Talk:Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
I originally wrote this as a means of drawing attention to the Society, of which I am a fellow. As a fellow I am naturally rather fond of the Society, consequently despite attempts at academic impartiality the article is - no doubt - generally favorable. In an attempt to be as impartial as possible I will mention the criticisms, of which I am aware, that have been leveled at the RAS, and more specifically the journal. These fall into two specific categories. Firstly that the Society's mandate is too general to be useful in an era of increased specialization. And secondly that it is guilty of propagating ‘orientalist’ stereotypes – the RAS is in fact mentioned a few times by Said in his Orientalism. I will not personally attempt to answer these criticisms, as my bias would be an overwhelming handicap. Clearly however these criticisms have not deterred the hundreds of academics, diplomats, professionals, and interested armatures, who belong to the Society, nor the dozens of academic libraries which subscribe to the Journal. I would be very pleased if someone would like to expand on any of the themes that I have introduced here – especially if you disagree with me! Finally thanks to the people who tidied up my original effort in order to bring it into ‘wiki’ specifications.
Kris Radford, Victoria BC
I believe that Kris Radford's original article, with subsequent amendments/editing, is a rather good effort and doesnt really need much more addition. It is quite suitable as I see it from the Wikipedia perspectives and the references and citations given are ample and very good. I dont think this really needs to be marked as 'lacking verifiable sources/references' because all the sources given are imminently verifiable. As to the concerns and themes rasied by the author above, I think perhaps these can even simply be discussed or placed in a footnote or briefly mentioned in the Reflist. The RAS is a very well known and highly respected body indeed and there seems to me to be no doubt as to its credentials. ====Khani100
I have requested consensus on this article as I feel that there's no need to tag this needlessly for more references/citations, which are quite adequate and the Royal Asiatic Society isnt an unknown body, much of this information is common knowledge and available generally from the RAS itself. Also, as already explained above, this article isnt the forum for a scholarly argument or dissertation on criticisms levelled at the RAS. A brief mention in a footnote, or in the main text (with the adequate refs/citations also given therein) would probably suffice. I would strongly urge that the article be allowed to stand as it is, basically, thanks. ====Khani100
Indeed, as the Society's present, global and distinguished membership seems to indicate, at this time, that there is a general worldwide acceptance and respect for the RAS and its work and people are continuing to add/contribute to its preceedings, at various levels. ====Khani100
Since there appear to be no consensus issues surrounding the article I have removed the associated tag. talk 11:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)