Talk:Orientalism (book)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SyyahB.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Token heading]

_{(The above heading was not present originally, but has been applied to make these comments appear below the TOC, in the usual way)}
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)

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)

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)

Vague

"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)mandelbot

Repetition

"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)mandelbot

Misquote?

"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)mandelbot

Initial Rewrite

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)).

Steps for the rewrite

Since this article needs an overhaul, I thought it would helpful if those who have read the book help make a list of topics that need covering.

Topics fo inclusion in the article

1. . Influences on Orientalism

-There needs to be some dicussion of his drawing on Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault for his theoritical basis.

I have addressed these concerns in the rewrite and included writers that Said drew from in history. Althusser and Foucault merely provided information and discussion around the term "discourse," which is defined elsewhere in Wikipedia and not relevant to Orientalism's encyclopedia page.

Is the synopsis appropriate?

I have addressed these concerns in my rewrite in November 2006. stan goldsmith 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently I deleted the synopsis of the book in this article on the grounds that it wasn't encyclopedic. Please note that I have not found any other Wikipedia articles which summarize a book page by page (or group of pages by group of pages) in the way that Orientalism (book) does. The style of the synopsis is so elliptical that I would find it hard to get much out of it unless I had the book itself at hand. However, the deletion was reverted on the grounds that synopses "are and always have been 'encyclopedic'." [1] I would like to submit these questions to the readers of this article:

1. Is the synopsis encyclopedic?
2. Is it useful?
3. Do any other Wikipedia articles about books include similar synopses? --Metropolitan90 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Saving the Synposis

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

Synopsis

Acknowledgments.

“[M]ost of this book was written during 1975-1976” at Stanford. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Noam Chomsky, and Roger Owen “followed this project from its beginning to its conclusion” (xi).

Epigraphs

Marx: “They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented” [given in the original German on p. 21]; Disraeli: “The East is a career” ([xiii]).

Preface to the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition [2003]

Dated “New York, May 2003.” [Said died on Sept. 24, 2003.] Expresses discouragement at continued problems in being understood, but affirms “faith in the ongoing and literally unending process of emancipation and enlightenment that, in my opinion, frames and gives direction to the intellectual vocation” (xv). Now translated into 36 languages (xv). Not only personal experience, but the “almost-utopian” American university played a role in the book’s existence (xvi). Rejects view that a "Clash of Civilizations" is occurring, despite Iraq war (xvii-xviii). Understanding of Arabs and Islam has not improved (xviii). Orientalism playing a role among neoconservatives (xix-xxi). Imperialism seems never to have ended (xxi-xxii). Orientalism intends “to use humanistic critique to open up the fields of struggle” (xxii). Said defends “humanism” (xxiii). Responsibility and importance of the humanistic intellectual, a tradition weakened by dilution of education; defense of reason (xxiii-xxvii). Attacks Rumsfeld, Perle, and Cheney as well as Arab anti-Americanism (xxvii-xxviii). Rejects reductionism; focus on individuals (xxviii-xxix). Praise for “the enormously encouraging democratic field of cyberspace” (xxix). “I would like to believe that Orientalism has had a place in the long and often interrupted road to human freedom” (xxx).

Introduction

I. A (“mainly, although not exclusively” [4])French and British tradition. “The Orient is an integral part of European material civilization and culture. Orientalism expresses and represents that part culturally and even ideologically as a mode of discourse with supporting institution, vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even colonial bureaucracies and colonial styles” (2). Meanings of Orientalism : (i) academic field (2); (ii) a “style of thought” based on the Orient/Occident distinction (2-3); (iii) the “corporate institution for dealing with the Orient” (with a bow to Foucault) (3-4). II. Like “the West,” “the Orient” is a man-made idea with a history and “a tradition of thought, imagery, and vocabulary that have given it reality and presence for the West” (5). Said is not interested in “the Orient” per se, i.e., with the question of the correspondence to reality, but in “the internal consistency of Orientalism” (5). It exists as part of “a relationship of power, of domination” (5). Orientalism should not be assumed to be a structure of lies and myths; it is rather a very strong “sign of European-Atlantic power over the Orient” (6). Gramsci’s distinction of cultural from political society (consent vs. direct domination); Orientalism is a form of “cultural hegemony” (6-7). Balancing the “general” and the “particular” (8-9). III. “Three aspects of my contemporary reality”: 1. “The distinction between pure and political knowledge”: All knowledge of the Orient is in some way “tinged and impressed with, violated by, the gross political fact” of imperial interest, resulting in a “distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic, scholarly, economic, sociological, historical, and philological texts,” though there is considerable intellectual resistance to this notion (9-15). 2. Methodology. Difficulty of beginning. Limits self to “the Anglo-French-American experience of the Arabs and Islam, which for almost a thousand years stood for the Orient” (17). Neglect of German scholarship a weakness (18-19). Methodological devices for studying authority: strategic location (author in text) and strategic formation (relations among texts) (20). Surface, exterior features the chief concern (20-21). Historical complexity (22). “[N]ever has there been a non-material form of Orientalism, much less something so innocent as an ‘idea’ of the Orient” (23). But Said asserts (pace Foucault) the influence of individual writers (23). This is a very incomplete account (24). Audiences: students of literature and culture; students of the Orient; general readers; third-world readers (24-25). Outline of the book (25). 3. The personal dimension. Since 1950s, East-West relations are in a turbulent period, complicated by anti-Arab and anti-Islamic prejudices, Zionism, and “the almost total absence of any cultural position making it possible” to consider Arabs and Islam “dispassionately” (26-27). Orientalism a “secret sharer” of Western anti-Semitism (27). Hopes to stimulate “a new kind of dealing with the Orient,” even the elimination of the “Orient” and the “Occident” altogether (28).

Chapter 1: The Scope of Orientalism

I. Knowing the Oriental

Analysis of knowledge and power in Arthur James Balfour’s June 13, 1910, address to Parliament on Egypt (31-36). Evelyn Baring, Lord Cromer’s January 1908 essay in the Edinburgh Review on the character of Orientals (36-39). These views are not rationalizations of occupation, since they existed in advance of occupation (39). The Oriental is “contained and represented by dominating frameworks” (40). Western dominance was the context in which Orientalism developed (41-42). Napoleon’s 1798 invasion of Egypt set the keynote for the relationship (42-43). An Orientalist “Establishment” developed in the 19th century (43). But it existed by virtue of “a political vision of reality” (43-45). The “main intellectual issue raised by Orientalism: can one divide human reality, as indeed human reality seems to be genuinely divided, into clearly different cultures, histories, traditions, societies, even races, and survive the consequences humanly?” i.e. is there “any way of avoiding the hostility expressed by the division”? (45). Kissinger as contemporary illustration (46-48). A 1972 essay by Harold W. Glidden on Arab mentality (48-49).

II. Imaginative Geography and Its Representations: Orientalizing the Oriental

Application of Bachelardian “poetics of space” to representations of Islam up to 1700 (49-73). “[I]t is finally Western ignorance which becomes more refined and complex, not some body of positive Western knowledge” (62). “Philosophically . . . Orientalism very generally is a form of radical realism . . . Rhetorically speaking, Orientalism is absolutely anatomical and enumerative . .&nbnsp;. Psychologically, Orientalism is a form of paranoia” (72).

III. Projects

Operational successes of Orientalism (which demonstrate that “in general it was the West that moved upon the East, not vice versa” [73]). Islam as “provocation” (74). Anquetil-Duperron, 1759 translation of the Avesta & 1786 translation of the Upanishads (76-77). William Jones goes to India, 1783 (77-79). Napoleon’s 1798 expedition (79-83). The Description de l’Égypte (23 vols., 1809-1823) (83-88). Ferdinand de Lesseps; the Suez Canal as an expression of Orientalism (88-92).

IV. Crisis

The “textual attitude” (reliance on texts to guide real relations) (92-94). Oriental silence as a consequence of this attitude and of the West’s will to power over the Orient) (94-95). Imperial domination a “preposterous transition” (96). Anwar Abdel Malek’s 1963 characterization of the essentialism of relations to the Orient (97). Schlegel’s racism (98-99). Disenchantment with the actual places when visited (100-01). Preconceptions, stereotypes (101-04). Crisis in Orientalism as political challenges emerge (104). Essentializing Islam to “tent and tribe” as a response (105). Satirical, polemical description of attitudes toward Orient (106-10).

Chapter 2: Orientalist Structures and Restructures

I: Redrawn Frontiers, Redefined Issues, Secularized Religion

Application of M.H. Abrams’s Natural Supernaturalism to Orientalism: “the essential aspects of modern Orientalist theory and praxis . . . can be understood . . . as a set of structures inherited from the past, secularized, redisposed, and reformed by such disciplines as philology, which in turn were naturalized, modernized, and laicized substitutes for (or versions of) Christian supernaturalism” (122)

II: Silvestre de Sacy and Ernest Renan: Rational Anthropology and Philological Laboratory

Silvestre de Sacy (1757-1838), first president of the Société asiatique and producer of texts and a scholarly practice (123-30). Ernest Renan (1823-1892) is presented as “a type of cultural and intellectual praxis” and in very aggressive pages accused of racist aims for his ethnocentric philology (130-148).

III. Oriental Residence and Scholarship: The Requirements of Lexicography and Imagination

Comparative treatments of the Orient that support race prejudice even if they are not inspired by it. Caussin de Perceval (151-52). Carlyle (152). Marx (153-55). Types of experiences of visiting the Orient: gathering material for science (Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians); gathering material for writing (Burton, Pilgrimage to al-Madinah and Meccah); some personal project (Nerval, Voyage en Orient). Lane (158-66).

IV. Pilgrims and Pilgrimages, British and French

The Oriental experience as unsettling, threatening (166-67). Reflections on pilgrimage (168-69). French pilgrims experience “a sense of acute loss” because of the absence of a French presence in the Orient (169-71). Chateaubriand (171-76). Lamartine’s “imperialist Voyage” (176-79). Nerval and Flaubert (179-80). Nerval (181-84). Flaubert’s “eminently corporeal,” sexualized Orient (184-90). English writers have a less fantastic notion of the Orient because they “confront a set of imposing resistances” (192-93). Kinglake’s Eothen (1844) (193-94). Burton wins high praise for actually learning something about the Orient, but is still full of “a sense of assertion and domination” (194-97).

Chapter 3: Orientalism Now

I. Latent and Manifest Orientalism

Pause to take stock; Westerners’ “sense of confrontation” in dealing with “the East” (201-04). “My contention is that Orientalism is fundamentally a political doctrine willed over the Orient because the Orient was weaker than the West, which elided the Orient’s difference with its weakness. . . . As a cultural apparatus Orientalism is all aggression, activity, judgment, will-to-truth, and knowledge” (204). Argues for the constancy of “an almost unconscious” latent Orientalism underlying the various changes in manifest Orientalism (206). Latent Orientalism is macho, takes the Orient’s weakness for granted (206-10). The administrators’ perspective: Cromer & Curzon (210-15). Geography becomes a key discipline (215-20). “Britain was in Egypt and Mesopotamia . . . France, on the other hand, seemed fated to hover over the Orient” (220). Orientalism “delivered” the Orient to the West in the early 20th century (221-23). The expert; British and French national differences (223-25).

II. Style, Expertise, Vision: Orientalism’s Worldliness

Creation of the notion of the White Man; race consciousness develops (226-33). Modern orientalism takes as its cornerstone the identification of present and origin (as in Jews and Muslims): the notion of arrested development (233-37). “Out of such a coercive framework . . . the work of the great twentieth-century Oriental experts derived” (237). The Orientalist as Western agent: T.E. Lawrence (237-43). Maurice Barrès (243-46). An instrumental attitude develops; Asia is regarded as a threat (246-54).

III. Modern Anglo-French Orientalism in Fullest Flower

Until World War I, the Orientalist was thought to be a generalist (255-57). Auerbach as illustration (258-61). Orientalism is intellectually backward (261). H.A.R. Gibb & Louis Massignon as representative types; their conceptions of Islam analyzed (263-84). Said, a postmodernist, is skeptical about representation itself: “the real issue is whether indeed there can be a true representation of anything” (272). “My whole point about this system is not that it is a misrepresentation of some Oriental essence — in which I do not for a moment believe — but that it operates as representations usually do, for a purpose, according to a tendency, in a specific historical, intellectual, and even economic setting” (273).

IV. The Latest Phase

Emergence of “the Arab Muslim” as “a figure in American popular culture” in the post-WWII period (284). Popular images (285-87). Social science representations (288-93). U.S. Orientalism (293-300). The “Middle East studies establishment” (301-02). The Cambridge History of Islam, summum of orthodox Orientalism (1970) (302-050. Twentieth-century persistence of the myth of Islam (306-12). P.J. Vatikiotis, ed., Revolution in the Middle East and Other Case Studies (1972). Anti-Bernard Lewis polemic (314-20). The use of Orientalism in policy jargon (321-24). What is the alternative to Orientalism? (325). “How does one represent other cultures? What is another culture?” (325). Orientalism a “failure”; call for work “promoting human community” instead (328).

Afterword [1994]

I. Orientalism’s gestation and then doubtful future (329). Translated into French, Arabic, Japanese, German, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Catalan, Turkish, Serbo-Croatian, and Swedish; Greek, Russian, Norwegian, and Chinese translations are underway (329-30). “Orientalism now seems to me a collective book” (330). Said rejects the caricatures according to which the book is anti-Western or pro-Islamist; by being essentialist they miss the point entirely (330-34). The image of a mythic Orientalism doing battle with the powerful is popular (335-37). Said a critic of “a gloating and uncritical nationalism” (337-38). Problems with Arab reception of work (338-39). Charges of “‘residual’ humanism” (339-40). Bernard Lewis (341-45). II. The current situation (346). Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” is preposterous and is linked to U.S. policymakers (347-48). Post-modernism and post-colonialism as two important “broad currents” deserving the attention of all (348-51).

Minor fixes

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)

POV

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)

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)

Recent Deletions

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)

Orientalism the film

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))

Opening Paragraph

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)

Extensive NPOV issues

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)

Lead

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)

External links modified

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 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

My changes

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Intro changes

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

Eliminating anti-intellectual pov-pushing

Orientalism book

I'm not sure what "POV-pushing revision" is, but I'm pretty sure my reversion of your repeated edits to a long-standing article text is not it. Please read WP:BRD (and WP:AGF) and raise the issue on the article's talk page to get a consensus from other editors rather than attempting to push through changes against the opinion of the rest of the community. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A reply to Brigade Piron

Thanks for communicating with me, but we both know whereof I speak, your version is POV-pushing, because of the continual use of "Said said" and "Said claims", which are anti-intellectual tactics to discredit a person or a subject through de-legitimation, i.e. Orientalism is just the opinion of Said. As you know, this field of intellectual enquiry is A Thing in the real world, which is taught at universities, so, therefore, your claim is false, Brigade Piron. Your pretending not to know what POV-PUSHING means proves my point, after all, you, Brigade Piron, can speak only for yourself, and not for "the uninitiated reader", so, please, do not be a page owner. I shall work with you.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop I really suggest you read WP:AGF. It just so happens that I have made almost no edits to this page and am certainly not responsible for writing the long-standing prose you dislike - as you would know if you had bothered to read the page contribution history. I also note that you have pushed forwards with the same edit for a third time which is WP:EDITWAR territory. I see that you were recently warned against "harassing other editors" and "personal attacks" by Cullen328 as admin and not for the first time. Shall we try to discuss this constructively with the input of other users?

My objection to your edits is simply that they do not make the article easier to follow and do not add noticeably to what was already there. Speaking personally, I find your claim that attributing an idea to Said is "de-legitimation" frankly bizarre. Orientalism is not "a thing in the real world" but an intellectual hypothesis which has been the subject of much debate and tracing its lineage is hardly an unreasonable ask in an article like this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the reply, Brigade Piron, but you are not the subject of my corrections, and talking past me is bad faith, because my changes are about removing "scare quotes" that tell the reader "This isn't true!" and the tendentious repetition of "he said" and "he claims"; you are defending pov-pushing, not tracing the lineage of a subject, which is done in the Overview section. The conclusion of the article "Saïd created new academic fields" contradicts your statements that this subject is just an opinion; sure, but only in Wikipedia, because, again, the following editions exist . . . because Orientalism is "not Truth" in the real world?

Moreover, reverting an editor while he is contributing is the work of a page owner, Brigade Piron. You are further contradicted by the fact that Orientalism is taught at universities, as stated in the article proper, especially when Orientalists complain about Saïd’s having broken their rice bowl. Which is the true fact? Your opinion that this is an hypothesis or the facts taught at universities, based upon the work of Edward Saïd?

Thanks for cheating, Brigade Piron; thanks for demonstrating bad faith by citing the rules and going off-topic, in order to win an edit war that only You mentioned; my editorial intent is stated; and canvassing is cheating. Don't the facts support your contentions? Let me know, and, please, stay on topic. I don't understand what you fear. Why bring up your edit-war troll friends?

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see how I can respond to this. I have not been canvassing. In fact, to my knowledge I have had no past interaction of any kind with Just plain Bill who you seem to have had in mind as one of my "edit-war troll friends". Your continued personal attacks are clearly unhelpful to keeping the discussion "on topic" as you claim to want. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Soft Censorship!

Following paragraph has been soft censored for obvious reasons. Prof.Najaf Haider, an academic Professor and History researcher of repute, from a reputed uiniversity, from which platform he expresses, how and why should it matter other than reason of being inconvenient speech.

Actually I was about to request some one to help in copy edit before that in seconds some one reverted it. Any ways censored edit dif is as below

In a 2018 lecture addressed to Indian History Summit, Prof. Najaf Haider while admitting that Edward Said's book 'Orientalism' being popular among a section of people, he took strong exception saying that in spite there are draw backs and weaknesses or may be even intentions to control east on part of few westerners, to which researcher keep fine tuning; Still in a world of professional research, to talk of 'insider outsider debate is kind of an artificial divide between 'us the better equipped Muslims versus the ill equipped non Muslims to understand religion and politics or to put all non Muslim critique in one basket is not only redundant (thought) used as a tool to avoid critique but also great disservice to knowledge by turning entire landscape into a flat land.

Irrespective of whether above paragraph gets space in this article (that what I wish) I request copy edit support since I wish to use the same in discussions on Wikipedia. (I don't know if realization of inconvenience it would cause, may have been one of the reason of censoring it) Any ways I will keep quoting this during discussions wherever whenever appropriate. So requesting copy edit support from those who do not support censorship. Bookku (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Hello Bookku. I was the one reverting your recent edit to this article. I reverted it for three reasons (one of which I wrote in my revert summary, and which you have not adressed) and not for "soft censor[ship] for obvious reasons" - please assume good faith! I didn't lay out all my reasons in the edit summary, so here you go: (1) your source is YouTube, which is generally not a reliable source. Exceptions may apply and I am happy to be shown this is the case here. (2) However, the video you inked is a WP:Primary source, it is far better to link either to a influential peer-reviewed paper by the author in question or to a secondary source reviewing the contributions of the author. (3) I am sorry to say, but the grammar and syntax are not very good, in fact I am having a hard time understanding the sentence - there are also missing quotes etc.

I stress I have absolutely nothing against the content of your inclusion, but you will need to tidy these three points up - I am happy to help with the grammar, but I think you will need a better source than the youtube video. If the author is as influential as you claim, I am sure you will find a published paper covering his view!

All the best --Mvbaron (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd echo Mvbaron's comments. YouTube is generally considered unreliable as a source, see WP:RSPYT, and better ones are certainly available in this context. I think there is certainly scope for an article on Criticism of Orientalism (book) though, especially since the sheer volume of coverage has probably made that notable in its own right! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Other soft censorship of Criticism

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):

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."

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)

Bookku, 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)