![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is he deceased or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.56.31 ( talk) 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
It seems that subaltern studies has come under fire lately... would it be worth summarizing some of the critiques?
As founding members, it seems that their scholarship is at least as important as other historians with individual bio pages... 24.125.38.175 ( talk) 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) R.E.D. p.s. the SSG article is awfully shabby. Needs attention of an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.38.175 ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that only people who have edited and/or contributed to any of the SS volumes be listed as scholars associated with the group. The addition of Touraj Atabaki is absurd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.28.179 ( talk) 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Has Vijay Prashad contributed to any of the Subaltern Studies volumes? - Mohanbhan ( talk) 11:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there is problem with the title being Subaltern Studies and then the opening being about the Subaltern Studies Group. I think it might be best to relegate the group to a section. Any thoughts or should I just give it a go? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC))
Good point. I read the article with some confusion about whether there is an academic journal called Subaltern Studies (as suggested by the link I followed) or whether this is a scholars' group, or a group plus a movement. How about some historical narrative? — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is he deceased or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.56.31 ( talk) 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
It seems that subaltern studies has come under fire lately... would it be worth summarizing some of the critiques?
As founding members, it seems that their scholarship is at least as important as other historians with individual bio pages... 24.125.38.175 ( talk) 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) R.E.D. p.s. the SSG article is awfully shabby. Needs attention of an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.38.175 ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that only people who have edited and/or contributed to any of the SS volumes be listed as scholars associated with the group. The addition of Touraj Atabaki is absurd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.28.179 ( talk) 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Has Vijay Prashad contributed to any of the Subaltern Studies volumes? - Mohanbhan ( talk) 11:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there is problem with the title being Subaltern Studies and then the opening being about the Subaltern Studies Group. I think it might be best to relegate the group to a section. Any thoughts or should I just give it a go? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC))
Good point. I read the article with some confusion about whether there is an academic journal called Subaltern Studies (as suggested by the link I followed) or whether this is a scholars' group, or a group plus a movement. How about some historical narrative? — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)