Talk:Classics

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Classics, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.

This subject is covered by the List of basic topics in classical studies, an outline and navigation aid to assist learning and browsing the subject of classics on Wikipedia. It is part of Wikipedia's tables of contents system. Your help is needed to monitor, maintain, and complete the list. Please look it over, analyze it, and improve it. And place it on your watchlist. Thank you.
The Transhumanist   


Contents

[edit] This is a mess

It's not that there are any *serious* factual errors (although the section on archaeology is pretty humorous), but this article was obviously written in large part by a non-native speaker of English. There are numerous grammatical errors along with just plain odd choices of phrasing. How did this happen to such an important article? Charlie 03:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canons treated similarly to Western "Classics" in other cultures

I've never heard of China being a part of the discipline of the Classics. Is this PC crap or what?

me neither. taking it off.

The Chinese have their own set of classics (some of which pre-date their western counterparts) that have been part of the traditional Confucian education for centuries. Some cursory research could have told you this, calling it "PC crap" and removing it is uncalled for. goaway110

Wait a second please. gbog

Nice to leave a date and time if you say that for when people come round cleaning up --BozMo(talk) 21:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why reference shouldn't be made to cultural traditions outside the Western, Graeco-Roman tradition, but there's no point paying lipservice to global equality by mentioning the Chinese and then ignoring all the other great ancient civilisations. Perhaps we need to agree on whether the term 'Classics' specifically refers to the ancient Mediterranean world, or whether its definition varies depending on cultural context - specifically, how do people in other civilisations refer to those texts and narratives which play the role occupied in Western civilisation by 'the classics'? Do they use term 'classics'? If not, then there isn't really a place for including it here. If so, we perhaps need to consider expanding this article quite a lot. Peeper 15:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article, while totally justified in mentioning the Chinese Classics (as they are referred to in English by those studying them; the language is distinct and is called Classical Chinese), it should either flesh out that section and mention the classical cannons of other cultures (the Hindu Vedas come to mind) or leave it out with a disclaimer that this covers the Western Classics exclusively. I might get around to forming a tenative outline with this in mind and perhaps even expanding the sections. As Classics is a full-blown major at most (if not all credible) universities, I should think it should have a page of much higher caliber than this. --GuildNavigator84 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me know when your outline is ready. I'm interested at taking a look at it. (^'-')^ Covington 06:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


The study of classics encompasses the languages and linguistics, literature, mythology, history, philosophy, religion, science, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It has absolutely nothing to do with the study of the ancient Chinese civilization and thus mention of such a civilization should be omitted. Classics majors learn Latin and Greek, not Chinese. There’s a reason for this, THEY DON’T STUDY CHINA. 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)tabber

You are right. This is Wikipedia English, the western, English speaking world refers to ancient Greece and Rome when it mentions The Classics. Although there is a Oriental classics it would not be what people would conjure in their mind in the U.S., Canada, U.K., etc when you say "The Classisc". OG from LA

[edit] "Sinisised"

What is the word "sinised" in the first sentence of the second paragraph? I had never heard of it so I tried to look it up and was unsuccessful. 02:58 EST, 28 August 2005

I'm not sure, but I am wondering if the word 'sinicized' (or 'sinised' as was) is even appropriate. Doesn't it suggest that Chinese and related civilisations are the result of some kind of process applied to a pre-existing world? Would we say 'in the Europeanised world' if we meant 'in Europe'? I don't really like this sentence anyway as the word, however you spell it, is obscure and inaccessible, so I may try to reword altogether in a day or two to something more specific, depending on your comments. Peeper 10:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this article really needs some work on balancing out the NPOV. The "Western Classics" section is entirely devoted to "classicism" as a study, rather than the works themselves. The only "Quote" is pretty snobbish. I guess I'm complaining that there should be more focus on the curriculum rather than the students preening themselves. Anyway, my contribution for right now is "sinocentric"; I agree with Peeper. The Dogandpony 17:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The quote is terrible. I hope whoever put it there wasn't trying to sell the classics as a field of study! --GuildNavigator84 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Quotations"

I believe the quotation in the current article is snobbish and doesn't fit the article in general. Wouldn't putting, instead, good quotes from the great Classical Authors (Homer, Vergil, Livy, Plato, Sophocles, Cicero and the list is long...) be a much better idea? Maybe even finding quotes of these authors about the Classics, or quotes of famous Modern authors regarding the Classics? Tal :) 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which Copleston?

Classical education was considered the best training for implanting the life of moral excellence arete, hence a good citizen. It furnished students with intellectual and aesthetic appreciation for "the best which has been thought and said in the world". Copleston, an Oxford classicist said that classical education "communicates to the mind...a high sense of honour, a disdain of death in a good cause, (and) a passionate devotion to the welfare of one's country". Cicero commented, "All literature, all philosophical treatises, all the voices of antiquity are full of examples for imitation, which would all lie unseen in darkness without the light of literature".

I'm not sure ... was it Edward Copleston? —Barbatus 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classics In Nonwestern Universities?

Are there Classics in nonwestern universities? If so, would, say, Chinese universities study Confuncious's writings & his students, like for example, Mencius, instead? An answer on my talk page would nice, thanks!100110100 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This what all those 'online resources' for! Use 'em. —Barbatus 22:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
?????????Thanks.100110100 04:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] famous classicists

I think this section is taking a fairly broad meaning of "classicist" as "anyone who has ever studied classics", rather than its more common meaning of "a scholar of classics". While Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche are good examples, since both were classicists who later gained renown in other fields, Toni Morrisson and Ted Turner are not, as neither would be recognized as a "classicist" by anyone in the field (indeed Turner doesn't even have an undergraduate degree in the subject). Would anyone object to me whittling this list down to only actual classicists? --Delirium 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to simply correct the term and change "classicist" into "classics students" or "people who studied classics" or "classics majors" etc, thus allowing us to keep some important names on the list without misleading the reader. Tal :) 08:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the substance of your previous to post. But with regard to your proposed alternatives I would suggest that if you use one of them it should not be "Classics majors". This term is an American term and carries very little meaning, positively confusing even, to British people and I suspect many other English speaking people. My own suggestion would be "Classics Graduates".
Do we want this to be a list only of people who have become famous for work outside of classics? If so, the name should make that clear. If not, we need to include people like Milman Parry. Lesnail 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

Should List of basic classics topics be merged into Classics? Lists seem to generate great ire amongst certain Wikipedians. Here is the basic policy Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they should be merged. The list looks too much like an abstract conglomeration of events. bibliomaniac15 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can fit it in there and not make it look cramped, I say go for the gusto! The two articles can live well as one. Just H 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Fully agree! Especially a list like basic classics, which could easily be woven into this article. Good luck! Amphytrite 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say delete the list and move all links not currently contained in The Classical Studies category to that category (as it seems that the list is functioning as the de facto category). Do not merge these two articles. The list is far too long and far to discombobulated, and I fear it would only harm the Classics article. CaveatLectorTalk 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CaveatLector; there's no easy way to merge the list into Classics without turning the article into a list. Delete the list, and make sure all the articles on the list have a classics category of some sort. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that: kill the list, merge the links into Classics.--Barbatus 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to start cluttering up Classics, but the list is pretty standoffish all on its own. I say try to merge them, and if becomes messy just kill the list. --Mercrutio's been here. 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have a nicely organized list than a jumbled up category. However, I support merging the list (or at least most of it) into this article. The article needs expansion and the list has some extra information, which might at least spur editors on and also guide their expansions. Lesnail 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel that categories are much more streamlined than lists, and that throwing this list into the article would be really bad for the article itself. The article does need expansion, but that list is far too large and disorganized to do any good here. CaveatLectorTalk 16:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Categories really are lists. Just look at this page. That's a list, automatically generated from articles that are in Category:Classical studies. Many standalone lists can be replaced by categories, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with Akhilleus - foe what it's worth. --5telios 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the articles should be merged. Some of the topics are listed at Portal:Classical Civilisation as well. -- Flauto Dolce 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged List of basic classics topics to Classics

Performed merge of contents of list. The first proposal to merge in Nov 2006 generated no comments. The second proposal in Feb 2007 seemed uncontroversial with the concensus to merge. I've added a redirect on the old page. Now to clean-up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually feel the article looks terrible now. What purpose is this list serving? How is this an encyclopedic article on par with anything else in wikipedia? To me, it seems this list is cluttered and seems very out of place in the article. (Plus, I hardly see a consensus here, in fact, i see the veteran editors of classics articles very opposed to this merger with few others saying the list should be merged). I hate to just revert, so can we actually have a discussion here, where those who want this list in the article actually address the negative aspects of the merger? CaveatLectorTalk 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it looks bad. At the very least put the list at the bottom of the article. --D. Webb 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved the Basic Topics further down, although I am inclined to think it's better left out of the article. If anything on that list really must be mentioned, then it is probably best to do it in the relevant section on sub-disciplines. This table, however, and in fact the list before it, does a remarkably poor job of informing the reader of the major topics dealt with. Items seem chosen randomly. Why is Ovid there but not Horace? Why is Cicero there but neither Tacitus or Livy? Why is Epicureanism there but not Pyrrhonism? Why are there no genres like Roman historiography or epic poetry or lyric poetry etc? I also think that the section on the history of classics should come after the section on sub-disciplines. --D. Webb 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention that the links you are deleting as 'tangential' are not so by any stretch of the imagination. You cannot call 'Christianity', 'the vulgate', and 'mystery cults' 'tangential' to the topic of classics. Far from it, they are integral. CaveatLectorTalk 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
On this I strongly disagree. Most classicists, for example, would probably define classical literature with a reference to both language and time and then negatively with reference to Christianity, i.e. as the Greek and Latin literature written before, say, 500 BC which is not Christian (for an example of this, see K.J. Dover, Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford University Press)). --D. Webb 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I respect Dover (and I haven't read that anthology), you are mistaken here. Placing the cutoff at 500 BC cuts off ALL works of Latin, and all works of Greek that are neither Hesiod nor Homer. (it even negates PLATO). I'll have to ask you to double check that date in your reference, because from my training, 'Classics' and 'Classical Studies' has always been cut off around 500 C.E. (rather than B.C.E.). The Rise of Christianity comes slightly before the end of the period that we study as 'Classicists', but to claim that Classicists do not study works from authors such as Livy, Tacitus, or St. Augustine (the first two who lived in the era of christianity's birth, the last who was a major christiian writer, is simply not correct. CaveatLectorTalk 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was supposed to be 500 AD. Mea culpa. The point stands, however. Classicists study, classical, not Christian texts. St. Augustine is somewhat of an exception but still not mainstreem in classics by any means. --D. Webb 18:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And I wasn't, of course suggesting that classicists don't study Livy or Tacitus. Cf my note on their absence from the Basic Topics table a few lines up. --D. Webb 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see why you are excluding christianity from classical studies? It's actually very important, as it caused significant political remifications even before it was declared the state religion of Rome by Constantine. Irregardless, Christianity's full rise to prominence marks the end of what we call Antiquity, so we, as Classicists (note that I am one, btw), would be extremely remiss to discount it as a topic within our perview. (Oh, and i thought the case was that you meant CE. Just making sure :) ). CaveatLectorTalk 20:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I am a classicist too. And I still disagee :) I'm not saying that Christianity and all things Christian are in no way related to classics. However, it is not integral to classical studies, it is 'tangential'. I mean, if you look at the course offerings in classics, both undergraduate and graduate courses offered, in, say, the top 50 classics departments in the US or even the top 100 departments in the world over the last 25 years or even 50 years, how many out of every 100 courses do yoy think will be devoted to the gospels or the letters of St. Paul or just anything that concerns mainly Christianity? If we look at every article in every major classics journal in the same period of time, how many out of every 100 articles will be mainly about Christian stuff? If we take account of conferances and symposia sponsored by classics department too, how many will be mainly about Christian stuff? Christianity just isn't a major topic in classics. Many anthologies of classical literature don't contain anything about Christianity, the ones that do seem to treat it as something marginal. How many entries in the OCD are primarily about Christianity? How many in the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature? Oliver Taplins Literature in the Greek World has about 3 pages about "Pagans and Christians" and that's it; Albin Lesky's 900+ page book on The History of Greek Literature doesn't have much more. --D. Webb 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Points taken :) CaveatLectorTalk 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The table, by the way, was a BRILLIANT idea, and the information actually seems cogent to the article now. Good job, Wassup!! CaveatLectorTalk 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finished Merging and Cleaning-up

I've finished cleaning up and merging. WP is collaborative so add,alter and make better. Please. I'm off to other projects. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Topics table

The topics seem strangely arbitrarily chosen. Quite a lot of important things are missing, authors such as Tacitus and Livy, genres such as lyric poetry or historiography, philosophical schools such as neoplatonism etc. I suggest we add all this and more (if we're going to keep the table), but to prevent the table from becoming colossal in size, I suggest we remove links to individual works (e.g. Ovid's Metamorphoses (why is that work here but nor the Amores or the Heroides or the Fasti or....), the De Rerum Natura etc.). Links to these can be found in the aticles on the relevant authors. And let's face it, we can't link to every piece of literature studied in classics. --D. Webb 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I like the table, I'm starting to see again why I feared the inclusion of this list into the article. So, I prepose a couple of ways to solve this: 1. We split the tables to cover major topics (i.e. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Greek Lit., Roman Lit, etc). We then use this VERY condensed table as an infobox at the end of the article. 2. We move all the links to the Category Classical Studies and link to the category. We then take what's organized here and create infoboxes for each of the subfields I mentioned above and place them on the appropriate pages.
Either of these sound good to anyone? Any other ideas? CaveatLectorTalk 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You're idea sounds good. It is the right path to take. In response to the above comment why the contents of the tables seem weird: well, you've hit the proverbial nail on the head as to the problem with the former list. I simply cut and pasted it into a table. Once in table format, many problems became readily apparent. Calling all classicists: be bold: add content, play with formats. Most of my ideas end up in the WP dustbin but it is the only way forward. Cheers!. Wassupwestcoast 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Both ideas seem sensible to me. --D. Webb 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal Redux

On 02 March 2007 List of basic topics in classical studies was created. Since not a month ago List of basic classics topics was merged into Classics (09 Feb 2007 to be exact), and the info in the new list could easily fit into a properly exanded Classics article do we really need to divide our effort and resources to support two articles (with all the usual vandalism, nonsense, etc.)? I think not. Plus, Lists are prone to deletion because in the minds of certain WP they are not encyclopedic (I don't agree with this but they are hard to defend on AfD proposals). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please notice

The main discussion is on Talk:List of basic topics in classical studies, where Wassupwestcoast posted his first message concerning the creation of the page and asked for clarification. So that's where I answered. Please continue this discussion there. Thank you. The Transhumanist (AWB) 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completing the writing of the article

From Wikipedia:Embedded list...

Lists within articles:

Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed. For example:

Prose List with no content
The 20th century architecture of New York City includes numerous icons of architecture, most notably its striking skyscrapers.

At the beginning of the century, the city was a center for the Beaux-Arts movement, with architects like Stanford White and Carrere and Hastings. New York's skyscrapers include the Flatiron Building (1902) where Fifth Avenue crosses Broadway at Madison Square, Cass Gilbert's Woolworth Building (1913) a neo-Gothic "Cathedral of Commerce" overlooking City Hall, the Chrysler Building (1929) the purest expression of the Art Deco skyscraper and the Empire State Building (1931) are all skyscraper icons. Modernist architect Raymond Hood and after World War II Lever House began the clusters of 'glass boxes' that transformed the more classic previous skyline of the 1930s. When the World Trade Center towers were completed in 1973 many felt them to be sterile monstrosities, but most New Yorkers became fond of "The Twin Towers" and after the initial horror for the loss of life in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks there came great sadness for the loss of the buildings.

 20th century architecture of New York City

Similarly, the Classical Greece and Classical Rome sections should be explanations, not link lists. The sublist on Greek philosophy is already half written, and fits rather awkwardly into a table as a list. The two topic chart sections would be far superior if replaced with headings and prose. The Transhumanist (AWB) 11:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Latin Classics

There are several odd holes in this list. Some of this can be explained if the intent is to exclude all later Latin writers (e.g., Ausonius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Claudian), & all Christian ones (e.g. Tertullian, Augustine). However, the category of science writers is embarassing. I am very tempted to add Lucretius to that category -- as well as Cicero to philosophy -- but why is Frontinus excluded from architecture/engineering? Why is there no category for agricultural writers (which include Cato the Elder, Columella)? And how can the writers of an encyclopedia exclude Pliny the Elder? If no one speaks up, I may make these corrections myself. -- llywrch (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to hesitate, all the folks you mention should be here (even Claudian). I wouldn't call Lucretius a science writer, though--I would say he's a didactic poet, or a philosophical poet. And indeed, he's listed under "didactic poets". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well my point with Lucretius & Cicero was that several of these writers belong to multiple categories. Putting them in only one (even if it is the most appropriate) makes the Latin classics seem less extensive than they are. -- llywrch (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true. I think this tells us that the format of the article isn't the best way to present this information. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

Just some thoughts after reading the article:

  • The "Quotations" section doesn't seem add much encyclopedic value to the article (and I doubt whether Mark Twain's bon mots are referring the Greek and Lain classics).
  • The section "Famous Classicists" seems misnamed. I was expecting to find guys like Richard Porson ... Perhaps "Celebrities who studied classics"? I don't know.

Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you for the most part. However, I think that it's difficult to classify most prominent classicists as "famous." Milman Parry is certainly well known in some circles, but virtually unknown elsewhere.
My bigger concern is that the section, as it now stands is closer to a trivia section than anything of substance.PoBoy321 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)