Talk:Classical antiquity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.

Contents 1 Cleanup? 2 Greco-Roman merge 3 Unnecessary disambiguation 4 i agree 5 pagan, my ass 6 Requested move 7 No other civilization included? 8 Impact on sexuality? 9 Cleanup still needed

[edit] Cleanup?

Someone put a Wikipedia:Cleanup notice on the article in chief. No comments were left in talk suggesting what sorts of improvements were desired; no suggestions were made on the cleanup page either. While the article is far from perfect, my understanding is that current procedure requires issues to be mooted on talk as part of the cleanup process. Not knowing what improvements are requested, it's hard to respond to this, so I have removed the tag. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My fault. Guess I'm still learning the ropes. I thought the article was confusing (it seemed to me to read like a bunch of loosely thrown-together sentences) and could use some restructuring.... Maybe I'll take a crack at it myself a little later, although I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to do it justice. 24.215.177.116 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to be a broad overview of a pretty vast subject, to point people in the direction of more specific articles. It probably could use some restructuring. Step up to the plate, and feel free to fiddle with it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article was not well written. I also feel that It is not well structured, and contributes little to an understanding of antiquity. Rather than modification I suggest simply deletion. Ian Bacon. 11 Nov 05

Well, Ian, I think that's sort of an orthogonal issue. Anyone is welcome to nominate any article they wish for deletion, so you should feel free to nominate this one if that's how you feel - of course, pretty much everyone voting will be using WP policy to make their decision, which kinda represents a more stringent set of requirements for deletion. Anyway, it's been over a year since concerns were raised by 24.215.177.116 - if they still exist with the current revision they should be brought up more specifically than 'I thought the article was confusing and could use some restructuring'. If not, I really think the cleanup tag should go. -Dom 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some simple re-structuring. Can we remove the cleanup tag now? Bacchiad 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just have. --Dom 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Roman merge

Just to keep all the discussion in one place on the proposed merge, please discuss it on the Greco-Roman talk page.

I don't like that because stuff happened during this time in other parts of the world at this time.

Cameron Nedland 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be an "Ancient History" article with links to particular parts of the world and this article should be renamed "Greco-Roman history" and get a redirect from "classical antiquity" since no one uses "classical antiquity" to describe anything other than greco-roman history.

[edit] Unnecessary disambiguation

There is no real confusion here with the classical era in Western music: "This article describes the ancient classical period. For the classical period in music (second half of the 18th century), see Classical music era." No reader searching for Classical music will arrive at Classical antiquity. May we remove the notice? --Wetman 16:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] i agree

theis is not really seen as classical antiquity

[edit] pagan, my ass

"In philosophy, the efforts of St Thomas Aquinas were derived largely from the thought of Aristotle, despite the intervening change in religion from paganism to Christianity."

Frankly, I find the term paganism in this context more than mildly offensive. I have to admit I can't readily discern what should replace it... Any ideas? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hellenic to Christian"? or "Greco-Roman to Christian"? Haiduc 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Paganism is such a vague umbrella term and so commonly misused that it shouldn't be used to describe anything. Refer to specific religions such as Geek mythology, Roman mythology, celtic mythology, etc.

[edit] No other civilization included?

I was redirected here when typing classical civilization, from the Gupta page in which clearly said that it along with the Han dynasty was considered as a classical civilization, and yet there was no mention of neither? Why?

Confusion between classic, as in "setting a standard" ("classic Sung ceramics" "Mayan art of the classic period") and classical, which always implies Greek and Roman arts. Antiquity is the broader category of Old World cultures that came to their various ends very roughly about the fifth century. Classical Antiquity doesn't usually imply Mycenaean arts, Pharaonic Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. In literature "the Classics" imply Greek and Latin literature through Late Antiquity. Is that about right? --Wetman 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Classical Civilization usually includes the major civilized cores of the world between 1000 B.C.E.-500 C.E. and includes Ancient China, India Rome and Greece. For example, Peter Stearns in World History in Brief: Major Patterns of Change and Continuity defines it as such.

But this article is not about civilizations that existed in the classical period but about the classical civilization of greece and rome.--RafaelG 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Like the original user, I was redirected to this page when I looked for classical civilization. The civilizations in India and China were indeed classical civilizations, as characterized by trends such as a well organized scholar-gentry and emphasis on internal development; they were not merely civilizations that existed in the classical period. Perhaps a separate entry should exist for classical civilization, if classical antiquity refers exclusively to Greco-Roamn civilization? Arnob 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Roman wrestling still exists and it is still a sport around at least all of the US. It shouldn't be placed in a classical entiquity page. All I suggest is that you put a link at the end of the page.

[edit] Impact on sexuality?

Respect for the ancients of Greece and Rome affected politics, philosophy, sculpture, literature, theatre, education, and even architecture and sexuality. To what extent did respect for classical antiquity influence sexuality in the 18th and 19th centuries? As I recall, the Greeks and Romans got up to some pretty incredible escapades in that area. -Toptomcat 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup still needed

Some article-wide issues mentioned above still apply. But I've added the cleanup tag to the "Looking back on the classical" section only. It's a random assemblage, out of chronological order, devoid of any authoritative citations or perspectives. It mentions a 1969 book by Roberto Weiss as if an event in our understanding, when the importance of the encounter with antiquity to the Renaissance is common knowledge of much older vintage, and ought to be presented with at least a small scattering of facts, or not at all (cf. Renaissance humanism, Renaissance). As far as I can tell, nowhere in Wikipedia is there even the start of a competent article on anything like Classical tradition in Western literature, Influence of Classical civilization, Classical political thought#Later influence etc. Wareh 03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants to struggle against the "POV" tagging those articles would elicit. --Wetman 03:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What about modelling a rewrite here on the German Wikipedia article? The only serious flaw I see there is an excessive focus on history (the list of "ancient authors" contains only historiography), but it seems stronger on the whole, and it has a "Meaning and Influence" section that is less likely to raise hackles than what we've got here. Wareh 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From a very cursory glance at the German article I think it's a good model. My German is not that great, so I can't contribute much to translating. I'm a bit surprised there's nothing useful on the French Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)