Talk:Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland

Untitled

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

Consensus

Since there appear to be no consensus issues surrounding the article I have removed the associated tag. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Publications

http://books.google.com/books?id=vwRp8-H9NxsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=qaJSAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5J6gAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=saJDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=MwABAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL14040455M/Miscellaneous_papers_relating_to_Indo-China_and_the_Indian_Archipelago

https://archive.org/details/s1miscellaneousp02leyduoft

http://books.google.com/books/about/Miscellaneous_Papers_Relating_to_Indo_Ch.html?id=l1AdAAAAMAAJ

http://books.google.com/books/about/Miscellaneous_Papers_Relating_to_Indo_Ch.html?id=b5soAAAAYAAJ

http://books.google.com/books?id=utZMAAAAYAAJ

http://books.google.com/books?id=TgkYAAAAYAAJ

http://www.forgottenbooks.com/books/Miscellaneous_Papers_Relating_to_Indo-China_and_the_Indian_1000143440

Entitlement of Fellows to use post-nominal letters FRAS

There seemed to be lack of clarity regarding whether elected Fellows are entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRAS since they do not appear in the Society's published bye-laws. As a Fellow of the RAS, I have received clarification from the Executive Officer of the Society in an email on 18 May 2021 that Fellows are indeed entitled to use FRAS post-nominals. This is a much better source of authority than the old lists of peerages etc currently cited which demonstrate historical usage but not entitlement to that usage. I am not sure how this can best be referenced in the article.

Unfortunately it cannot be, as it would be original research. If there is an entitlement, as opposed to a customary use (which is what the current sources show) this needs to be published rather than written in a private letter. Normally, such an entitlement, regarding a chartered body, is given in the statutes, public regulations, etc. of the society in question (i.e. the Byelaws and Standing Orders in this case); indeed if it is not in the society's rules, it's hard to see under what rules such an entitlement would exist. Robminchin (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If they weren't entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRAS, there would be no reason for the society's publications (some cited in this article) to list individuals WITH said post-nominal letters. Stands to reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.233.106 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)