Talk:Asian studies

message: This entry as it stands is not accurate: "Asian studies is a field in Cultural studies" and "It has a commitment to a moral evaluation of modern society and to a radical line of political action." 
The entry for Asian Studies should be general enough to include all the work done in Asian Studies. For example, there is a recent PhD dissertation in Asian Studies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor that is a translation of a history of Buddhism in Burma. it is neither modern, nor does it take a radical line of political action.  I would change the entry, but I do not want to be accused of vandalizing someone's page. (Jonfernquest 10:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I agree the cultural studies stuff is too specific - I doubt many scholars of Assyriology would sign up to that manifesto! Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Which univerisities offer asian studies as a major?
* Temple University does.  I have a BA in Asian Studies from there. Snarfies 18:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools

message: why is egyptology listed as an asian study? Last time i checked, egypt was NOT in asia!
SO yeah, and thats why im removing it from the list. Resistance is futile.
ArcticPersian (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About the list

message: I propose that this article and Oriental studies be merged. As both articles note: "in recent years the newer term 'Asian studies' has mostly replaced 'Oriental studies'." The content of "Oriental studies" is more comprehensive ("Asian studies" is a stub) so I propose to: 1) Add the content of the "Asian studies" article to "Oriental studies," 2) make "Asian studies" a redirect to "Oriental studies," 3) move "Oriental studies" article to Asian studies (over redirect), and 4) revise the lead of the article and edit for consistency. "Oriental studies" would then be a redirect to the merged article "Asian studies." If there general agreement to do this, I will complete this move on July 10, 2010. Please discuss below.  Sunray (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to keep Oriental studies as an article on the history, which the great bulk of it is, and let Asian studies cover the contemporary field. This article would be very unbalanced as "Asian studies" - the present article is merely very short. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Johnbod: It looks like it is just the two of us in this discussion. I read that you would like to keep Oriental studies as an article. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say: "This article would be very unbalanced as 'Asian studies' - the present article is merely very short." Would you be willing to elaborate? How would it be unbalanced? Sunray (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because about 90% of the merged article would cover the history to say WW2. I don't mind merging the more contemporary stuff. Nb also the last section - Egyptology is not part of Asian studies, but is of Oriental studies, which covers the Middle East too. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to the "History of Oriental studies" section. I agree that the section should continue to contain the same material, and refer to "Oriental studies" in its title. The next two sections have to do with orientalism and the transition to "Asian studies." My concern is with having two articles on the same subject. I think it is confusing to readers. Whether they search for "Oriental studies" or "Asian studies," it should lead to the same article. Sunray (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be handled with notes, "main" templates etc. What about Middle Eastern studies, part of Oriental, but not Asian studies? That has not been linked in, but I will do it now. I suggest a similar treatment is used for Asian studies. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: What about Middle Eastern studies? Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that could link to a section on "Oriental studies" in the merged article. Middle Eastern studies grew out of the same concerns about orientalism (Said was from the middle east, after all) that gave rise to Asian studies. Sunray (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but neither subject "grew out of" any "concerns about orientalism" at all. As Said constantly complained, both were prime engines of orientalism, not that I agree with all his views. As Middle Eastern subjects, as opposed to Far Eastern ones, dominated Oriental Studies for most of its history, if it were to be merged, that would be the logical target. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  I do not support the merger, as the term 'Asian Studies' is only used in mainly US institutions. Like the article states the term 'Asian' is for all intent and purpose no different than 'Oriental' and a merger would just look like a US-centric absorption.Twobells (talk)
Sorry for being a late comer to this discussion. Excellent discussion between two well balanced scholars! I have nothing to add. I agree geenrally with user Jonhbod. Thank you for your contributions guys :) Dr. Persi (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge