Talk:Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales

Titles, contributors
Hi I wanted to touch base as I see we have different senses of which editorial contributors should be listed on this entry and how their titles should be stated. Two main issues I note; let me know if you see any others. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Titles. I see you've added "editor-in-chief" into the entry twice now, but that is not the title the journal uses: http://www.arss.fr/ours-2/ If their site were only in French, I could see the argument for standardizing the titles but since they have chosen a different title in English, it seems to me we should not overrule their choice.
 * 2) Contributors. I understand of course that Wikipedia is not a directory; thanks additionally for the link to the information that "full editorial boards should be left out of articles." In light of that instruction, what I included in my most recent version was not the full listing but instead a selection of particularly notable editors. In the social sciences these editors are an important signal of the journal's methodological priorities; since the information is verifiable, I think it's to the readers' detriment not to provide them with these examples of which intellectuals the journal aligns itself with, most especially when we have so many good BLPs on the contributors. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a bureaucracy, and it's my view that the encyclopedia is not served by deleting material that is both verifiable and relevant context.
 * My answers in order: 1/ The correct English job indication for a "chief editor" is "editor-in-chief", I don't see why that should be a problem. 2/ You aptly illustrate the problem with your approach. "A selection of particularly notable editors". Selected by who? Any source that says "John Doe is a member of the editorial board and influenced the journal in this and this way"? As we all know, being a member of an editorial board is mostly an honorary job. We only include board members in articles if we have independent sources that document their actual involvement with the journal. The only example that comes to mind is one where a board member resigned in protest to something a journal did, which does not seem to be the case here. Listings of boards belong on the website of the journal, they are not encyclopedic information. Without sources, this is inadmissible original research. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it does not explain.


 * 1) You have not explained why it's acceptable for a Wikipedia editor to substitute a term of Wikipedian's own choosing for the one the subject itself uses. This seems plainly orthogonal to WP:NPOV, WP:V.
 * 2) I simply don't agree that "we all know" being on an editorial board is necessarily "only honorary"; additionally, I wouldn't even agree that even when it is honorary, that means it's not encyclopedic information. As I say above, at least in the social sciences, the composition of the editorial board makes a significant statement about the journal's intellectual orientation, in much the same way that thinktanks giving honorary fellowships to notable politicians signals their commitments. Moreover, if I can borrow your phrase, your example aptly illustrates the problem with your approach. If an editor resigning in protest can make the news, it's because merely having a name attached can mean something in the first place. It is not trivia. If you were making the case that this info should not be included because it is in some way unreliable, that would be a different issue. But I don't think either of us are worried about that. I think these deletions have needlessly eliminated verified information that could be useful to readers. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try again. 1/ The job title of the most important editor of a journal is "editor-in-chief". We use this job title for every single journal that we have an article on. (Of course, with the thousands of articles on journals that we have, I'm sure you'll be able to find some exceptions: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It's a minor issue, if you really think this makes any difference, go ahead and change it, as long as there is a wikilink to editor-in-chief. 2/ Some of this information might be encyclopedic if there would be independent sources for it. As it stands, we have your interpretation of who the more important editorial board members are, your interpretation of what their stance in the field is, your interpretation what the journal's stance in the field is, and your interpretation whether this matches or not. If you have independent reliable sources about the influence of a person on the journal, that is admissible content. As it is, not even the journal itself talks about it (not that such would be an admissible source, either, as it would not be independent). --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree, among others reasons on the basis of WP:NNC and WP:PRIMARY. If the entry included the sentence "the most important editorial board members are ...", for sure, that would need a secondary source presenting that analysis. It never said that. (It also never said: my interpretation of their stance in the field, my interpretation of the journal's stance in the field, etc.) It gave examples of editorial board members, and those were adequately sourced. All that said. This discussion doesn't seem to be advancing toward consensus on this aspect of the entry, so I'm going to take my leave and go work on other things: I think I've said my piece here. Hopefully others will take an interest at some point and provide more input. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the talk page archives of the WPJournals project. This discussion has been had many times over. There's a broad consensus, reflected in WP:JWG. --Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid consulting those archives only affirms that there are many people who share my view (and many that share yours), rather than there being a clear consensus. This makes some sense as WP:JWG is an essay and not necessarily consensus, and I continue to think the two of us won't sort it out, so I wish you happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)