Talk:Agrigento/Archive 1

The meaning of the word is NOT unclear

I deleted the phrase

"The meaning of the word is unclear, though the stock commonplace referred to an eponymous legendary founder, an Akragante, apparently no more than a retrospective etiological myth for an obscure name"

The etymology is very clear, it derives from {"άκρα"=cape+"άγω"=guide} =ακρ-ά-γας. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.8.68 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has employed the BC/AD formula since 7 May 2006.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC). Can anyone provide a pronuciation? - Are the 'g's hard or soft? 88.105.133.155 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First g is hard and second g is soft. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Girgenti only mentioned as the 'former' name? My grandmother always called it that till she died a few years ago, it's still the Sicilian name for the city and I still hear it used now and then whenever I'm in there. Seek100 14:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article still a stub? I was going to remove it but there was a notice not to. Just curious! :) Sonrisasgrandes 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that was left over from the last major update to the article! -- ChrisO 06:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On proposed merger of Agrigentum into this article

I suggested the merger, because the city has not ever been deserted by its inhabitants since its foundation in the 6th century BC so there is continuity. We can incorporate what useful information exists in the stub Agrigentum into the article Agrigento, in the section dealing with the history of the city. I intend to proceed with this but I want to first make sure that there are no valid objections. Therefore:

• Support Contributor175 20:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound, I am just wondering whether it is ever worthwhile retaining a short article on an historic name, in the sense that the name itself may be of historic significance and have sufficient info of interest pertaining to it. I am aware that many Sicilian towns have undergone name changes because of the various conquests, and some of those names may be of such historic interest that they may warrant an article in their own right. On this occasion, that is not necessarily the case, Agrigentum and Agrigento are basically the same word. However, a case might be made that the original Greek name Akragas may have sufficient interest and information to warrant a separate article (I don't really know the origin of the Greek word, so I am not in a position to make the argument - I simply throw it up as a possibility). That is before we even get to the Arabic inspired Sicilian name: Girgenti. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I note that the article says that Agrigento stands on the exact spot that Agrigentum stood - I'm personally not sure one way or the other - but I do know that one of Agrigento's main historical sites, the Valley of the Temples, is certainly a few miles out of town - which makes me wonder whether they do in fact occupy identical locations (but if not, certainly very close). Once again, I am neutral to the idea, and simply hope that these matters are fully considered before we make the move. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your cautiousness. After all, what we are considering is relevant to many other cities in Sicily which have separate articles under their historic names. I tried to do a bit of research since yesterday, here is what I found:

• The names Agrigentum, Girgenti and Agrigento are cognate and are derived from the (original) name Akragas. The stem in Akragas is akragant-. In the nominative case akragant- + the ending -s becomes akragas (due to the ancient Greek euphonic rules). However, in the genitive, dative and accusative cases, the "nt" remains intact (akragantos/akraganti/akraganta respectively). Clearly, the consonants survived the centuries better than the (more malleable) vowels. However, there is no obvious etymology for the name, and I have not managed to find anything on that.
• The Valley of the Temples is indeed a couple of kilometres to the SE of the city center (Google Earth link). Despite the size of the city in antiquity, such a distance is not trivial, as you already pointed out. Through some quick googling I found the following relevant information on this commercial site: "...it sharply declined until, in 829, it was taken by the Arabs, who destroyed the town only to rebuild it on a higher site." If that is true, then it is easy to find a proper historical source for that (just give me a couple of days).

So the important question is:

Should this temporal discontinuity (I don't know how long it took the Arabs to reestablish the city) and relocation (a couple of kilometers) be considered important enough so that there is a need to distinguish between two cities?

1. The ancient one, known under the names Akragas (Ancient and Modern Greek) and Agrigento (Latin) until 829
2. The newer one, known as Girgenti (Arabic and Modern Sicilian) and Agrigento (Italian).

I am not sure what the answer is but it is important for deciding whether to proceed with the merger or not. And then we should also aim for consistency in the case of other Sicilian cities with separate articles under their historical names. Either we merge them all or none or only those that have historical continuity.

By the way, I am aware of your contributions to the Sicilian Wikipedia (where, surprisingly, I have an account as well!) and to Wikiproject Sicily. Perhaps the other participants could help formulate a common approach?

Regards, Contributor175 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - thinking it through, I think the key questions you have asked above are spot on, and I am sort of coming round to the view that we are pretty much talking about the same place existing with the same name since its inception. If there isn't too much to say about the origin of the historic name, it doesn't make sense to retain it as its own page. Also, there seems to be an inconsistency in that Akragas redirects to Agrigentum - if anything, it should be the other way round. Better still, have all the various versions redirect to Agrigento. Lastly, re Semioli's point below, it is a fair enough view. I would support that approach where there is a major disconnect between the ancient and modern cities in terms of either time or geography. As an example, Troy is a lengthy article, and the modern day town in Turkey has a separate article altogether - that seems reasonable in that set of circumstances, i.e. that Troy basically ceased to exist for many centuries once it was destroyed (I think). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Both articles have a reason to exist, one referring to the ancient city, and one to the modern one.--Semioli 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - but As the articles are know, I would support merging Agrigentum into Agrigento. Especially, most of the article Agrigento is also dedicated to the ancient town and buildings and not to the modern town so that a separation seems not to be justified.

However, I can also see Semiolis point for having two articles, but I would prefer the original name "Akragas" for the article on the ancient town and "Agrigentum" as a redirect thereto. Akragas was the ancient city founded by the Greek. It was destroyed in 406 B.C. but refounded by the Greek in the 4th century B.C. based on the ancient plan of the town, and the temples were restored. So there is a continuity. In 210 B.C. Akragas became a Roman "civitas" under the name of Agrigentum. (Continuity again, but now longer the importance of the classic greek time). In the 8th century, the ancient town had dwindled to a little village. Due to beginning raids by the Arabs, the inhabitants retreated to the hill in the north which formerly served as the Akropolis of Akrageas and where the first temples of Akragas had been built (discontinuity). After conquering the village, the Arabs founed a new city on this hill which delveloped to the modern Agrigento. So there are two characteristic times and locations: 6th century B.C. to 8th century: ancient town on the cliff; 9th century til now: town on the hill north of the cliff.

In the German Wikipedia, we treated the subject as follows: the article de:Agrigent (German name of Agrigento) only tells about the modern town and its history beginning with the Arabs, and then we have an article de:Archäologische Stätten von Agrigent (Archeological sites of Agrigento) with redirects from Akragas and Agrigentum which describes the history and remains of the ancient city which now are a Unesco world heritage.

If a separation is regarded as best solution, this might also be a possible solution for the English Wikipedia. At least, the Article Agrigento should then be cleared from anything (but a short reference) which describes the ancient city and only refer to the history, economy and sights of the town on the hill. --Bjs-en 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (=de:Benutzer:Bjs)

• • That's a well made out case, and I would support a restructuring along those lines because I could certainly see a significant article being developed around the ancient Akragas/Agrigentum. I would also like to check it.wiki before we proceed on a final course of action. --πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • it.wiki the thing also is mixed up: it:Valle dei Templi mainly refers to the row of temples on the south hill, it:Agrigento to other archeological sites and the history of the town, of modern Agrigento there are only few sentences. --213.183.10.41 12:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (=de:Benutzer:Bjs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agrigento. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018172325/http://www.tampagov.net/information_resources/miscellaneous_documents/archives/_sister_cities.asp to http://www.tampagov.net/information_resources/miscellaneous_documents/archives/_sister_cities.asp

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) 05:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)