Talk:Wheelock's Latin
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wheelock's Latin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Impact
[edit]Would it be ok to add a section on this article related to the impact of the book. Many people use and praise this book a lot but others really don`t like it and some schools have banned it. The main issue it seems is that some, even here at wikipedia, feel that only the Wheelock way is ok and use it as a base to judge all of Latin. Others reject this out of hand using arguements that Latin was a living language at least until the 1800s and some claim it to still be alive today. Any section that shows these issues will of course need to be very nuetral but as this book does seem to be important enough for English speakers studying Latin as a second Language that it has caused some controversy. Anything that gets recognized enough will I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk • contribs)
- No problem, as long as you provide your sources to avoid conflicts with the no original research policy. Since the Wheelock's is a widely-used book, there may be reviews and articles written about it in various periodicals all over the world, so this should be really easy. Thanks --- Tito Pao 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Erratum
[edit](titled simply Latin until the fifth edition in 1995)
In front of me is a copy of the 4th edition (1992), ISBN 0064671445, and it is called "Wheelock's Latin Grammar". LaFleur hasn't done his homework very well, which I also notice in a few of his additions to the content of the book. --216.145.71.230 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Criticism
[edit]This article misses a very important section containing criticism. Wheelock's method is regarded as outdated, missing the new achievements of modern didactics, besides not teaching the understanding Latin texts, but focusing on dumb translations. Perhaps that's why Wheelock's book evokes nothing but sardonic laughter amongst Latin teachers, especially in Europe. Unfortunately not much of it is accessible on-line (I've done a thorough research) and opinions on forums will never constitute a reliable source. Is there any way of overcoming this trouble? Kicior99 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)