Talk:PhiloSOPHIA

Reverting

Headbomb, you seem to have taken control of this article. I didn't know you were familiar with feminist philosophy.

Re: the red links, it's not a good idea to create red borderline BLP links. See REDNOT: "A red link to a person's name should be avoided ..." These are, at best, borderline notable. One of them has been involved in a contentious issue that would become a BLP1E/balance issue.

As for red-linking Julkaisufoorumi, note the guideline: "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created." SarahSV ^(talk) 04:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Julkaisufoorumi is quite likely to be created. Restored. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Advisory board

Two editors, Hypatiagal and myself, have added the advisory board, but Headbomb has removed it four times, on the grounds that they're not involved much in the journal's business. I don't know how he can know this. With a small journal like this, they're involved as advisors, authors and probably friends, so I'd like to restore it. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Restored this content as there is evidently no agreement to remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, thanks for restoring it. It may need to be updated because it's from 2014. There is another page here on their website with a longer advisory board, but that may be for the Society for Continental Feminism, which seems to run the journal. They both seem to operate as philoSOPHIA, but I'm not sure about that. I may email one of them and ask which list applies to the journal. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed, there is zero reasons to include the editorial board on this journal, when we never include it in any other journal. See WP:JWG and several past discussions at [WT:JOURNALS]. Exceptions are made when the advisory board is discussed in reliable sources, not when individual members are discussed in matters unrelated to their activities at the journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have pinged WT:JOURNALS for additional comments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb notes that it is WP:JWG to leave out editorial boards, etc. But note that the entries on the journals Contemporary Pragmatism and Philosophia_Reformata include theirs. I haven't checked every single journal, but clearly the guidelines are not being followed universally. Hypatiagal (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator and Hypatiagal, I've found the up-to-date list here.

Headbomb has removed the names yet again. H, you've argued that the article be deleted, implied that it's a special snowflake, [1] and removed the names five times since 31 May. [2][3][4][5][6] The page you're relying on, WP:JWG, is just an essay. The advisors are involved with the society that runs the journal (one is the founder), so there's no reason not to mention them. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

A point of order, I have not argued the article should be deleted. I have simply commented I failed to see how the then-current arguments and sources for non-deletion were based in policy/guidelines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The names might not be worth mentioning if the people concerned were unheard of, but they are certainly worth including considering that they include well-known people (eg, Judith Butler). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm removing the names, per longstanding agreement in the Academic Journals WikiProject. Almost invariably, being a member of an editorial board is something honorary and board members rarely have any influence on how a journal is run. For that reason, we only include them if there are independent reliable sources documenting that these people actually had any influence of the journal. Hypatiagal, your argument concerning other journal articles is what we call here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (less reverently also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Instead of fighting about the board, it would be better to concentrate on showing that this journal is notable, because at this pointit is not really clear that this meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty, first, did Headbomb ask you to come here? WikiProjects can't control articles via essays. This article is part of the philosophy and the feminism WikiProjects too.

Also, would you please clean up after your edit? You've left that two of the members, by surname only, joined the board in 2017, without giving their full names, mentioning who the others are or which board you're referring to. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the ping pn the talk page of the WikiProject that Headbomb mnetioned above. --Randykitty (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, corrected. Also, I just see this has been at AfD. How on Earth did this ever get kept? There's no indication whatsoever of any notability... --Randykitty (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Users in favor of including the advisory board are SlimVirgin, myself, and Hypatiagal. Users opposed are Headbomb and Randykitty. Is that an accurate summary of the situation? It seems to be three against two at this point, which is hardly a consensus for removal. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This issue has been debated time and again and the conclusion has always been that inclusion is only warranted if there are independent sources documenting contributions of board members to a journal. Some of those discussion were linked to on the talk page of the Academic Journals WikiProject. Such a broad consensus cannot be overturned by a limited local discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, consensus at an article talk page dictates the content of the article, unless BLP issues, or copyright, or something similar over-rides it. Three users in favor of including the advisory board versus two against is not a good basis for excluding the information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty, would you please clarify your wording in your comment above about "this" ever getting kept and "no indication whatsoever of any notability"? Are you referriing to the journal itself or the advisory board? If the former, then the fourth external link could be used to document that this is a highly respected academic journal. As for the advisory board's role, I just found a document showing that it helps choose the next set of editors. A search in now ongoing. http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/philoSOPHIA%20call%20for%20new%20editors.pdf I think this is sufficient evidence that the advisory board plays a real role on the journal. Hypatiagal (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Randykitty is continuing to undo inclusion of the advisory board despite evidence now that it is in fact involved in the running of the journal. I see no evidence that he/they is acting in good faith here. If lack of evidence of the board's involvement was the reason to exclude it, then actual evidence should be sufficient to include it. Or is there some other hidden rationale at work? Would you please make your logic clear? Hypatiagal (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hypatiagal, "this" refers to the article. I don't see any evidence at all that this meets any of our inclusion criteria and the comments at the AfD did not get beyond WP:ILIKEIT. As for the source that you give for the role of the advisory board, that is not an independent source, but something published by the journal itself and therefore not suitable for our purposes here. To include this kind of information, you need a source that is independent of the journal. As for your wholesale reversion of the edits I performed earlier, I reverted them back. Please look at the documentation of the infobox before adding stuff like "peer-reviewed = yes". Also, academic ranks of persons can be mentioned in their biographies, but are generally irrelevant to academic journal articles. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's just settle once and for all, as is clear if you go back to the archive here, that this journal meets the inclusion criteria. For one, the journal Hypatia listed the journal philoSOPHIA as a good place to publish feminist philosophy. So please stop raising the non-issue. http://hypatiaphilosophy.org/Editorial/wheretopublishfeministphilosophy.html If you raise this issue again, it will seem to any observer that you are not acting in good faith. And as for the source I gave for the role of the advisory board, that is from SUNY Press, the publisher, not from the editorial team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypatiagal (talk • contribs)

1/ Inclusion in a list like that most certainly does not establish notability. 2/ Please comment on the issues and refrain from making unfounded aspersions about another editor's motives. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Break

Randykitty, we're trying to write an article. We added the advisory board, and I added a note underneath about the two latest additions to it, and was about to expand that to write about their latest articles, in which one of them questions the very basis of the society and the journal (or seems to; I'm still reading the source).

I can't write that without the continuity. I can't show that it's odd for a new board member to hold that view when I'm not "allowed" to say who the board members are! Please allow the article to be developed. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That the list is from the publisher is just as promotional a source as from the board itself. But it's not the source that's the real problem. One of the reason of having notable people on an editorial board is to make journals seem important-- but this is pretty much the definition of promotionalism--usually promotionalism by the journal, but sometimes, as I suspect here, also promotional efforts by the members of board to actively help the journal--they are using their name recognition to advertise it. This sort of promotionalism is routine practice in the academic world; in WP, its the sort of routine promotionalism we always remove. . We remove mere memberships in a board of editors from a bio of an academic also. It does not indicate significance; it's a very minor honor, and part of the culture of mutual inflation of everyone's CVs. (and I note the promotional use of reference 9 in the article-- a very important cause, appropriate for the person's bio article, and for an article on the actual subject involved, but not for every article on something she's connected with.) As an admin, one has the responsibility to remove spam. If I deliberately failed to do it in a comparable case that would be abusing the admin power. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, had I noticed the AfD, I would have said keep. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Spam"? What a miserable place Wikipedia has become.

The "promotional use of reference 9": Reference 9 is there to show that she's "formerly of Goldsmiths, University of London".

If you want to introduce a guideline that advisory boards must never be included unless independent sources write about them (about every single member?), please go ahead. That will ensure that only the most prominent journals get to have theirs listed, which will be the journals in which the advisory board really is pointless.

At the moment, there is no such guideline, and we're discussing this journal, which is much loved and which produces interesting, high-quality work, including from members of its advisory board, who I'm quite sure are involved in steering the course of the journal and the society that founded it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Then just produce independent, reliable sources that confirm all this and we'll be done. And we apply the same criteria to the "most prominent journals", too. Indeed, I am not aware of any of those having the whole board included. There have been cases where the whole editorial board of a journal resigned for one reason or another. Not even in those cases do we list the names of all board members and only the person taking the lead may be (but not necessarily is) mentioned. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much what RK & DGG said. I've removed the section per consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb removed the section, yes, but not by anything recognizable as consensus. Hypatiagal (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding inclusion of advisory board

There is currently a dispute about whether or not the advisory board of this journal should be included in the article. Although some editors have pointed out that there is a long-standing convention against including advisory boards in journal articles (since they are often seen as promotional), other editors have argued that the advisory board for PhiloSOPHIA are actively involved in the journal (for example, by [http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/philoSOPHIA%20call%20for%20new%20editors.pdf appointing new editors) and thus warrant being mentioned. I would especially like to hear the opinions of editors that haven't already been involved in this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See also

Hypatiagal, it's a minor point, but continental philosophy is already linked in the article. I added analytic philosophy in contrast. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)