Talk:Organization & Environment

Untitled
I have removed a block of text that I copied from the website wholesale and think this should clear the problem up. let me know, please.

Estately (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice
Yes, but now write the article properly: Based on what is generally accepted here, an article about a journal should also  contain:


 * 1) Fulll titles, earlier titles used, and the corresponding dates. Make cross references from any variant titles.
 * 2) publishing & sponsoring body, as well as earlier publishers & sponsors
 * 3) no. of articles published a year
 * 4) ISSNs for both print and online versions
 * 5) Online availability of current and earlier issues
 * 6) Open access availability, if relevant.
 * 7) Circulation (sourced somewhere--default place to get it is Ulrichs)
 * 8) coverage in major standard indexes, inclding particularly Scopus and Web of Science (Science Citation Index)
 * 9) latest year's impact factor if available, and rank in the JCR subject field(s). Include the year so it can be updated.
 * 10) any actual references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.
 * 11) a list of the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Web of Science.
 * 12) External links to the journal's main web site, and, if relevant, the main website of the sponsoring body.

It should not contain
 * 1) General information listing all the fields covered, unless it is not obvious from the title
 * 2) Statements of praise for the journal -- see WP:PEACOCK
 * 3) A list of those on the editorial board
 * 4) names of the staff, except editors in chief; subordinate or section editors should not usually be listed.
 * 5) Information about subscription prices
 * 6) Information about how to submit articles
 * 7) Links to the publisher's general website, or to subpages within the journal's site.
 * and, most important, it must contain no text from the web page description of the journal. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be rewritten. Even if you are prepared to donate copyright according to WP:DCM, it is likely to be unsuitably promotional.

Please read  our FAQ  about  organisations, and articles like this, and for more specific information our  WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. As it specifies there, the best way to start is by using   the infobox journal template; but also convert the information there  to prose.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
This article duplicates Organization & Environment (journal). I would suggest merging the two articles. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have merged material from this article to the other one. This one can be deleted now. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the better (because simpler) title. I have merged everything here and redirected the other article here, too. It cannot be deleted, because our CC license requires that the history be maintained. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Editorial transition
Hello DASonnenfeld, can you please explain why a citation is required after every sentence of the two paragraphs recently inserted about editorial transition? The citations at the end of each paragraph cover all the sentences therein so I don't see what the problem is. Further, questioning the neutrality of the article is not appropriate given that the citations support the precise verbiage used on the page. --Jamil (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamil, Given the controversial nature of the transition and the strong charges made in the Monthly Review editorial that is the source of this information, I believe it would strengthen this section to provide additional and independent evidence of these statements. As for NPOV ("Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."), I think it's fair to raise the question with respect to this topic. On both of these points, other editors may have additional comments and suggestions. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DASonnenfeld, I made several changes: rewrote it from a neutral standpoint, included additional citations, and clarified several points. Given that the neither SAGE nor GRONEN has replied publicly, it should not be considered as "taking sides". What do you mean by "other editors"? Here or at the journal? Jamil (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamil, Thanks for your contributions. I was referring to other editors at Wikipedia. One challenge as this develops is maintaining appropriate balance (see WP:WEIGHT). DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DASonnenfeld, I think it remains to be seen whether this is a "minority" or "majority" viewpoint, which is what you seem to be implying may be the issue. (Unless "majority" is held to be consonant with "power.") I know you are in this field but you seem to be wearing your "wiki" hat here, so why don't you simply resolve the issue by adding a new section called "Response to the controversy" and put in a placeholder stating that contributors are monitoring events, etc. The thing is, the research that I've done appears to support the contention that what has been written may in fact represent the "majority" viewpoint. At the very least, such a position cannot be ruled out entirely at this juncture. Either way, I would have no problem with you making an adjustment along the lines above if you think it might help the article reach the "standard" set by Wikipedia. Jamil (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To date, I'm aware of just two secondary sources on this topic, both of which now are referenced in the article: the official statement on the SAGE website & the MR editorial. This Wikipedia O&E article is just a beginning ('start class') article. As such, there are two potential concerns about balance: balance within the article between this (sub)topic and other notable information about the journal; and balance within the section between published/ reported perspectives of SAGE/ the incoming editors & the outgoing editors/ editorial board, respectively. As a still-developing article, part is what is needed is further development of other notable aspects on the journal; this will take some time and effort. In the meanwhile, I'm not sure how either type of balance might best be achieved/ maintained. It would be helpful if other Wikipedia editors could offer suggestions. Thanks & regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm currently at a scientific meeting and have no time to look into this in detail. However, reading the section on the editorial transition, I get a strong feeling not only of one particular POV being put forward, but also of original research and synthesis. This will have to be addressed (and DASonnenfeld's remarks about the secondary sources already points in thsi direction, too: the article is currently saying things that are not being supported by sources). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Guillaume2303, I hope you can be more specific when you have the time to look into the question. I also hope you'll notice that none of the additional research I provided was "original," in the sense of advancing new arguments not already cited by the single reliable source we do have at this point regarding controversy. Nor am I sloppy about the manner in which I wrote the section, which was explicitly intended to leave the field open to alternate interpretation—hence the dates of searches, page views, etc. and the (painfully) consistent use of passive voice. Be that as it may, I am beginning to realize how significantly wikipedia has endeavored to neuter itself in the vain search for supposed neutrality. If this is the ultimate goal, it should ban itself form commenting on controversial topics altogether. My own ranting aside, would one of you kindly explain exactly how these editorial rules are made? Democratically, I wonder?Jamil (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Hi Jamil, You might find what you are looking for at: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and at: Wikipedia:Processes. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC). Very helpful, thanks! Jamil (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Link Issues

 * Hi Guillaume2303, the link issue you noticed is because the E&T section has not yet added their newsletter to their website, even if it has been sent out to members. As soon as this get's posted (should be sometime in the next few days) the link will be changed to point directly to the PDF. Jamil (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should reference the newsletter article, not this website, and as soon as it is available online, you add the URL (but keep the reference to the specific article). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do Guillaume2303. I actually didn't add that reference and I agree. Jamil (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Guillaume2303: What are the "inappropriate" link(s)? I would really appreciate it if you would either communicate, or make a change as opposed to putting in a flag. Thank you. Jamil (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate in-text external links plus the policies linked in the tag seems plenty clear to me and obviously also to you, as you have now removed them. You really should get used to these tags, which are used all over WP all the time... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was about as clear as mud. That's why I removed all of them. I certainly don't think it was necessary to do so—I simply felt compelled because you doggedly added the "complaint code" back even after I requested an explanation. And I don't think it matters at all how often such tags are used: they should come with an explanation, much like the "Status and Advice" explanation above. Otherwise, it can appear as if one is targeting content for personal/political reasons. A case in point: you could have removed said links in the same amount of time it took you to complain about them. Why not treat it like a wiki and contribute, rather than acting like a gatekeeper? Jamil (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you, I gave an extensive edit summary, which would not really have been longer if I had posted this here. Putting on a tag takes me just seconds, doing the cleanup myself would take much longer (have a look at my contributions yesterday, I really had no time for this). Given that at some point I'll have to go through this article in a more detailed way (it now contains some unsourced stuff/original research, etc), I preferred to put a tag on it. Contrary to what you seem to think, those tags really do explain the issue. And in-text external links are always wrong (the software allows them, because we need this in "external links" sections and infoboxes). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)