Talk:Postcolonialism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jhe12346.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Eurocentrism of images
Hey! The images used in this article are super Eurocentric. To start with, I'd like to propose that the images of Achebe and Spivak be moved to the start of the article.

I intend to do this tomorrow absent any objections. 132.181.220.190 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to show the image for "The Motherland and her dependant colonial offspring. (William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1883)" Remove this image. You are insulting humanity.

Rewrite 2006 (settled)
this page really needs work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.215.148 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 October 2005


 * I have started a rejigged edition at Post-colonialism/temp and would value help in getting it up to scratch. --Nick Boalch?!? 14:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added much of that to the present article, since the work over there seems to have been done now. --FlammingoHey 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that is an excellent rewrite of the intro. I'll be happy to help out where possible, but my knowledge is limited to post-colonialism as a literary theory and doesn't extend far beyond Said. Ziggurat 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I envisage the article ultimately containing in-depth sections on the various aspects of post-colonial theory, so a more developed section on the literary aspects would be helpful. If you can't go far beyond Said, I nevertheless reckon something is better than nothing. :) --Nick Boalch?!? 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to begin with a description of what post-colonialism is not. You could discuss the problems with the term itself. A Good place to start would be the essay 'The Angel of Progress' by Anne McClintock in Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory, edited by Patrick Williams and Lauren Chrisman. Damn Dirty Ape 16:39, 26 March 2006

Gandhi's Hind Swaraj is absolutely not a post-colonial work. It is a reactionary, completely uncritical critique of colonialism. I have removed that from the list of "founding works" in the original postcolonialism entry. Also, in the temporary new entry (which I think is far more complicated and better), I think the following statement is too simplistic and lacks appropriate discussion/texturization; nor is there a citation provided for this apparent critique: "Attempts at coming up with a single definition of postcolonial theory have proved controversial, and some writers have strongly critiqued the concept, which is embedded in identity politics." I don't understand the preceding sentence. It characterizes postcolonialism as a somewhat reactionary movement, which I don't think it is. And I would also disagree that it is "embedded in identity politics." I would like some discussion on that point--Bibban 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added some stuff in the new temporary section about Stoler, resistance, and so on to texturize the description of postcolonialism a bit further. Also, I have taken out the hyphen between post and colonialism. I think the hyphen only needs to be there when one describes post-colonial countries, or particular post-colonial moments/poliics. To refer to the theory/set of theories, I think the hyphen is unnecessary. But others should disagree. :)--Bibban 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-colonial theory extends beyond Said! What about the work of Sandy Grande? Just because it isn't clearly labelled as a post-colonial theory doesn't make it so. Indigenous scholars have based the Indigenous theory on the post-colonial theory, which means that the literature is developing, but not non-existent! Look at Denzin (Australia) and Tuhwali-Smith (Australia) to get some great insights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.220.78 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

spivak and postcolonialism (settled)
there would be no such thing as postcolonialism if gayatri spivak and ranajit guha never defined a field of work under that moniker in the 1980s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.220.83 (talk)
 * NB: Meanwhile, they have been added --FlammingoHey 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

other traditions that study post-colonial societies
I'm aware of (but not an expert in) some other traditions that study post-colonial societies but aren't generally called "post-colonial theory", being generally less tied to critical theory. Are they described elsewhere on Wikipedia, and if so should we link to that article (or if not, start one)? I'm thinking of sociologists like John Goldthorpe (in particular his Sociology of Post-Colonial Societies); economists ranging across the political spectrum who debate the effects of colonialism on modern-day economies (M. Shahid Alam being a notable anti-colonialist in this vein); political scientists who debate the effects of the same on modern-day political systems; and so on. --Delirium 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Inversion in postcolonial theory (settled)
You might want to see this article, please help improve it. Thanks. --Strothra 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it'll get more attention in the see-also-section. FlammingoHey 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

still needs rewrite (settled; not as badly now)
There was much content on Talk:Post-colonialism/temp, which is now inserted, since it will get a lot more attention. The literature topic should rather go to postcolonial literature, which is to my experience the most active field of postcolonialism...-FlammingoHey 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it's on the way, I still feel like talking to myself, though.--FlammingoHey 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Something on Africa?
For rewriters: add something about the arbitrary borders of 1886 (Berlin), the use of 'paramount chiefs' for local control, the kleptocratic shambles seen after 40 years of decolonisation (e.g. Mugabe),and the missionary schools input. Were the missionary schools abetters of colonialism or did they help some Africans to vocalise against colonialism? A bit of both, doubtless. A highly subjective area, as 'identity' is constantly shifting, but there is one core certainty - it allows academics to write books.Red Hurley 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, please join! There is a whole chapter waiting for that! --FlammingoHey 10:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

pos kolonial
sebuah wacana yang menyeset kan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.48.150 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Booklist
The article lists a number of books, among them: "Leela Gandhi Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. Columbia University Press:1998 ISBN 0-231-11273-4." and: "Dhawan, Nikita: "Postkolonial Theorie. Eine kritische Einführung" (2005"

The latter one probably being a German version of the first one. I don't think they should both be listed. D(r)ead End (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

globalisation
Could someone explain how globalisation fits into Postcolonialism? There are obvious overlaps but I'm not clever enough to say where the boundaries lie. Anyone?Red Hurley (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Rajam6 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Hi: I use globalization and cosmopolitanism on my seminars on postcolonial studies. I will add a section on this and then you all can let me know if it fits.

Russian / Soviet empires
Why has nobody written about the effect of Russia on its former colonies such as Armenia and Kazakhstan? Don't tell me it's because they didn't speak English; or are some post-colonial theorists still a little bit pro-Soviet? Nothing on China and Tibet?Red Hurley (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a post-modern method?
I find the introduction of the article very misleading. "Postcolonialism (also Post-colonial theory, Postcolonial studies, Post-colonialism) is a post-modern method of intellectual discourse". What was the source of such definition? Post colonialism relies on many post-modern terms, methods and way of thinking, but on many Marxists point of view as well. Fanon was influenced by marxist theory of class struggle and he had nothing to do with post modernism. The idea of 'hegemony' and 'sub-altern' has marxists roots. I am not saying that post-colonialism is a marxist method, it is not. Its not a post modern method either. Just because post colonial theorists like Edward Said made use of Michel Foucaults theory of power-knowledge binary relation doesn't make post colonialism a post modern mathod. Post colonialism has its own agenda, which is not just being critic of 'modernity'. Its not just a method of intellectual discourse either, it has deep political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stparvez (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stparvez:

When an intellectual investigator applies post-modernist method, the “post-modern” adjective is appropriate, because it is criticizing the “Modern” European perspective of exotic non-white folk. The term post-colonialism is multi-faceted, because of its many applications, and, in this case, post-modern is an intellectual application un-equivalent to the usages (denotations and connotations) applied in the Arts and in Architecture, thus, the lead is not misleading — it means what it says, and says what it means.

Moreover, as you might recall, the thematic introduction (lead) to an encyclopædic article usually is a textual précis derived from the content it introduces to the (layman) reader. I trust this clarification helped you; if not, let us correspond.

Mhazard9 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mhazard9 and Stparvez

(my first time thumbing thru the "talk " section) As an assignment, I am  trying to place a stub somewhere in this thread concerning the syllabification of the term post/colonial ...as a... criticism? citing pearson higher education text that implies: the variant of this term (post/colonial), argue some critics, is more relevant than the previous two spellings because it stresses the inter-relatedness between a number of literatures that exists between colonial and post/colonial discourse, subjectively(<- a word wiki is scared of) arguing a case for the colonized POV VERSUS the colonizer's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernonwashere (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Addition of a "European World" Section
I disagree with the recent edit pointing out that postcolonialism tends only to analyze European & American imperialism. Or rather, I think that it's mostly true, but deserves more of an explanation than that little aside. This article has sections on Africa and the Middle East, so I propose the addition of a section with a title something like "The European World." This would discuss the idea that poscolonialism tends mainly to analyze the effects of the British, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, Russian, and US empires only. It would also point out that the US is a white settler colony according to postcolonial theory, and thus in some ways an extension of Europe, as are Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and (pre-Mandela) South Africa. This could be used to explain why postcolonial theory considers US imperialism to be of special note, among all the empires originating outside of Europe in history.

The concept of the white settler colony also serves as a bridge between the idea of empires originating in Europe and those modelled on Europe - most notably Japan's.

Perhaps the other thing that would be needed to fully inform the readers would be mention of so-called "internal colonialism:" the metropole-frontier theories of Franz Fanon's applied to relations between a state's urban center(s) and its "less civilized" regions. This also, of course, is the biggest reason why it isn't true that postcolonialists only talk about Europe & the US, and why this section is needed instead of an overgeneralizing aside. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A. Madhavan
A. Madhavan has some poignant things to say about Said's Orientalism. I think the insertion is relevant and adds to the dimension of this section. The review is a third-person POV to Said's ideas and enriches this part. I've quoted A. Madhavan here. Thank you.Scifilover386 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness quotation: remove?
I'm inclined to remove the Conrad quotation, even though it's so prominently displayed. It isn't about post-colonialism, but maybe about colonialism. It gets more complicated if you read the couple of sentences before, where Conrad says that he's not talking about colonialism: ''They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force—nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind—as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . .''. It gets even more complicated if you bother to read the couple of paragraphs before and discover that he's not (directly) talking about colonization of Africa, but about the conquering of Britain by the Romans. And if you dig further you'll realize that most historians would classify the Romans as colonists rather than conquerors in Conrad's terminology (or maybe Marlow's since this is, after all, a work of fiction). Dingo1729 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015
(insert new section)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 15:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It appears that you are actually trying to start a discussion to obtain a consensus to request a page move here.  Please do establish that consensus and then use the appropriate procedure listed at WP:RM to get the job done. —   22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Hyphenating the term (Postcolonialism) as one word or hyphenated (post-colonialism) is acceptable. However, an analysis of the hyphenation represents theoretical ambivalence. It alludes to the historical accounts associated with ‘colonialisms’ imposed by way of the British Empire, rather than the countries now known as ‘post/colonial countries’. The temporal use of the hyphen following colonialism hints an utter disregard of previous accounts and ‘isms’; (colonial precedes post/colonial). A literary critique and objective analysis elucidates a transcendence of the subject, thus, the term ‘literature’ is replaced by ‘studies’ in association with a (non-hyphenated) Postcolonialism, introduced in Bill Ashcroft’s The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (1995); comparatively argued with  Ellede Boehemer’s title, Colonial and Postcolonial Literature (1995). This original theory of literature to analysis by way of studies follows in the footsteps of Edward Said’s “Orientalism”,(1978) and much later works “Culture and Imperialism”(1993). Following the phenomenon, Ania Loomba’s Colonialism/Postcolonialism (1998) contests the word ‘and’ by replacing it with punctuation, (/). The hyphen was permanently removed in Robert Young’s disambiguation of the term in his works titled: Postcolonialism: An Historical introduction (2001) and Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction (2003):


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyphenation/Syllabification
Hyphenating the term (Postcolonialism) as one word or hyphenated (post-colonialism) is acceptable. However, an analysis of the hyphenation represents theoretical ambivalence. It alludes to the historical accounts associated with ‘colonialisms’ imposed by way of the British Empire, rather than the countries now known as ‘post/colonial countries’. The temporal use of the hyphen following colonialism hints an utter disregard of previous accounts and ‘isms’; (colonial precedes post/colonial). A literary critique and objective analysis elucidates a transcendence of the subject, thus, the term ‘literature’ is replaced by ‘studies’ in association with a (non-hyphenated) Postcolonialism, introduced in Bill Ashcroft’s The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (1995); comparatively argued with  Ellede Boehemer’s title, Colonial and Postcolonial Literature (1995). This original theory of literature to analysis by way of studies follows in the footsteps of Edward Said’s “Orientalism”,(1978) and much later works “Culture and Imperialism”(1993). Following the phenomenon, Ania Loomba’s Colonialism/Postcolonialism (1998) contests the word ‘and’ by replacing it with punctuation, (/). The hyphen was permanently removed in Robert Young’s disambiguation of the term in his works titled: Postcolonialism: An Historical introduction (2001) and Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction (2003): "Postcolonialism refers to a heterogeneous field of study in which even its spelling provides several alternatives: post-colonialism, postcolonialism, or post/colonial. When spelled with a hyphen (post-colonialism), the term implies a chronological order—that is, a change from a colonial to a post colonial state. When spelled without the hyphen (postcolonialism), the term refers “to writing that sets out in one way or another to resist colonialist perspectives,”both before and after the period of colonization. According to some critics, the nonhyphenated spelling covers a wider critical field,including literature of former British colonies, than does the hyphenated spelling." The before and after timeline approach discourages the resistance of said subject to criticism. The dominant shaping of objectivity by a singular European path in the hyphenated form lends itself to an upheaving of contaminated assumptions and critique in scholarly postcolonialism studies. See Decoloniality. Post-colonial works are constructed as a writing which demonstrates a society whose power is derived from and archived to European ownership. The discourse of Post/colonial theory digresses from this “otherness” in post-colonialisms of which idealize, contemporize and modernize the deconstruction of the Third Space, by “endorsing difference yet creatively undermining biases”. "What of the individual who has been colonized? On the one hand, the colonized observes two somewhat distinct views of the world: that of the colonizer (the conqueror) and that of himself or herself, the colonized (the one who has been conquered). To what culture does this person belong? Seemingly, neither culture feels like home."[1] The incongruous cross examinations This conundrum of literary hermeneutic alludes to the dissensus “—however mixed in its material and cultural presuppositions - has struck, continues to strike, a chord in literature departments which, as Young has noted, constitute the ‘solitary space within academic institutions where subjective forms of knowledge were taken seriously’.

Vernonwashere (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Vernonwashere (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable Theoreticians
Does anyone think that an inclusion of Aimé Césaire is worthwhile? Primarily because of his involvement as one of the central theorists of the Negritude movement. I think the Negritude has some important affinities with existentialist philosophy, which seems rather prevalent in a lot of postcolonial dialogues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipdaace (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Postcolonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120105154619/http://www.maldura.unipd.it:80/dllags/docentianglo/materiali_oboe_lm/2581_001.pdf to http://www.maldura.unipd.it/dllags/docentianglo/materiali_oboe_lm/2581_001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Human rights or culture - criticisms
This particular section needs citations. Furthermore, it does not appear to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninakp (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Added digital humanities projects & added new heading
Digital humanities projects are scholarly and current. Reorganized and added new header to fiction/nonfiction works of postcolonial fiction as they were confusing. Anadeja (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Postcolonial Books
Hello, my name is Zoe! My partner Kim and I are currently in an MLIS program, and we are evaluating the postcolonialism Wikipedia page for our final project (in our digital humanities class). We noticed that the list of fiction and nonfiction works was getting a little long on this page, and thus we decided to create a new “List of postcolonial books” article (which currently does not include any of the articles or chapters in the non-fiction works section). We will also be adding works from the Postcolonial Literature page as well. The list also has some additional data, including nationality and geographic focus within the fiction section, and theme/topic in the nonfiction section. A draft of the page can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_postcolonial_books Kim and I are not postcolonialism scholars, and so we welcome and feedback or advice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoemayhook (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Latin America?
Though the relevancy is sometimes disputed with traditional postcolonial theory, would it make sense to add a section about Latin America under the application of postcolonial theory section? In compiling books for the postcolonial book list, I have noticed that Latin America comes up quite a bit, and it might make sense to provide some context in what postcolonial theorists are saying about including or excluding Latin America into their framework. I have started a draft below. Please note again that I am not a postcolonial scholar, and from compiling research, I acknowledge how vastly complicated this subject is. I don't want to over simplify the discussion, but rather would like to at least offer a starting point.

Latin America
Due to the varied meanings of the term “postcolonialism,” there is a dispute regarding the relevancy for postcolonial studies for Latin America, which has resulted in Latin America being excluded in early postcolonial discourse. When speaking about Latin American countries, the term "postcolonial" often refers to the political and economic conditions following the decolonization of the Americas in the nineteenth century. However, to provide context, Latin America largely gained its independence from European rule before many countries within African and Asia had even become colonized. Thus, Postcolonial theorists, such as Edward Saids, have excluded Latin America, believing that postcolonialism:

"...centers on British and French imperialism from the late nineteenth century to the present ; its geographical focus is limited to an area stretching from Algeria to India ; and the role of the United States is restricted to the post Second World War period, disregarding this nation's origin as a colonial settlement of Britain, Spain, and France, the processes of internal colonialism through which Native Americans were subjected within its territory, and its imperial designs in the Americas and elsewhere from the nineteenth century to the present."

Klor de Alva further argues that colonialism and postcolonialism are "(Latin) American mirages" and can only be applied to marginal indigenous populations, opposed to the major non-native core that has formed the largely European societies of the American territories since the sixteenth century.

Some scholars have also challenged the appropriateness of the term "colonialism" when referring to Latin America. In the early twentieth century, Marxist discourse would use the term "dependency theory" to describe Latin American social thought. However, in his book Postcolonialism: an historical introduction, Critical theorist Robert J. C. Young argues that transformations from the reconstruction of Latin American Marxism ideas "could be said to characterize postcolonial theory itself." According to Fernando Coronil, Young's book provides foundational importance for the role of postcolonialism in Latin America because it suggests renaming "postcolonialism" to "tricontinentalism." The term "Tricontinentalism' was named after the 1966 Tricontinental Conference of Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America that was held in Havana, and called for the deliberate joining of Latin America, Africa, and Asia in anti-colonial struggles . Following the conference, Tricontinental journal was established, which according to Young, provided the theoretical and political foundations for postcolonialism . Moreover, Young argues that " Postcolonialism was born with the Tricontinental."

Ireland
The section on Ireland should either be removed or balanced with reliable sources in accordance with NPOV policy.

First, the post-colonial view of Irish history is controversial and mainly promoted by literary critics rather than actual historians. Reliable sources say as much, dating back to the 1990s. A more recent review (2015) of the Oxford handbook of modern Irish history essentially turns up the same sentiment: that most historians still balk at this argument, that postcolonial theorists are predominately postmodern literary critics, and that historians have essentially moved on from this debate.

This section does not comply with Wiki policy on how information should be presented. Most readers have no clue that the sources used here are overwhelmingly literary scholars (Joe Cleary, an English professor; Deane and Gibbons, both literary critics etc) pushing an idea that most historians don't agree with.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put together a balanced version of that section with refs and post it here as a suggested improvement to the article for other editors to consider? That might be more productive. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't even know if I agree with including Ireland in this article. I was waiting for another editor to engage with this objection and then see what compromises can be reached. It isn't just this particular article either -the section here is essentially a blueprint for framing Ireland's historical relationship with Britain on related articles. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging who was the primary editor for that section, as she might be interested in discussing the issue with you.  Schazjmd   (talk)  22:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the section itself is reasonably well-written. It lists the arguments for and against regarding Ireland as postcolonial, a simply Google search throws up so many books about postcolonial views of Ireland that it would be bizarre to remove it altogether. And it is not abandoned by modern historians, as shown by, for example, John McLeod. (2000) or the Oxford Handbook of Irish politics (2020) Sheila1988 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does the section list the arguments against the postcolonial school? Granted, you've cited historians who object to this terminology and theory (Kennedy and Howe), but you misquote them (read Liam Kennedy's and Steven Howe's writings on this, specifically the sources used in this section).
 * If this were any other subject that weren't so politicized it'd be an easy call. The Oxford Handbook of modern Irish history (2015) cites Steven Howe and notes,
 * ""..the early writings about Ireland from a post-colonial perspective — mainly by literary scholars — which attracted considerable criticism from historians, have been superseded by ‘a fast-growing literature’, which pays attention to ‘complexity and nuance’.” (p.516)
 * The whole point of the Oxford Handbook is to assess the current state of a particular field, often highlighting new directions that research is trending in. An article published by McLeod is not more reliable than an Oxford Handbook assessment published 1.5 decades later, not when one is contradicted by the other. Nor is the Oxford Handbook of Irish politics a more relevant source than the Oxford Handbook of modern Irish history in a section that has everything to do with modern Irish history. This overreliance on English professors and political theorists - anybody but historians - is what's worrisome here and why I feel this section isn't neutral. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: McLeod's postcolonial book was published in 2010 - so only five years prior to the date on the Oxford handbook source. But the description for McLeod's book is exactly how other postcolonial works are typically described:
 * ''"Postcolonialism has become one of the most exciting, popular and stimulating fields of literary and cultural studies in recent years."
 * This does not give any indication that this book is a work of history. And I can find no evidence that McLeod is a historian. As one would expect, McLeod is associated with the School of English at Leeds. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This does not give any indication that this book is a work of history. And I can find no evidence that McLeod is a historian. As one would expect, McLeod is associated with the School of English at Leeds. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I opened a talk section on the NPOV noticeboard so any editors interested in discussing this issue should probably head there for more details and input.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC198
— Assignment last updated by Lbatesro (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Raphael Israeli
I’m concerned about the neutrality and representativeness of the sources in the "Middle East" section, particularly the references to the  "Is Jordan Palestine?" by Raphael Israeli (the same author as ‘Hatred, Lies, and Violence in the World of Islam’ and ‘Dangers of a Palestinian State’).

Raphael Israeli's viewpoints and the use of his work as a primary reference in this context does not align with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy [WP:NPOV], considering his controversial stances and they certainly have no place on an encyclopaedic page on Post-colonialism in the Middle East, of all places. It’s like citing a Boer as an authoritative source on South African apartheid. Even his own Wikipedia page states that “In 2017, Israeli published a book in Hebrew titled The Arab Minority in Israel, Open and Hidden Processes, in which he calls the Arab minority a "fifth column", who receive more from the state than they contribute and expresses regret that they are not confined to camps like Japanese Americans were in WWII”. Here he talks about solution to ‘The Palestinian problem’ and argues that “Israel should keep the heights of Judea and Samaria because without them the army cannot defend the country”, among other colonial rhetoric.

The cited article "Is Jordan Palestine?" is published in the ‘Israeli Affairs’ Journal and reads like an opinion piece, with only one citation throughout the entire article, and promotes a narrative of interchangeability and relocation within the Arab population. This is all notwithstanding that the article, as I’ve read it, has nothing to do with post colonialism whatever, which makes it even more baffling why it is cited here. I cannot overstate how absurd and ironic it is to cite an Islamophobic Zionist as an authoritative source in this context.

I had to write this post because my previous attempts at addressing this have all been reverted. Catofminerva (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)