Talk:Corinth

St. Paul

Since much of St. Paul's most important and best-known writing is in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 55 A.D.) -- such as the famous "when I was a child, I spoke as a child" -- it is very helpful to anyone trying to understand the Pauline theology to understand that Corinth was considered a very wicked place and that the verb "to Corinthianize" in St. Paul's day (and later) had come to mean "imitating the corruption, greed, sexual depravity and dishonesty of the Corinthians." The legendary bad reputation of Sodom may be more well known, but the bad repuation of Corinth is not legendary. It was very real and can seen discussed in the contemporary writings of historians like Strabo.

Page move

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request:

Corinth, Greece → Corinth

I moved the content of Corinth (a link to Corinth, Greece and a list of insignificant US towns without articles) to Corinth (disambiguation), and I want to move this article to Corinth. I suggested this idea at the beginning of December 2004 (on talk:Corinth), and there was no response, so I'm getting on with it. As Corinth already exists I cannot move Corinth, Greece there without this process. — Gareth Hughes 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support - reasons stated above. Gareth Hughes 21:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious case for the most common meaning disambiguation. zoney ♣ talk 21:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support 'Insignificant' might be a tad harsh, but the Hellenic original carries the vast bulk of the meaning of the name. Alai 21:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most of insignificant towns in the U.S. were named during the popularization of "Greek Revival" architecture and the frenzy for all things classical during the mid-19th century. —ExplorerCDT 21:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. —Lowellian (talk) 02:36, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 02:27, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support.--Astavrou 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Kalamaki

The Corinth article refers to Kalamaki as a nearby town. I don't think it refers to either of the towns listed on that page. I would be grateful for advice as to whether it does apply to the town listed in Thessalia as the other town is on the island of Zakynthos or is about another Kalamaki not listed on the current article. I would also be grateful for any references you can give me. Could you please drop me a line on my talk page if you can assist me in this matter? Capitalistroadster 09:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Kalamaki in this article is irrelevant with the two settlements you mention.

Caesar's Refounding

What is this word: "laus" ?? I have never seen that before as part of a colony and it is certainly not part of Caesar's name. Anyone? Also, I havent come across it, what is the source for Caesar's refounding the city? Cjcaesar 18:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It means "praise", so I guess "Colonia laus Iulia Corinthiensis" could mean "Corinthian colony, the Julian praise", in the sense of a colony founded in honour of Caesar. I don't know about Roman colonial naming patterns but I have never seen that as part of a colony name either. Adam Bishop 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Laus...duh. I shouldve seen it. Anyway, I would still like the source for that name, be it inscriptionary or otherwise. It is possible, if the former is the case, that the mason misspelled something. --Cjcaesar 18:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Turkish vs Greek names

I don't think that Turkish names are appropriate in an English language article. English speakers need the Greek name since it is the original name and western languages are often based on Greek. While I can't argue, nor should they be argued here, Greek names on "Turkish" cities are appropriate in English articles for the same reason. Those were the original names. Greeks often inhabited these cities through Ottoman times, until the Turkish nationalists expelled them. However, Turkish names on these cities are also appropriate. Turks have recently begun rethinking the erasing of these ancient names, e.g. Bodrum for Halicarnassus. The latter name would do a world of good for tourism. What significance does "Bodrum" have other than it's non-Greek? Student7 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be relevant to mention the Turkish name in the history section of the article, but not at the beginning. As Student7 said, we like to know the original Greek names of places in Turkey because English owes so much to classical Greece. But we don't really care what the Turks called Corinth, because it was always Corinth for us. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles about cities in Turkey (in english language) have greek names on it. Thus, cities in Greece must have the turkish names in articles about them. That's an equal and friendly solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.129.16 (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about chauvanism or nationalism. It is about understandability. English speakers do not generally understand Turkish. It has no relevancy to an English speaker. City names were changed by Turks when they expelled the Greeks. That's fine, but English is still has a Latin/Greek base. We've used the Greek names "forever."

We call some European places by English names though they don't have the same names at all! Florence instead of Firenz. Germany instead of Allemand. Austria instead of Oesterich (or whatever). Best of all, we don't have to argue with Italians or Germans or Austrians that we've hurt their feelings! Student7 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pauline churches

This category got erased from here and a bunch of other Pauline-founded churches. Anyone know why? Student7 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed 2000 BC?

A lot of non-scholarly (travel) websites have picked up the same "factoid" that Corinth "may" have been destroyed (by what? earthquake? invasion?) in 2000 BC. They give no citation of course. All seem to have copied each other. Be nice to get a scholarly source for this assuming one exists. Student7 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Abilene, Texas lists Corinth as a sister city, while Corinth does not list Abilene as a sister city, is this just an overlooked fact or vandalism on either page? Blah42b10 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to split this article between Ancient and (Nea/New) Corinth

I'm a resident of (modern/Nea/New) Corinth and find the scope of this article highly problematic. The modern-day city of Corinth has nothing to do with Ancient Corinth, expect that it shares the same name. Modern-day Corinth was a completely new city, founded shortly after the 1858 earthquake, on a site 5km away from (Ancient Corinth). For decades, it was known as "Nea Korinthos" or New Corinth, to distinguish it from the village around the ruins of ancient Corinth, which is still known as Ancient or Archaia Korinthos to this day.

The Greek version of Wikipedia is clear: the entry for Corinth[1] relates to the modern-day city only, while a fork atop the page directs visitors to the article on Ancient Corinth.[2]

I think we need to differentiate the two on the English-language Wikipedia as well. Any thoughts?--Damac (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes, especially when I realised that much of the material on the Corinth article was identical in content and length with the material on the Ancient Corinth article. I believe my changes reflect the reality that the modern city of Corinth has little or nothing to do spatially with Ancient Corinth and that modern Corinth was founded in 1858, a fact recognised by the city council, which celebrated the city's 150th anniversary in 2008.

However, a new user of no more than four days on Wikipedia, Georalex1/79.42.37.197, has reverted much of my effort, arguing, in quite a rude tone, that I have "destroyed" the disambiguation between the two articles and, more seriously, that my edits have been "antiscientific". For his rationale for essentially reverting all of my changes, see User_talk:Damac#Corinth.

I would appreciate the views of other contributors and would ask Georalex1 to continue the discussion here.--Damac (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that most of the material concerning Corinth before 1858 could go in the Ancient Corinth page, but that it should still be summarized here. The current section contains material from the intervening centuries as well as classical times, and readers wouldn't necessarily expect to find that under "Ancient Corinth", even if that might be as appropriate a place to put it as this page. As long as it's relatively brief, as much of it is, it's probably fine here, but the detailed chronology of ancient Corinth probably should be moved to a different page.

It occurs to me, however, that as most references to Corinth will be to ancient Corinth, that this title should refer to that page, instead of this one, and that this one might be better filed under "Modern Corinth" or "Corinth (modern city)". P Aculeius (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess anything to get rid of or merge the awful histories. They need work. Work in one spot would help considerably. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I took some parts fro my discussion with Damac (User_talk:Damac#Corinth) and I put it here. There is not any place in Greece which is called "Nea Korinthos" as Damac wrote! The official name of the city was ever Korinthos and still is! In fact They were four exact locations for Korinthos: a)Prehistoric, Mycenean, Archaic, Classic in Acrokorinthos, b)Roman and early Byzantine for the place where St. Paul preached (in fact just in the edge of Modern Korinthos), c) Middle Ages (again Akrokorinthos) d) Ottoman (near Isthmus) and e) Modern which in fact is identical with Roman Korinthos. Which is ancient and Modern Corinth for you??? Anyway for a better understanding of what the rest of the world is doing for the history of any location look at wikipedia on Montreal, London and History of London, Moscow and History of Moscow, Kyoto, Vilnius, Paris, Jericho, Amman, Jerusalem, Mexico City etc. etc. (thousands times)!!!!! Only the Greek edition for example and some Greek writers (I suppose) distinguish between Sparta and Sparti, a fact very strange for me. I don’t have any problem with the continuity between past and present but as a reader I would like to be objectively informed about the history of a name or a locality. The way "student 7" solved the problem in some way satisfies me…, although that I would rather comment that "Ottoman Corinth" is not exactly Ancient Corinth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georalex1 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Damac you created here a huge problem for the readers of WIKIPEDIA, as I am one of them... For example go to Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the link to Corinth takes you to the modern municipality! All the thousands links indicating the section Corinth in WIKIPEDIA and are reffering to the so called Roman Corinth are leading the readers towards the Modern Municipality... Any bible reader or a researcher of Proto-Christian era is going to be confused because you personally have the strange philosophy to cut out the historical past from a location. This is absolutely antiscientific and creates a huge problem which has nothing to do with an academic classification but is purely ideology! Not Science! Your way in intervening in ths article is scientifically obscure! If you have any objection that Ancient Corinth has something to do with Modern Corinth, then point it out but in the section Corinth. Splitting, Merging and Diversifying is purely a scientific method and not a method of ideology or fair personal opinion! You have not the right to create a mess for the readers of WIKIPEDIA who from Syracuse, Sicily are redirected not to "Corinth" (as it was indicated) but to the Modern Town. This is someway a fictionic intervention. You have not any right to create a chaos to the readers! If you just dare do the same, as you did to "poor" Corinth, to Montreal, London and History of London, Moscow and History of Moscow, Kyoto, Vilnius, Paris, Jericho, Amman, Jerusalem, Mexico City and then we shall see together the reaction of the readers and the academics. Please be rational, don't mix science with fiction, personal ideas and ideology. And please answer to me with your scientific objections to my arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georalex1 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Georalex1 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)--Georalex1 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So much hyperbole from such a new member of Wikipedia. Please tell me how much space is given to Ancient Rome in the article on Rome? How many links are their to "main articles" providing detailed articles on different aspects of Rome's history? How much information is given on the modern city? How much direct replication is there of material on ancient Rome in the Ancient Rome and (modern) Rome articles?

The many directs from historical articles to Corinth is a problem that can be easily recified through redirects, which I will start on once I've time.--Damac (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Georalex on two points. The difference in location between various Ancient Corinths should be indicated, but in that article, not here. If discussion is needed, it needs to be done there as well.

I did wonder when I changed whether we should have "Corinth" as dab, pointing to two Corinths (or more, God help us!) with our Corinths as "Ancient Corinth" and "Corinth (modern)". That would flummox the vague linkages that everyone will not only have now but will happen in the future as well. New biblical (or anything else) references are always going to be "[[Corinth]]". Nobody will ever check first.

I can resolve the current problems, probably extensive BTW, but what about the hundreds that will arise? I think we should dab "Corinth" and move this article to "Corinth (modern)." Student7 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Rome, you referred to, Damac, is Exactly a nice example! "Corinth", as Rome, must be a general presentation of all... Corinths (from Neolithic era to modern times, including ancient Greek, the Roman destruction by Lucius Mummius Achaicus, the Roman town and the Byzantine, Medieval and Ottoman periods -AND the modern town- and a special cover of Biblical Corinth. Ancient Corinth is another article specializing in more historical and archaeological points of the history of the Ancient Greek Town; and "Corinth (modern)" as "Student 7" and "P Aculeius" pointed out, must refer extensively in the modern city. One real problem is that ancient Greek Corinth as a state and a city ends it's life with Mummius and his Romans (146 BC). The "next Corinth" is re-established as a colony by the Romans. But for the moment the classification of the Greek state city and the Roman colony can easily be classified under the term "Ancient Corinth". Anyway the internationally accepted historiography, literature, philology and geography recognises ONE Corinth. The terms Ancient and Modern must be redirections from this "one" Corinth! There is not any populated place in the world which has been called by it's contemporary (era's) people (and historians and geographers) as "Ancient Corinth" or "New Corinth" except New Corinth in Tennessee and the exact excavated unpopulated enclosured archaeological site (ruins) of Corinth which has been named for scientific and touristic purposes as "Ancient Corinth". That's why even "Corinth" as a dab doesn't reflect the scientific reality. The example of Rome is the best to follow--Georalex1 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

History

There have been a large number of additions to the history. This subsection, which was supposed to be a summary of the main article, is around 7 pages. The entire article on Ancient Corinth is only 8 including footer material. Okay, this article includes modern history as well. Anyway they seem to have suddenly diverged dramatically. These need to be brought into sync, with in-line footnotes in both places, not just one, and the article here a "summary" which I would assume would be about 1/3 of the main article, or 2-3 pages. Student7 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous authors

A new section lists "famous authors" and what they have said about Corinth. While there is nothing wrong about using these references, the article is about Corinth. Yes, we can "claim fame" because of these authors, but Corinth must be featured more than the authors themselves. Student7 (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)