Talk:Journal of Animal Ethics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Animal rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fellows

I don't see the issue of citing some fellows from the Journal of Animal Ethics website [1]. I cited the ones who have Wikipedia articles. If you look at many other Wikipedia articles for different journal they cite editors or fellows from the journals home-website. See for example Between the Species which cites its editors [2]. This is non-controversial. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing editors is not only non-controversial, but it is actually recommended because being editor of an established journal meets one of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. The case for fellows is much less clear. This is the first time I see a journal having "fellows" and their website does not really explain what role these people play. If they are a sort of editorial board then we most certainly don't list them unless there are independent sources documenting their importance for the journal. As an aside, it doesn't look like this journal meets either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG... The article on Between the Species is not a good example and needs some overhaul (see also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. This journal has 100 Consultant Editors [3], these are the same people listed as fellows. That is a bit odd. I agree the article needs to be expanded with better references. Throughthemind might know more about this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The journal attracted a lot of attention for its rules around language when it was founded. A search on Nexis shows articles in The Calgary Herald ("Talk to the animals, but be careful what you say"), Ottawa Citizen ("Beware of free-living companion"), Toronto Star ("Why your 'pet' looks peeved"), The Vancouver Sun ("Differentiated free-living beings deserve respect too, pet"); The Guardian ("G2: Pass notes No 2,967 Companion animals"); The National Post (the story mentions that it was front-page news, "Readers not ready to embrace animal rights; anti-Semitism still lurks"), and many more. (That gets me only half-way through the Nexis search results, picking out only broadsheets in articles that seem to be primarily about the journal.) And this had some lasting impact; here, for example, is a paper reflecting/drawing upon the conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]