From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Corinth is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
October 24, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

St. Paul[edit]

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[edit]

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

Corinth, GreeceCorinth[edit]

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. Neutralitytalk 02:27, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.--Astavrou 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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/, 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (not Byzantine, Medieval, Ottoman and post-revolutionary) can easily be done under the term "Ancient Corinth" but with the indication that the referance is for both periods. Anyway the internationally accepted historiography, literature, philology and geography recognises ONE Corinth. The terms Ancient and Modern must be redirections from the respective chapters of 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)

I hate to say it since I've done a lot of editing, but this makes sense. (Alas). The old city state probably did include what is now "new" Corinth. And "new" Corinth carefully encompasses the old/ancient city. The renaming of the "old" city will have to be done carefully. Whatever happens, I would like to continue to "integrate" the old history with what is now Ancient Corinth. After I am finished, it will still need a heck of a lot of work. But will try to discuss that problem there. Would like to hear from Damac on the proposals. Student7 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Just on the first issue, whether the old city state "included" what is now the city of Corinth. The archaeologists and knowledgeable locals I've spoken too say "no". The two entities are 5-6km away from each other, and in 1858, the site that would become the new city was nothing but reeds. As far as I am aware, there have been little or no archaeological finds in the present-day city.
I accept Georalex's point about Ancient Corinth being too broad a term to encompass all the material currently in that article. For example, we have Hellenistic Corinth in with Ottoman Corinth. However, what concerned me at the very beginning was that in the article on Corinth, there was hardly anything about the present-day city. The article was awash with material cut-and-pasted from the Ancient Corinth article, and from my experience on Wikipedia, there is no reason to have material - and some of it was badly written - duplicated over two articles. I live in Corinth and would like to see that city properly described on Wikipedia, while at the same time making readers aware of the importance of Ancient Corinth.
Ideally, as the article on the history of the cities/settlements called Corinth throughout history develops and expands, we can create even more specialised articles, such as Hellenistic Corinth, Roman Corinth, Byzantine Corinth and Ottoman Corinth, while maintaining Ancient Corinth as the page providing the overview of the whole history of the place.
And on Georalex' argument that Corinth was never called Nea Korinthos. The historical evidence would suggest otherwise, I'm afraid. Whether it was official or not, after 1858, the locals here referred to the village/ancient ruins as Palaia Korinthos (this was officially renamed Archaia Korinthos in the 1920s/30s) and the new city as Nea Korinthos. They had to differentiate the two, especially as they were located a few km apart.
To illustrate: here is a postcard of "Nea Korinthos" from 1910,[3] here is a local book that talks about Palaia and Nea Korinthos since 1850,[4] here is the text of a history of the modern city, entitled ΝΕΑΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΥ ΙΣΤΟΡΟΥΜΕΝΑ, that used the term "Nea Korinthos" throughout.[5] If you scroll down, you'll find the text of the royal decree, signed by Otto of Greece on the 19 March 1858, ordering the construction of the "νέας των Κορινθίων".
I would also like to quote from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The modern town of New Corinth, the head of a district in the province of Corinth (pop. 71,229), is situated on the Isthmus of Corinth near the southeastern recess of the Gulf of Corinth, 32 m. N.E. from the site of the ancient city. It was founded in 1858, when Old Corinth was destroyed by an earthquake."
and the The Americana (1913):
"New Corinth (Nea Korinthos) stands about three miles to the northeast on the coast of the gulf, on the railway from Athens to Patras. It is a small town built since 1858 ..."
and The Greece I Love, by Robert Descharnes and Michel Déon (1961):
"Since the opening of the canal the modern port of Nea Korinthos has vegetated ..."
and the Handbuch für Heer und Flotte (1913):
"Das heutige K[orinth], auch Neu-Korinth (Nea-Korinthos) hat 5000 Einwohner u. liegt an der Nordküste des Peloponnes ..."
and last but not least, the American School of Classical Studies, which has been excavating Ancient Corinth since the 1890s, also refers to Old and New Corinth on its website:
"The city of New Corinth celebrated its sesquicentennial anniversary with a conference held 26-28 September ...".[6]
More references on request!
Georalex, when can I take up your kind offer, made some days ago, to show me around Corinth, the city in which I live?--Damac (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, this could give us the option of dab-ing Corinth and forking to Ancient, Byzantine, New, etc. What I like about dab-ing, is that it forces people automatically linking to Corinth (usually biblical) to link to the correct one, eventually. Otherwise they could wind up with the modern one, usually not useful for their intended link.
If you branch to the map in Roman Corinth, there is a blue splotch between Attica and Peloponnesia. I am guessing that this was the old Corinthian city-state. There really is no other title for that stretch of land. It was "Corinth." "City limits" really didn't apply for what we are talking about in the ancient world. We bind ourselves more strictly today, having a more lucid understanding of political boundaries than our forefathers. Student7 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Οὐ παντὸς πλεῖν εἰς Κόρινθον, for the moment, dear Damac! But one of the times I’ll come there, as long as you live there, I suppose I shall find the time and the pleasure to meet each other. Your arguments are quite impressive but not at all enough. Let’s make a hypothesis that your arguments are enough. Then you must create a new entry (article) about Nea Korinthos, referring to a period during the reign of King Otto, and point out there your arguments. I am not sarcastic at all! Why I disagree with you supporting that your arguments are not enough? Because in the international bibliography this term “Nea Korinthos” is not existing, as an Academic fact. The signifier of “Nea” here is not passing to the signified “New” but to “Rebuild”. You pointed out Encyclopedia Brittanica (1911 edition), but I found just the entry “Corinth”[7], which presents the history of city as: “CORINTH, a city of Greece, situated near the isthmus (see Corinth, Isthmus Of) which connects Peloponnesus and central Greece, and separates the Saronic and the Corinthian gulfs on E. and W. The ancient town stood 12 m. from the latter, in a plain extending westward to Sicyon. The citadel, or Acrocorinthus, rising precipitously on the S. to a height of 1886 ft. was separated by aravine from Oneium, a range of hills which runs E. to the isthmus entrance. Between this ridge and the offshoots of Geraneia opposite a narrow depression allowed of easy transit across the Isthmus neck. The territory of Corinth was mostly rocky and unfertile; but its position at the head of two navigable gulfs clearly marked it out as a commercial centre. Its natural advantages were enhanced by the "Diolcus" or tram-road, by which ships could be hauled across the Isthmus. It was connected in historic times with its western port of Lechaeum by two continuous walls, with Cenchreae and Schoenus on the east by chains of fortifications. The city walls attained a circuit of 1 o m.” and then follows the history from “Mythology”. This is how all Encyclopedias presents “Corinth” : The current day Brittanica presents as : “Corinth, Greek Kórinthos[8] , an ancient and a modern city of the Peloponnesus, in south-central Greece. The remains of the ancient city lie about 50 miles (80 km) west of Athens, at the eastern end of the Gulf of Corinth, on a terrace some 300 feet (90 metres) above sea level. The ancient city grew up at the base of the citadel of the Acrocorinthus—a Gibraltar-like eminence rising 1,886 feet (575 metres) above sea level. The Acrocorinthus lies about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) south of the Isthmus of Corinth, which connects the Peloponnese with central Greece and which ...” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | (just one entry: Corinth)[9] presents as : “Corinth or Kórinthos , city (1991 pop. 27,412), capital of Corinth prefecture, S Greece, in the NE Peloponnesus, on the Gulf of Corinth. It is a port and major transportation center trading in olives, tobacco, raisins, and wine. Founded in 1858 after the destruction of Old Corinth by an earthquake, it was rebuilt after another earthquake in 1928. It formerly was known as New Corinth. Old Corinth, just southwest of modern Corinth, is now a village. Strategically situated on the Isthmus of Corinth and protected by the fortifications on the Acrocorinthus, Corinth was one of the largest, wealthiest, most powerful, and oldest cities of ancient Greece. Dating from Homeric times, it was conquered by the Dorians. In the 7th and 6th cent. BC, under the tyrants Cypselus, his son Periander, and their successors, it became a flourishing maritime power. Syracuse, Kérkira, …”. The Jewish Encyclopedia mentions only ancient Corinth but just as “Corinth”[10] : “A city in ancient Argos, Greece, and the center of the cult of Aphrodite. Jews lived here, as in the other cities of Greece (Philo, "Legatioad Caium," § 36), although little is known of their history. The apostle Paul preached Christianity in the synagogue of Corinth for eighteen months, and baptized the archisynagogue Crispus (I Cor. i. 14); but he was reviled by the other Jews and accused before the governor, Junius Annæus Gallio (53C.E.)….” The “Le Petit Larousse (Grand Format), 1996” points out in one entry both ancient and modern city: “Corinthe, en gr. Kórinthos, cité grecque, rivale d’Athènes et de Sparte, qui fut la métropole marchande et industrielle la plus riche de la Grèce archaïque (VII-VI s.)… – C’est auj. un port sur le golf de Corinthe…”. Now coming to your arguments. It is true that some sources indicate the difference of the two sites (old and modern) pointing out that the new city was built in 1858 from Queen Amalia in a different site from the old. The most characteristic is that of “Encyclopedia of Helios, 1956 (ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΓΚΥΚΛΟΠΑΙΔΙΚΟΝ ΛΕΞΙΚΟΝ Εκδόσεις «ΗΛΙΟΣ», τομ. ΙΑ, σελ. 238) “ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΣ (Γεωγραφία).” : “Πόλις τῆς Πελοποννήσου, πρωτεύουσα τοῦ νομοῦ Κορινθίας καὶ ἓδρα τῆς ὁμωνύμου ἐπαρχίας καὶ τοῦ δήμου Κορίνθου… Συνεπῶς ἡ θέσις τῆς συγχρόνου πόλεως οὐδόλως συνάπτεται πρὸς τὴν τῆς αρχαίας, οὐδέ κἄν πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον τῶν δύο λιμένων τῆς ἀρχαίας Κορίνθου. Πράγματι ἡ σύγρονος πόλις τῆς ἀρχαίας Κορίνθου μέχρι πρὸ τινος ἀκόμα ἐκαλεῖτο «Νέα Κόρινθος», πρὸς διάκρισιν ἀπό τὴν «Παλαιάν Κόρινθον», ποὺ ἒκειτο εἰς ἀπόστασιν 8 χλμ. περίπου, παρὰ τοὺς πρόποδας τοῦ Ἀκροκορίνθου, εἰς τὴν θέσιν τῆς ἀρχαίας Κορίνθου. … Ἡ Ἀρχαία Κόρινθος. Ἡ ἀρχαία Κόρινθος ἦτο μία τῶν σημαντικοτέρων πόλεων τῆς ἀρχαίας Ελλάδος…. Ἡ Κόρινθος κατὰ τοὺς μέσους καὶ νεωτέρους χρόνους… Ὁ Πολιτισμὸς τῆς Κορίνθου…” etc. This source, which is quite unique in Greek encyclopedias because it declares it absolutely, as the ones you have indicated Damac, speak of an “Old” and a “New” Corinth as matters of urban planning and memory : The town before the earthquake and the town after! But there is not any reference that indicates we have to deal with different entities which have nothing to do with each other. In fact they were the habitants of Old Corinth that inhabited the newly created (or rather re-built) town, just 8 Km far away (not in another state as Greece and Turkey e.g. Smyrna and Nea Smyrni or Ialyssos and Nea Iallyssos). That’s why even “Helios” presents a single article about “all” Corinths and doesn’t dare to diversify them, and that’s why the rebuilt town took the official name “Kόρινθος” (Corinth), as it is just known officially in Greece and elsewhere. It’s also true that exists a sort of dab in encyclopedic presentation of “Corinth”. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Большая Советская Энциклопедия, 1973 г., том 13, стр.177) was a unique exception in the Academic world, it mentions “Corinth” (as dab) with two entries, the first  : “Коринф (Kórinthos), др.-греч. город-государство (полис) на Коринфском перешейке (в 6 км к Ю.-З. от современного г. Коринф). Раскопками на месте К. обнаружены следы поселения 2-го тыс. до н.э. ... Был разграблен и разрушен готами в 395 г. н.э., потом в 521; восстановлен при Юстиниане. ...” The second, about the modern city, has the same exactly name and entry as the first and goes as  : “ Коринф (Kórinthos), город и порт в Греции, на Коринфском перешейке, у Коринфского канала. ... Осн. в 1818. В 1858 и 1928 подвергался разрушениям в результате землетрясения. Близ К. (в 6 км к Ю.-З.) остатки древнего К. ...”. It is still obvious here that there is not any reference to “Old” or “New” City. This classification (as a dab) is rather not have been followed by the world academics and has been considered as ideological propaganda (as the whole encyclopedia which was admired widely but still it’s classifications were considered –for better or for worse– as propaganda). Anyway both …”Corinths” have been presented there as just “Коринф (Kórinthos)” and even if Soviet Encyclopedia points out that the city has been established in 1858 still as you see (concerning all it’s earthquakes 1818, 1858, 1928) it refers to the second “Коринф (Kórinthos)” as one with the first not mentioning any difference in Corinth of 1818 or Corinth of 1928. Don’t forget that it was me who wrote in Wikipedia that “Unofficially” it was called “New Corinth”. But this is just to point out a memory and not to diversify the Corinth before of 1858 and the Corinth after 1858. I insist that Corinth is Just ONE entry and article. If there will be an entry of “Palaia Korinthos” or “Nea Korinthos” these must redirected from ONE "Corinth" and will be done as indications (with all references) to the unofficial names who diversify the sites of the one city before and after the earthquake of 1858. The old town and the new rebuild town after the event just 8 km ahead that time… It’s up to the contributors to decide for the good reliability of WIKIPEDIA.--Georalex1 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about a Georalex structure only. You want Corinth as now. It forks to (and therefore summarizes) several histories (hopefully not geographies) "Ancient Corinth", "Roman Corinth", "Byzantine Corinth", and (what?) Ottoman Corinth (?). Whatever the split, I think the two of you agree on that (the split itself). The only disagreement is the name of the lead article. I hope you can work that out!  :) But I think the structure of the rest is apparent and (hopefully) non-controversial.
With due respect for your scholarly and research talents, may I suggest shortening your discussion entries? They are a bit hard to follow. Maybe pointers would do?
Once I merge all that stuff in Ancient Corinth. I will re-merge into the agreed-upon subarticles. And (gulp) bring the summaries back to the lead article (but they will be true summaries, not copies like before). That way we will only have one sublevel below this one instead of the current two. This will take a week or two I'm afraid. I'm sure there will be plenty of editing work to be done after the merges. Student7 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

O.k. Student 7, thanks--Georalex1 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to point even though that I disagree with the split. But the way you've done it it's quite acceptable but if you point out in the beginning:

and point out the same in the chapter "History" as: For the Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Medieval and Ottoman periods of the city, see Ancient Corinth!

Thanks Student 7.--Georalex1 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Not sure this is correct, but it is certainly easier for me! So I will (only) do what Georalex has just suggested. Everything stays as is with the appropriate comments. Damac, do you concur?
If the "Ancient Corinth" contains all histories, they must be better summarized and I will try to do that. Nothing will be summarized in this article from those histories. Student7 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If I follow you correctly, I would be in agreement. My whole point at the start was that the article on Corinth had barely any information on the city of that name. Rather, it was swamped with material cut and pasted from the Ancient Corinth article. When I removed that, Georalex1 reverted it and so the debate started.
Unlike all the cities he mentioned, Corinth has not been continuously settled in history. If it was, it would be on the List of cities by time of continuous habitation.
Georalex1, however, did make a valid point about the usage of the term "Ancient Corinth". Of course, there was never a place called that in history, well not before the 19th century, but nowadays it has almost become a byword for everything to do with premodern Corinth, regardless of historical period. But if we can strive to create dedicated articles for each of the major historical periods, all the better, but I would still think that the place to summarise these articles would be on the Ancient Corinth rather than the Corinth page.
I will try and contribute as best I can. I've been redirecting links away from Corinth to Ancient/Roman/Byzantine Corinth manually, but there are so many of them.--Damac (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this solution works easily now, but there will be mis-links in the future to the modern city when the ancient one was intended. But no worse than mis-linking to a dab, I suppose. I will try to confine further remarks to the Ancient Corinth discussion. Thanks to both of you for straightening this out! Student7 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor, new to these articles, wants to move pic of Cathedral and Byzantine fort to this article. Seems to me that they go into older article. Are we now forced to break "Ancient Corinth" into two parts, "Ancient Corinth" and "Byzantine Corinth"? What should this new article be called? I think we don't want material from pre-19th century in here, right? Student7 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


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[edit]

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)


Is there REALLY a Corinthian leather industry?! (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so, at least not a notable one:

"Did you know that Corinthian leather does not actually come from Corinth? In fact, Corinthian leather never existed before an ad guy thought it up. First appearing in a 1974 ad for the Chrysler Imperial, the phrase really hit its stride when spokesman Ricardo Montalbán used it in 1976 to describe the leather interior of the new Chrysler Cordoba" from Wgfcrafty (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


I tried to add the demonym Corinthian to the infobox, but couldn't get it to display. I haven't any idea why, is that the correct demonym? Or just the English word for the people of Corinth? I also noticed it was already listed in the actual page, but not displaying. *shrug* Wgfcrafty (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Corinth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corinth. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corinth. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)