Talk:Oriental studies

Merge
I propose that this article and Asian 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 this article, 2) make "Asian studies" a redirect to "Oriental studies," 3) move this 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. Sunray (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please discuss here. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Please no personal none cited opinion!
I have just removed an entire paragraph of what seems to be uncited personal research, unless you CAN cite PLEASE keep your personal ideology to yourself.Twobells (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you removed almost all the lead, which does not need citations, and whose content is amply cited below. Then you added a very POV sentence, badly expressed. What exactly are your issues here? Please explain on talk before making further changes. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

International congresses
Multiple congresses of orientalists were held in various locations, and orientalists from all over the world gave presentations of their fieldwork in linguistics, ethnography, and other fields, we should really create separate articles about each congress and their participants.Rajmaan (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

1894 Geneva Orientalist Congress
Sources on presentations during the event

http://books.google.com/books?id=0MMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA383#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uGAaAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA383#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JcoUAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EGbQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 one external links on Oriental 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:
 * Added tag to http://bostonreview.net/

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) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oriental 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/SaidSplash.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220114020/http://www.newstatesman.com/Bookshop/200602130032 to http://www.newstatesman.com/Bookshop/200602130032
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonreview.net/

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) 11:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Asian studies with Oriental studies
Per the articles, Asian studies is the term used usually in North America and Australia for what in Europe is known as Oriental studies. WP:MULTIPLENAMES says that articles should be about concepts, not names, so these pages should be located at the same place. I'm proposing that "Asian studies" be the destination, since my sense is that "Oriental studies" is becoming an increasingly unfashionable term with racist connotations, but that might just be my perspective given my geographical background. If necessary, we can separate out the discussion on what the title should be, but that shouldn't muddy the need for a merge. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * hell breaks loose? - I would strongly suggest they are kept separate. The collapsing of the two is fraught with multiple issues well beyond the capacity of a few wikipedia editors to resolve.  The higher education system in Australia is collapsing and the asian studies departments in most universities have gone, but the notion that oriental studies is even connected is problematic, however well intentioned the suggested merge is. JarrahTree 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Klbrain, I think that's premature. There's been only one response, which did not provide a policy-based rebuttal to the merge rationale. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My view is that objection was based on a policy argument. They directly disputed your claim that WP:MULTIPLENAMES applies, an argument has that has stood uncontested for over 3 months. Given that they argue that the topics are distinct; that would mean that there is no policy argument for the merge. The equivalence of the subjects is also contested at Talk:Asian studies by Twobells. No harm in waiting a bit longer for comments though; I'd still argue for a close with no merge. Klbrain (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not enough for there to be a disputed minor distinction, which I'd expect given that academic topics on race inevitably have sensitive terminology. Per WP:BROADCONCEPT (a guideline), A term with many related meanings should be presented as an article on the broadest understanding of the term. It also speaks specifically to overlapping geographic designations: Varying uses for broad geographic terms can be discussed in the context of an article describing the overall agreement of which areas definitely fall within that designation, and which areas are only occasionally described as falling with that designation, for certain purposes. Both articles currently define the fields the same way—as the study of Asia—so if they are to be kept separate, we'd need to establish a distinction and establish that it's meaningful enough that the articles should not be merged.
 * Regarding participation, I'll issue an invite to relevant wikiprojects. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are sufficient differences in usage, & the 2 articles are I think adequately inter-linked. It is not true that"Asian studies is the term used usually in North America and Australia for what in Europe is known as Oriental studies" - do we say this somewhere? Both terms are used everywhere, with differences, and with Asian studies now more common.  Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Asian studies into Oriental studies
The majority of this content is already present on the older and more established page Kazamzam (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to restart a fire from the previous merge discussion but given how small the Asian studies article is and that the lion's share of its material is already covered in this article, and that there is a discussion of the difference in the terms, I think merging it into this article is worthwhile. It is effectively just a list of branches that does not provide new information. My question is not about terminology (call it whatever you like) but about removing duplicated/superfluous material. Kazamzam (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oriental studies is becoming an outdated term, or about the study of Asia's past - often very distant past, and the page is mainly about the history, while Asian studies is about the contemporary field, mainly dealing with contemporary Asia. Actually," The majority of this content is already present on the older and more established page" doesn't seem true to me - there's not much overlap. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the merge is not necessary. Kautilyalundit (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you! 67.2.36.77 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, for heaven's sake; the same proposal failed a few months ago. See section above. No, it's much too soon to try again. Withdraw please. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See also failed proposals above in 2010, and at Talk:Asian_studies. That one concentrates on the geographical problems Middle Eastern studies not being included in "Asian", but being in "Oriental". Then there's Egypt! Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedurally, I have to concur with above. In my view, the earlier proposal failed because of flaws with Wikipedia's merge proposal system, which allowed a local consensus contrary to Wikipedia PAG to develop. But as much as I continue to Support a merge on the merits (I'd strongly favor making "Asian studies" the ultimate title, even if that means merging that page to this one and then moving it), since the process remains unreformed, I'll be surprised if the result here is any different. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? What about the problems mentioned above, and in previous discussions? No proposal that fails to address (or even recognise) these deserves to succeed. By "local consensus" you presumably mean "people who actually know something about the subject, and have looked at both articles". Both this nom & yours above contain, indeed rest on, statements that are imo flat untrue. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: Oriental Studies is not just Asian studies, but Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, and it's purview often extended as far west as Morocco, so these are not interchangeable terms. Also 'Oriental Studies' has become outdated because it has been colored by the way in which 'Orientalist' has taken on an often pejorative sense, so to mix the two would be to mix an entirely modern and untarnished discipline with an essentially historic one that has been impugned, which would in turn color the sense of the former. Most university departments that used to be called 'Oriental Studies' have renamed themselves, making a clean break from the past, for these very reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG, the merge proposal was already failed. Why are people dragging this topic again? Kautilyapundit (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No doubt he didn't notice the age. It just needs a formal close. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me close it then. Kautilyapundit (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)