Talk:Gravitas

Philosophy: Ethics / Ancient Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Ancient philosophy

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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 our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unlikely

Removing the following sentence from the article because it seems unlikely to be pertinent and is unsourced:

It was popularized by the media during the summer of 2000, to contrast the Republican Party candidate, George W. Bush and Al Gore, the Democratic Party candidate.

--Tabor 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue about "pertinence", since the usage is not common and was "reintroduced" this way. It would be valuable for many purposes (historical, linguistic, etc). But if it has no clear source, this would have to be solved first. The thing is, the article is pretty vague so far (of course it's a stub). It mentions "a sense of substance or depth". Due to... (cause)? How does it show (consequence)? And a clear example would fit fine. I don't add any of those cause I came here to ask and know more, not to answer, unfortunately... (Anonymous)

dude. if you think "used occasionally" is the same as "reintroduced", you got problems. that sentence is totally pointlessly trivial. (anon)

"Gravitas should not be confused with gravity, the force of attraction between masses." - this is almost as silly as "Gravitas should not be confused with gravy, a thickened meat sauce". How about "Gravitas should not be confused with gravity in the sense of formidable and serious, but they have a common etymology of weightiness"? In fact, if I come back in a year and that sentence is still there, I'm replacing it with the gravy line. (same anon)

I agree, especially since many consider gravitas to be an "attractive" characteristic for men to have. D Boland 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer Sutherland said 'Gravitas' was his favortite word on Inside the Actors Studio

I saved you the trouble of replacing the gravity-line with the gravy-line ;)

Gravitas as a political reference

It is true that the term gravitas was used (perhaps over-used) during the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign; I found 3 sources that supported this view and I cited them. I can find more, if anyone believes more would be needed or helpful. ProfessorPaul 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitas usage in 2000

The term gravitas clearly came into usage during the 2000 campaign. A sound bite montage of U.S. pols spouting gravitas over and over received frequent airplay on the Rush Limbaugh radio program.

Jessemckay 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clip of Actor Kiefer Sutherland saying gravitas during an interview with the television program "Inside the Actors Studio" is used frequently by the Howard Stern Radio Show.

Wootabega (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Word

This is an excellent example of what Fowler called a "vogue word". In fact it is in a special class of vogue words for which there is no name, though there ought to be a name for it. That is, vogue words that gain lightning currency in broadcasting and journalism for the sake of novelty and spice (they can be dredged up from an obsure source e.g. academia, literature), also to show the users accumen and savy of a current trend, and out of shear immitation (monkey see, monkey do) of what sounds hip. Other current examples are "segue" & "lapidary". Such vogue words strike like meteors flash brilliantly then either flame out or glow red hot for a while as they gradually cool and recede. Vogue words often become "worsened words", c.f. Fowler, if they don't get flogged to death. Overuse by the unsophistacted can result in a vogue word's broad application and then either a watered down, generalized, hence vague, half-understood meaning; or, a change in meaning due to misapplication, such that sometimes another formerly legitimate word is replaced e.g. when I was a boy "gay" was an adjective that had nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuals, and "sex" had more than one meaning, although the context made it clear enough. Today "gender" has completely replaced "sex" in one of its meanings, and to be asked ones sex on a form today would leave many nonplused or confused. Thirty or forty years ago few would have seen gender in that context, "gender" then being a term used in grammer. "Empathy" and "empathize" have entirely replaced "sympathy" and "sympathize" at least in educated speech. People think (would in fact swear on a stack of bibles) that they mean something different by the two words, but people today use "empathy in exactly the same context that "sympathy" was used when I was a lad. In fact the real meaning of "empathy" is: I mean sympathy, and I am hip, trendy, and well educated (really?). So much for "gravitas".

Dignity?

Why is there a suggestion that gravitas can be translated as dignity? The Latin word for dignity is dignitas, which is a completely different Roman virtue? I'm not removing the reference from the article at this time because there might be a good reason that I'm unaware of.JDZeff (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]