Talk:Orientalism (book)

message: (The above heading was not present originally, but has been applied to make these comments appear below the TOC, in the usual way)</br>
The entire "criticism" section of this article whitewashes over the numerous, substantial and well-known objections to this work.
This book has been regarded as polemical and heavily flawed. That doesn't emerge very clearly in this article, which seems to be a synopsis of the content of the book. One might even call it 'adulatory'.
Bathrobe 00:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to get any information out of this article since it is generally void of helpful content. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the Said's message, but it just a mere lazy, confusing stringing together of quotes from the book. Those who have read Orientalism, please help. --chemica 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have addressed all the concerns on this page.  If there is no longer any debate perhaps we can clear up the talk page. I rewrote the article in November 2005, any debate before that I have tried to address the particular issues in the rewrite. stan goldsmith 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Token heading]

message: "John MacKenzie notes that the Western "dominance" critiqued by Said has often been challenged and answered, for instance in the ‘Subaltern Studies’ body of literature, which strives to give voice to marginalized peoples"
Exactly how has it been challenged and answered? Don't leave it at a guess. Specify.
"Furthermore, Landow states that Said failed to capture the essence of the Middle East, not least by overlooking important works by Egyptian and Arabic scholars."
Again specify. If not least by overlooking important works by Egyptian and Arabic scholars then how?
117.221.184.133 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague 

message: "Lewis argued that Orientalism arose from humanism, which was distinct from Imperialist ideology, and sometimes in opposition to it. Orientalist study of Islam arose from the rejection of religious dogma, and was an important spur to discovery of alternative cultures. Lewis criticised as "intellectual protectionism" the argument that only those within a culture could usefully discuss it." in the Criticism Intro
"Rejecting the view that western scholarship was biased against the Middle East, Lewis responded that Orientalism developed as a facet of European humanism, independently of the past European imperial expansion" In Bernard Lewis.
Also why does the criticism intro have more on what Lewis said whereas the section for Lewis' criticism has more on what Said said about him?117.221.184.133 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: "The notion of Oriental homogeneity will exist as long as prejudice serves political ends, but to blame the sins of its current use on hegemonic intellectualism mires ongoing mitigation of bad and biased scholarship in an unresolvable polemic of blame. It is time to read beyond "Orientalism."
It should be "is an unresolvable polemic of blame"? 117.221.184.133 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquote? 

message: I posted my rewrite, I feel it does a decent neutral job of outlining the book's main points.  There is no need to explain what "discourse" means further because that's a separate page on wikipedia.  Feel free to do with it what ye may...(stan goldsmith 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Rewrite 

message: : I have addressed these concerns in my rewrite in November 2006. stan goldsmith 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The synopsis is useful and correct (don't know about precedent) and clearly an improvement on what was present before - but it should eventually make room for more coherent text that draws from it, because stylistically encyclopedic it's not. For the time being, removal is too crass a measure, I think: this encyclopedia is home to articles 10 times the size of this one, that concern themselves with Pokemon characters, after all. I volonteer to busy myself with doing that in the next week. Plus, considering the unusually large impact of the book, a more detailled account of the controversial issues surrounding the book might be in order. Azate 04:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Metropolitan90 that the synopsis is virtually useless as well as unencyclopedic (I've read the book). I have never seen a synopsis of this type on Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the worthiness of the book or the length of the article, just the way it's currently presented. Maestlin 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this discussion, I have labeled the article for a complete rewrite. I think this article, in its current form, does no good for any reader, except those who want bad Cliff Notes. --chemica 06:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me?  Regardless of whether or not one likes the book or subscribes to the book, the book indeed has had great resonance in the academic community and those politically active in Middle Eastern issues.  Just fish around (e.g., through google) and you will see this; also, you can verify this by entering the book in databases of citations.  If this were a vote, I would cast my vote: retain the article. Dogru144 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the article in November, I think most of the debate on this page is about the previous article.  stan goldsmith 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the synopsis appropriate? 

message: I am posting the original synposis here if anyone wants to salvage part of it. --chemica 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saving the Synposis 

message: I added a standard book infobox and fixed a few spelling errors, but I'm not going to try to rewrite the content. That needs to be done by someone who doesn't think that Focault is a joke. --John Nagle 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor fixes 

message: The intro pararaphs are completely POV, and paint Said as some kind of diety who revealed points that "others have missed."  I hope the article is toned down during the rewrite.  --Tjss(Talk) 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed with this assessment and addressed it in my rewrite, avoiding deifying Mr. Said and instead treating his work as a notable book.  stan goldsmith 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article has suffered from deletions that create a skeleton article instead of a more fleshed out one.  The previous introductory sections were well written and existed for a long time, why were they pared back to almost nothing? Richard ruffian (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Deletions 

message: There is a doccumentary of the same name that features Edward Said. It's either called Orientalism or Edward Said On Orientalism. It's also presented by Sut Jhally. (Mister Real (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientalism the film 

message: I've changed 'foundation text' to 'foundational text' in the opening paragraph, as unless 'foundation' refers to some official category, its a bad usage. I've also tried to remove the rather unfortunate POV, as inoffensively as possible, by simply adding a few 'Said says'. The views expressed in the opening paragraph give a good idea of Saids argument in the book, but the phrasing presents his theories and arguments as fact. I've not removed any of the content, and I've tried to retain the tone, but made it clear that it is transmitting his views, not endorsing them.
--Phocas321 (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: This article has extensive NPOV issues. To list a few:
* Referring to Bernard Lewis in the lede as an Orientalist, and later referring to multiple people as Orientalists in the Criticism section. A more neutral alternative would be 'Oriental Studies scholar.' The article currently conflates the two.
* Referring to Said's response to Lewis' criticisms in the Afterword of the 1995 edition as "refutations." A more neutral alternative would be "Said defended his work from Lewis' criticisms in..." As it is, the article takes the position that Lewis' argument was proved wrong by Said's response.
* The first and last criticism sections end with a line of _praise_ for Said and the book. Both unusual and not neutral.
* The criticism page is much too long. Here, the pendulum is swung too far in the other direction.
- Suitecake (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive NPOV issues 

message: I have asked IP 168.235.1.4 whether he is user Chas. Caltrop, as appears to be the case based on his edits. I agree that the lead of the article needs improvement, and I am happy to discuss how to improve it with this user, but he needs to take responsibility for the edits he is making rather than editing while logged out. In response to this comment, "Cultural representations is part of the subject", which the user made while reverting one of my changes, I would encourage the user to review WP:LEAD. I am sure cultural representations are part of the subject, but per WP:LEAD, the lead does not discuss every aspect of the subject. It is a summary of the article, and should be as simple as reasonably possible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Orientalism (book). 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ko3VRaot to http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/SaidSplash.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Bernard Lewis was a historian, but not a self-described Orientalist. It was Said's *opinion* that Lewis and Fouad Ajami were Orientalists. Therefore, we can't just call either man an "Orientalist" as if Said's opinion is a statement of fact. That is textbook WP:NPOV editing. 2601:84:4502:61EA:FCE1:6493:8C28:F0AF (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orientalism (book). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514060500/http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1336/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1336/article_detail.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: sorry for the pile of changes i re-wrote the intro so it approaches coherent english.Blindlynx (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro changes 

message: While revisiting article history I realized that some more of inconvenient criticism is deleted so let me take on record here so may be we write an independent article  Draft:Criticism of Edward Said's Orientalism in course of time.
::Another recent critical assessment of "Orientalism" and its reception across disciplines is provided by anthropologist and historian Daniel Martin Varisco in his "Reading Orientalism:  Said and the Unsaid" (University of Washington Press, 2007). Using judicious satirical criticism to defuse what has become an acrimonious debate, Varisco surveys the extensive criticism of Said's methodology, including criticism of his use of Foucault and Gramsci, and argues that the politics of polemics needs to be superseded to move academic discussion of real cultures in the region once imagined as an "Orient" beyond the binary blame game.  He concludes (p. 304):
:::<BLOCKQUOTE>The notion of Oriental homogeneity will exist as long as prejudice serves political ends, but to blame the sins of its current use on hegemonic intellectualism mires ongoing mitigation of bad and biased scholarship in an unresolvable polemic of blame.  It is time to read beyond "Orientalism."</BLOCKQUOTE>
::Bernard Lewis, in his publication Islam and the West,  highlights what he considers to be many historical and ethical errors and omissions from Said’s book and also highlights the political undertones, citing examples of imperialist administrators' publications 
being referenced as Orientalist academic work to portray Said’s hypotheses. Lewis also goes on to summarize why he feels that Said’s work is so popular.
:::“There is, as anyone who has browsed a college bookshop knows, a broad market for simplified versions of complex problems.”
::Some of the points that Lewis cited in his criticism:
::*The isolation of Arabic studies from both their historical and philological contexts.  (Said dates the main development of Arabic studies in Britain and France and dates them after the British French expansion)
::*Said's transmutation of events to fit his thesis (for example he claimed that Britain and France dominated the eastern Mediterranean from about the end of seventeenth century, knowing that at that time the British and French merchants and travelers could visit the Arab lands only by permission of the sultan). (p109)
::*Many leading figures of British and French Arabists and Islamists who are the ostensible subject of his study are not mentioned, such as Claude Cahen, Henri Corbin, Marius Canard.
::*Said's neglecting of Arab scholarship and other writings.
::Lewis and other critics of Said’s work feel that omissions and inaccuracies are an attempt by the author to convey his “attitude” and feelings on Orientalism as academic study to underpin his personal beliefs and causes.
Bookku (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I find it very hard to read your excerpts here. Are they from the article? Where do they begin and end? Are these quotes? May I suggest that you use a box for easier readability? For example this template: Template:Quote_box Best Mvbaron (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Other soft censorship of Criticism