Talk:Classics

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is a mess 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Let me know when your outline is ready. I'm interested at taking a look at it. (^'-')^ Covington 06:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canons treated similarly to Western "Classics" in other cultures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Sinisised" 

message: 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)
replies: text: The quote from Boris Johnson makes no sense:  "It's economically illiterate. A degree in Classics or Philosophy can be as valuable as anything else.".  What?  Is this nonsense because its decontextualized, or is it simply nonsense?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.240.154 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That quote must be taken out of context. I removed it. But who is Churchill talking about here? "I would make them all learn English: and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honour, and Greek as a treat."--Dblk (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quotations" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those two quotes are now linked with "thus concurring with", yet they don't concur in any way, and nothing in the article explains why they do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.240.154 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Copleston? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This what all those 'online resources' for! Use 'em. —Barbatus 22:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?????????Thanks.100110100 04:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classics In Nonwestern Universities? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I second that: kill the list, merge the links into Classics.--Barbatus 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'll agree with Akhilleus - foe what it's worth. --5telios 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger Proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Points taken :) CaveatLectorTalk 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merged [[List of basic classics topics]] to [[Classics]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Finished Merging and Cleaning-up

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger Proposal Redux

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please notice 

message: 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
* Flatiron Building (1902)
* Woolworth Building (1913)
* Chrysler Building (1929)
* Empire State Building (1931)
* World Trade Center (1973)
----
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)
thread_title:  Completing the writing of the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  List of Latin Classics 

message: Will try to help round up some volunteers. Or help out.--Levalley (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Much more input from archaeology and other areas of anthropology is also needed

message: I've seen the article Outline_of_ancient_Greece does not have a capital A in its title, yet every article which mentions Ancient Greece, Rome, etc. have it capitalised. Which is correct? -- 203.171.195.117 (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ancient" capitalisation 

message: I feel that you could go more in depth in this section seeing as though it is only a few sentences. Share with us what cities within these new sub-disciplines being studied are now being brought up within the Classics. You mentioned parts of Northern Africa, but where? Htulkoff 9/19/11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htulkoff (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-disciplines within the Classics 

message: What on earth is the point of the quotations section? What does it inform anyone of and why does it matter?
I say delete.
Pandaros (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classics Quotations 

message: This list starts with Milton and Berkeley and ends with Stephen Fry and Mary Beard.
Are the last two really "famous"?  Or just people who are on television a lot recently?
Or is that _why_ they are in the list? (O tempora, o mores!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.239.52 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Famous classicists"? 

message: This article is about the academic discipline "Classics", namely the study of Greek and Roman literature and civilization. This meaning only came into being at about 1800. Before that the term underwent many changes as described by the great German scholar, Ernst Robert Curtius in his (now classic?) book European Literature in the Latin Middle Ages (1947- 53), I believe this history ought to at least be alluded to here (as well as discussed more at length in the separate wikipedia article "classic") The first use of the word "classic" to refer to literary works dates to the Roman grammarian Aulus Gelius who lived in the second century AD under the Antonine emperors. Gellius did not use it to describe works of literary or artistic excellence, he used it in the context of a discussion on grammar to denote works by "model authors" that is authors whose works were suitable to used as models of correct grammar by teachers in schools of rhetoric.    
 [It] was not until very late, and then only in a single instance,  that the name classicus appears: in Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae, XIX, 8, 15). This learned compiler of the Antonine period discusses a large number of grammatical problems. Are quadriga and arena  to be used in the singular or the plural? The thing to do is to follow the usage of a model author “E cohorte illa dumtaxat antiquiore vel oratorum aliquis vel poetarum, id set classicus adsiduusque aliquis scriptor non proletarius” : “some one of the orators or poets, who at least belongs to an older band [cohort], that is a first-class and tax-paying author, not a proletarian.” According to the Servian constitution, citizens were divided into five classes based on property qualifications. Citizens of the first class were soon simply called simply classici. Cicero (Ac., II, 73) already uses the word metaphorically when he puts Democritus above Stoic philosophers whom he assigns to the fifth class. The proletarius, whom Gellius mentions by way of comparison, belongs to no tax class. When Sainte-Beuve, in 1850, discussed the question What is a Classic?, he paraphrased this passage in Gellius: “un écrivain du valeur et de marque, un écrivain qui compte, qui a du bien au soleil, et qui n’est pas confondu dans la foule des prolétaires.” ["a writer of worth and distinction, a writer who counts, a person of means, and who stands out from the common herd [i.e, proletarians]." What a tidbit for a Marxist sociology of literature!
The passage from Gellius is instructive. It shows that, in Antiquity, the concept of the model author was oriented upon a grammatical criterion, the criterion of correct speech. The history of modern languages should investigate when and where the absolutely isolated usage which we find in Gellius made its way into modern culture. That such a basic concept of our culture as Classicism, and one which has been so debated and so misused, should go back to a late Roman writer who is known today only to specialists, is more than an interesting philological curiosity. It illustrates what we have already been able to establish more than once—the sway of chance in the history of our literary terminology. What would modern aesthetics have done for a single general concept that should embrace Raphael, Mozart, and Goethe, if Gellius had never lived? Imposing systems which have harassed centuries would never have arisen if the Servian tax classification had never been made. There could not well have been any argument over classicism, if the word classicus had been understood. But because it was not understood, it was surrounded by a mysterious nimbus, which suggests the polished marble of the Apollo Belvedere. We can no longer do without the concept of the classical and we need not give it up. But neither will we renounce our right to illuminate our aesthetic categories historically. This is a widening of our horizon for which we are grateful to the “Historicism” of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The concept of the classical has, so we see, a very humble and prosaic origin. In the last two hundred years it has become unduly and immeasurably inflated. It was a step as full of consequences as it was dubious when, about 1800, Greco-Roman Antiquity en bloc was pronounced “classical.” Any impartial estimate of Antiquity, not only historically, but also aesthetically, was thereby obstructed for more than a century. Those who love Antiquity in all its periods and styles (a love which is certainly less common than might be supposed) are precisely those who will feel its apotheosis as the “classical” to be empty and misleading pedantry. The glorified and glorifying grammar-school Humanism, which even today still tends to scale the heights of edification, is at the opposite pole from the real and bold Humanism of liberal minds. —Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature in the Latin Middle Ages (Princeton, Bollingen, 1953), pp. 249-250.
By the way, what is now called a "classical education" used to be called a humanistic education, and those who studied and taught it humanists. Until about 1800 It was the only game in town because modern authors were not studied, since it was presumed they wrote in modern languages that modern people could already understand. Mballen (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Eytmology of word "classic" rather sketchy

message: The introduction maintains that the modern use of the word "classics" dates from the 16th century (i.e., the 1500s), but Ernst Robert Curtius, as quoted above, puts the date for its use in the modern sense at 1800. In fact, what we call the classics were in the 16th century referred to as  studia humanitatis, q.v. When the studia humanitatis was revived in the Renaissance, aided by the invention of the printing press, education meant education in Latin and Greek language and literature. During the 17th century people began to advocate the use of modern languages and literature, namely French. This was the time of the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (quarrel between the ancients and the moderns) over which was better: ancient or modern learning and literature. Humanistic learning continued unabated but in the popular mind, at least, with the spread of periodicals whose audiences included women (who normally were excluded from classical learning), the moderns prevailed. It was really a quarrel over the idea of progress versus that of authority. The authoritarians, who included the French Academy, strove with considerable success to keep modern French literature modeled as closely as possible on ancient models, as then understood, but new genres, such as the fairy tale and the novel gained acceptance.  By the 18th c. French had joined and in many cases superseded Latin as the language of learning, entertainment, and, especially diplomacy, while ancient literature also  began to be printed in translation for mass audiences, including women. During the French Enlightenment, It became fashionable to deride pedantry and antiquarianism. Many educators began to look away from the traditional humanistic studies in favor of practical education in modern languages and the crafts, under the influence of Rousseau. In reaction to this, around 1800 educational reformers, first in Germany (with Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer's  neo-humanismus) (1808), and then in England (Matthew Arnold), advocated a return to the study of Greek and Latin language culture as exemplary in themselves. It was felt that exposure to Greek and Latin history and culture (along with Christian religious studies) would give children (boys, in actual fact), a broad outlook that would enable them to transcend the narrowness of their own particular time and place; and an exposure to the best the human mind was capable of, which the Greeks in particular were considered to exemplify, would contribute to their fullest moral and spiritual development. It was at this time that the Classics in our modern sense, "surrounded" in Cutius's words, "by a mysterious nimbus, which suggests the polished marble of the Apollo Belvedere," came into being.  Mballen (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of modern meaning of Classics too early?

message: These subjects are not the same despite what the first sentence says. Classics is the languages whereas Classical Studies is a watered down non-Latin/Greek based version. The distinction should be made clear. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are certainly some places that make this distinction in e.g. the naming of courses, I am not at all convinced that this is a generally agreed-upon distinction.  The Society for Classical Studies (formerly the American Philological Association) would be surprised to learn that they focus on a "watered down non-Latin/Greek based" subject!  Recent articles and chapters (e.g. Bozia (2021), "Classical Studies for a New Millenium" and Konstan (2020), "Mapping Diversity in Classical Studies" use the terms interchangeably.  Can you point to scholarly sources which make this distinction? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't searched thoroughly but found this which defines Classics as including the languages as a central pillar of the subject. Courses in Classical Studies might include a basic study of Latin but not much more IMO, with a greater emphasis on history and the translated literature. University courses might be a source of the distinction. I think the word 'studies' is often added to a subject's name to indicate a less than thorough study. There might also be different definitions on either side of the Atlantic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classics v Classical Studies