This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGreek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcities,towns and various othersettlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city ofRome andancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
Once the history gets merged into here, very roughtly from the duplicated from "Corinth", we need to see that it is trulysummarized from the forks, and not just duplicated mindlessly. This results in maintenance problems when it is in two or more places.Student7 (talk)13:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to check "summarized" histories that fork to other articles totry to ensure that we have a true summary and not the whole blasted forked article!Student7 (talk)20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of asking someone who says he is an actual History Professor who I have seen do extensive rewrites of histories. They seem to turn out pretty well and wind up with proper footnotes, garbage removed, that sort of thing. Understandably he will kind of take over once he starts. He has said he will "look at" it (haven't told him what yet until I get the "sayings" at the end of the article merged in. We can "rough out" our idea of why/how the article is structured then kind of stand back. I think you will like the result. I will direct you to his talk page once I finish up here, so we can all "be in on" presenting our hopes/fears for the article(s. since there are forks).Student7 (talk)22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have requestedUser:Rjensen to take a look at this article. I hope he agrees to straighten it out. He has done a lot for many articles I have seen.
An editor has removed places named after Ancient Corinth, saying they were already dab-ed! Actually, the original point was (not mine BTW) to show the influence of Ancient Corinth on modern civilization.Student7 (talk)14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me that the classical section is a mess: it includes bits which should be in the Corinth Under the Tyrants section, about Periander or events that occurred in the 6th century BC. Further down, some events aren't dated. The Peloponnesian War and Corinthian War at the least should probably have subheadings. If I find the time I'll have a go at rewriting the classical section from scratch, but if anyone feels they can dedicate a little time to some tidy-up in the mean time, that would be welcome.Chilari (talk)14:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article was merged from various areas, some in bullet form. I tried to clean it up as best I could, but truly know nothing of the city. Tried to recruit someone to rewrite it! In the meantime, other editors have chipped in. It really looks a lot better than it did when I got finished with it! :(Student7 (talk)13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since 27 Januari 2010, our article, section Classical Corinth, says, after an anonimous edit (editor 69.27.215.68):“It was once believed that Corinth housed a great temple on its ancientacropolis dedicated to the goddessAphrodite; yet excavations of the temples of Aphrodite in Corinth reveal them to be small in stature. Despite the mythical story from Strabo of there being more than one thousandtemple prostitutes employed at the Temple of Aphrodite, this was likely not accurate as the story rests on a misunderstanding.[referencing to: Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, pg. 733.]”
I wonder: could anyone elaborate on that? Does anyone have or know that book of O'Connor? What does O'Connor, or editor 69.27.215.68, mean with ‘misunderstanding’? ‘not accurate’? ‘likely’? Were there likely less prostitutes? No prostitutes at all? And by the way, in which period in history is this all supposed to have, or have not, happened? --Corriebertus (talk)10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous edit of 27 Januari 2010 (since then slightly re-edited by some Wiki-co-editors) contains no serious refutation or challenging of any assertion made by Strabo in hisGeographika about Corinth’s temple (seeProstitution in ancient Greece#Temple prostitution in Corinth). The claim that the story of Strabo is ‘(likely) not accurate’ is no serious claim but only an insinuation, since it doesn’t say which fact of Str is (likely) incorrect and in what sense. The claim ‘misunderstanding’ also is no serious claim but only an insinuation, since it doesn’t say what is misunderstood for what. The assertion that the temple was ‘small in stature’ couldn’t play any serious role in underpinning any serious refutation or challenge (if there was one, but there isn’t) of anything said by Str, because it lacks tangible, exact information about that size, stature of that temple. The insinuated suggestion that the temple was too small to house one thousand women is irrelevant, because Str doesn’t state that the hetairas actually lodged in the temple.
The anonymoys editor of 27 Jan. 2010 (mr. X) started with replacing the older statement: “According to sources there where one thousand temple prostitutes” in Corinth’s temple, by: “It was once believed that … one thousand temple prostitutes employed…”, after for three years since 2007 nobody had been able to provide any source for that story. That editor mr. X however did know the source ‘Strabo’(!) – but instead of sharing his knowledge of source Str in Wikipedia, he only depreciatorily called it “the mythical story from Strabo”, which we’d better not believe, in his opinion.
It would have been defendable and correct Wiki-practice if mr. X had simply scrapped all that talk about 1000 prostitutes from the article, saying in the edit summary hat it was all just rubbish. Instead, he started to lecture and indoctrinate the Wiki-reader, in the article, about some story that he (mr. X) did know but the Wiki-reader did not know, and was anyway advised not to believe. But Wikipedia is not for such indoctrinations. --Corriebertus (talk)20:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the Syracusan troops in Athens, Ariston, a Corinthian helmsman had the idea to move the market down to the sea which would allow the commanders to have a full meal, and then attack the Athenians while they were least expecting it. A messenger was sent to the market and the plan was carried through. The Athenians, expecting the Syracusan troops to be busy at the market, went upon their daily tasks, unprepared for battle. Suddenly the Athenians realized the Syracrusan troops were waging battle upon them so they scrambled to meet the Syracusans at the sea for battle. In the end, the Syracusan troops claimed victory and the Athenians retreated.[1]
Its a bit garbled; "With the Syracusan troops in Athens" is odd; this is describing the battle in Syracuse bay. But really, its barely about Corinth; the only "Corinth" bit here is what one of their helmsmen didWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A population of 700000 is just impossible (just compare with the estimates for Rome or Alexandria, Corinth is never described as a megalopole, the place is not large enough anyway). It is only found in theological books which provide no reference for it, and history books are much more prudent (the oft cited EngelsRoman Corinth: an Alternative Model for the Classical City says "80 000 (...) does not seem unreasonable" e.g.). The 700 000 inhabitants could perhaps come from a slip of pen from 70 000 (a reasonable estimate) copied over and over from New Testament commentators to each others. We should only keep the history books-sourced numbers.--Phso2 (talk)09:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links onAncient Corinth. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
There is not a single shred of archaeological evidence, proof, or any neutral, contemporary literary source that can establish as a historical fact the presence of the Christian proselytiser with the Roman name "Paulus" in the city of Ancient Corinth as being claimed in certain religious (and thus by definition non-historical) texts.
If the author of this Wikipedia article wants to claim historical expertise and academic professionalism, and if he honours the principle that historiography should be based on well-established facts that can be scientifically proven or corroborated (by archaeology or any other scientific discipline), instead of on religious propaganda, then the whole paragraph about "Biblical Corinth" needs to be deleted as it is nothing more than fiction.
Why do I have to give proof of something that is obvious: the Bible is not a scientific but a religious book. Why don't the original authors of the paragraph have to give proof of what they are claiming?— Precedingunsigned comment added byThe Keeper of the Garden (talk •contribs)19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The articleCorinth Excavations would be better, I think, as a subsection of this one: it's currently two paragraphs (which could themselves do with a little trimming) and two images.
Comment: not sure which way to go on this, but perhapslean oppose. This article, on ancient Corinth, is already quite lengthy, and doesn't currently appear to overlap with the article about the excavations. That's a small article, but I doubt that trimming it is a good idea—or at least, that article has significant potential for expansion, given the large amount of literature written about the subject. While it certainly fits within thescope of this article, with a decent amount of attention given to the archaeological work, the article about the excavations would probably be too large a topic to be conveniently merged into this one, and it would need to be split out again. That argues in favour of keeping it separate, even if it isn't clear when it'll be expanded. It might want a better title, if only some of the archaeology fits under "Corinth Excavations", but that would be a matter of renaming the article to suit its expanded content, rather than merging it here. There probablyshould be a stand-alone article about the archaeology of ancient Corinth.P Aculeius (talk)16:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right; there are only a few sites with an entire article dedicated to their excavations (and most of those have some quite significant overlength problems). However, practically every quality article on an ancient site has a section on precisely that (seeMycenae,Acropolis of Athens,Sparta andDelphi as fairly-random examples). I suppose we can always bring the key information fromCorinth Excavations into here perWP:SUMMARYSTYLE and keep the dedicated article as a more detailed overview.UndercoverClassicistT·C22:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be my recommendation; a short section in the main article on ancient Corinth, and a separate article where as much detail as warrants inclusion can be discussed. Although I realize that as it currently stands, there isn't a huge difference in size, apart from the bibliography, which seems quite extensive.P Aculeius (talk)05:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Done. Thanks for pointing that out.Student7 (talk)23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the
