNESCO's page dedicated to Butrint, The property is a microcosm of Mediterranean history, with occupation dating from 50 000 BC, at its earliest evidence, up to the 19th century AD. According to the source in the link I posted in my previous edit, around 1864 a last re-occupation of the site (or area around it) happened. It appears that the site served for military and trade purposes in the late Ottoman period. Today houses around it are being built because of the influx of tourists. If I am not mistaken, the site generates some $1 million euros annually from tourists so interest in repopulation of the area around the site is expectable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
In any case, it was certainly inhabited in the capacity of castle maintenance at least, at the time of Ali Pasha -- a time when I'm not sure an Ottoman census could take place, as Ali was operating something close to a de facto independent state that was allowed only by Ottoman negligence.--Calthinus (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It is true. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because this article's content concerns the entire history of the site: its early days, the Roman period, the Venetian period, the Ottoman period, today's activities. Today's most common name should be the name of this article that concerns the entire history of the site during which it has had several names. As shown above, the site continued to exist as an important town or military and trade center centuries after the Roman period. So naming the article "Buthrotum" just because that is the name the site had in the Roman period does not make much sense to me. The primary goal of an article's name is to enable readers to find the article as easy as possible. "Butrint" seems to do that better than "Buthrotum". In any case, the four historical names deserve a place in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Note of interest, we also have Botronto in Medieval Latin -- Buthroti (nunc Botronto) episcopus sub archiepiscopato Naupactensis; in Eubel (1890s) we have these other variants (cited by Lala): Botrotensis al. (?) Votrontin (Butrinto, Vuzindro) in Epiro, suffr. Neopactensis al. Corphiensis. The Votrontin with the b>v characteristic of Greek might suggest that these variants with the n in the second syllable were also what the local Greek population was calling it. --Calthinus (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Then a "Name" section will enrich the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Under Angevin Albania period (1267-1386)?

There is obviously an error in this. Angevin Albania was disestablished in 1368. However even in the remaining period the city changed hands several times. Byzantines & the Despotate of Epirus controlled also this site. The above title falls into POV.Alexikoua (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes -- 1386. That is what the source, which itself cites another source, states. After which it fell under Southern Italian rule, Neapolitan as seen in 1395. And the page says Angevin rule, not Angevin Albania. Now, as for "Between Angevins, Byzantines and the Despotate of Epirus" this is WP:SYNTH -- no source uses this formulation. Not to mention WP:UNDUE. The Despotate claimed the area but did it rule it? Only in 1305-1306 (Lala gives another time: just 1306). And as vassals, it seems, though I could be wrong on this point; all I know is that Nikephoros submitted as a vassal to Charles. As for the Byzantines? Four years. That other gap ending in 1331 was not Byzantine rule -- that appears to have been the rule of Philip of Taranto, not the Byzantines: He gave in pheudum to his fourth son, Philip of Taranto (1294-1331), not only direct rule over the islands of Corfu and Butrinti, the Principality of Acaia and Regnum Albaniae. So why are we equating the Angevins in the title to the Byzantines and the Despotate, when the two of them ruled during the period, um, 5 years? And at that, doing so in a formulation that no source uses? --Calthinus (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Angevin Albania was disestablished in 1368 and the entire (1267-1386) period can't be simple termed "under Angevin Albania period". It's good you fixed that since Byzantine, Epirote and Angevine -post-Regnum Albaniae- were also in control of the site. There are plenty of references due to my recent intervention.Alexikoua (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok were all good then. And thanks for the Hodges source-- this will prove very useful for further expansion. Cheers,--Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butrint/Archive_1&oldid=1079332248"