Talk:Posthegemony

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gsoffer26, Cmellon4. Peer reviewers: StevenMadden.

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

2007-03-31 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I’ve expanded the article considerably, and hopefully removed the conflict of interest noted above. TODO: Someone knowledgable in International Relations should add a section discussing the use of the term "post-hegemony" in that field. GKantaris (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Critique: What Areas of Improvement I can Identify
Hey there! Speaking to the ones who are to be working on this article for the POL 150 course, I just wanted to mention what I thought would benefit the article. Of course, it is very possible that you already thought of the things I mention, so my apologies if this doesn't add much to what you are planning to do.

First of all, the lead in the article and the sections in the article do not have much correlation. As it is now, the lead talks about how the concept has different meanings in three different fields, but the article only elaborates on one of them. So I would recommend that there should be additional articles added that talk about the meaning of posthegemony in the other fields.

Second, I am not totally sure, but I don't think that the block quote in the "In Cultural Studies" section is something that Wikipedia would have a problem with. Just going off of the training courses, I think it would be best that the information given in that quote is broken down and put into ones own words rather than keeping it verbatim.

Finally, I think that there ought to be more view points on this concept of posthegemony expressed in the article. In the "Criticism" section, there is only one persons argument given. I think that there should be more criticism and more views that support the concept. StevenMadden (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement
The section "In cultural studies" contains a large quote. It might be better to try to paraphrase here, in the interest of brevity. The first sentence following the quote is rather complicated and hard to follow. It might be better to break it up or reword it so it is more easily understood. More information on supra- and infra-national forces might be useful for context. Wiki dude3542 (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"In political theory" section makes no sense
There is nothing in this section that makes sense- "post-hegemony reads social processes...". I removed a blog post reference, but I think the whole section should go unless a definition can be found. Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)