Talk:Posthegemony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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)

2007-03-31 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Critique: What Areas of Improvement I can Identify[edit]

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[edit]

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)