Jump to content

Talk:Area studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orientalism

[edit]

I've just been reading Said's Orientalism, in which he suggests that Area Studies is a modern synonym for Oriental Studies. He doesn't seem to be aware of the phrase being applied anywhere except in the east. Is this the original reference, which was later widened? --Doric Loon 15:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Studies

[edit]

Is there a distinction between Area Studies and Cultural Studies?--Doric Loon 15:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the article on cultural studies? I think it makes the distinction pretty clear, along with the potential overlap in uses of the phrase "cultural studies" to mean "area studies". -- Rbellin|Talk 16:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I should have checked that. So for enthusiasts it has its own flavours, but say in a Modern Languages department there's not much odds. Thanks. --Doric Loon 21:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Please note that I have created the Category:Area studies journals.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Is there any existing effort to add a section on the historical development of "Area Studies" in any national context underway? The same for other categories (institutions/degree programs; funding agencies; criticism (of which the Said reference above is one), etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwnau (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of various Fields

[edit]

Hi, @Datu Hulyo. I noticed that you suppressed various area studies in your recent improvements to the article. For example, Classical studies (Classics), Assyriology, Egyptology, Seljuq studies, Chechen studies, Dagestan studies, Ossetian studies and Abkhaz studies were all suppressed from the list. I don't understand your methodology. A source describing Classics as a form of area studies can readily be found [1], while you kept the similar field of Byzantine studies on the list. I'll take the liberty of re-adding variant names of area studies that you preserved (Judaic studies, Turcology, Ryukyuan studies and Baltic Sea Region studies), and re-add the reminder that Central Asian Studies and Turkology overlap. But I wanted to give you a chance to explain your edits before re-adding other stuff. JECE (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JECE. I omitted the aforementioned studies if they solely focus on an ancient era civilization, considering that several universities offer area studies in the modern sense. However, I am amenable to re-adding Chechen studies, Dagestan studies (or more specifically Avar studies), Ossetian studies, and Abkhaz studies under Caucasiology. I do appreciate that you reached out to me for clarification and your comment in relation to my editing. Cheers. Datu Hulyo (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed that you were able to post a reply within ten just minutes. Something seems to be off with the timestamp in your signature, though! I'll go ahead and add those subdisciplines of Caucasiology, and Seljuk studies since the Seljuks weren't an ancient civilization. As for the studies of ancient civilizations, I think that it makes sense to add them somehow, especially given the source that I mentioned above. Maybe they would be better in prose at the bottom of this section? JECE (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they would be better in prose at the bottom of this section. Datu Hulyo (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Area_studies&oldid=1205312468"