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, and myself, have added the advisory board, but  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)
 * , 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)

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

has removed the names yet again. H, you've argued that the article be deleted, implied that it's a special snowflake, and removed the names five times since 31 May. 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., 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)


 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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), "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

 * , 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 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)


 * Yes include it. WP:JWG is only an essay and alleged consensus elsewhere does not over-ride consensus at this page. Many of the advisory board - such as Judith Butler - are well-known or prominent figures, and it does enhance the reader's understanding of this journal to know that they are on the advisory board. That's all that should matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes include per FreeKnowledgeCreator and the fairly obvious point that hardly anyone published articles on editorial boards but the primary source of the publisher is hardly in dispute Snowded  TALK 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, unless WP:IS exists, we write Wikipedia based on sources. WP:JWG is quite in line with community expectations, and represents the collective experience of project members, as has been repeatedly explained at User talk:Randykitty and elsewhere. It a continuously updated documentation of Wikipedia's best practices when it comes to writing about journal articles, reflecting the experiences of hundreds of editors across thousands of articles. The reason for it is simple, editorial boards are usually little more than WP:PROMO/WP:ADVERTISEMENT by association. We therefore require WP:IS discussing the role of the editorial board and telling us what is they do. We don't list them for Nature, we don't do it for Science, and we certainly shouldn't do it for philoSOPHIA. We restrict ourselves to editors-in-chief (or equivalent positions), unless of course, WP:IS exists discussing the editorial board. Calls for editors do not meet that threshold. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a substantial difference between a journal such as Nature and this. In this case the editors are part of something new and their names are highly relevant to people's understanding of the article. Its hardly promotional or an advertisement other than in the sense of gaining interest in the field which is what scholarly journals and hopefully wikipedia are about.  The growing bureaucracy of wikipedia with editors obsessed with essays based on general positions regardless of context is also problematic and this seems another example of that.  Snowded  TALK 04:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Genes, Brain and Behavior then, our highest-quality journal article (GA-class). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The editors names are obviously relevant there and they are published,. Given that there happens to one one third party reference is a successor is convenient but it doesn't mean that a primary source can't be used in this case where it adds value.   Its a statement of fact and given the mission of this journal even more relevant to readers.  Policy and practices on Wikipedia are meant to help the reader with interpretation of those documents and tensions between them resolved in the context of individual articles.  That is what we are doing.  I respect the fact that some editors specialise in the bureaucracy of standards, others of us focus on content in areas where we have interest or expertise.  The attempt to use the hammer of what a group of editors have produced as a good practice guideline to prevent any thing that those editors consider deviant is not in the interests of wikipedia.  Snowded  TALK 04:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, when this practice of removing editorial boards started (DGG was doing it), objected and you agreed with Mdd. SarahSV (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously my opinion evolved based on the quality of the arguments and actual practices over the years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, include. It's a board of respected scholars known for rethinking how philosophy should be approached. They're not a hands-off board or one invited for promotional purposes. One thing I intended to do in the article was discuss some of the articles they've published in the journal. It would be bizarre to be forced to omit that they run it. The essay that Headbomb is promoting is just that, an essay, one that he and Randykitty wrote. SarahSV (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "They're not a hands-off board or one invited for promotional purposes." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Advisory boards are in general about inherited notability (you should like this journal because these famous people endorse it) and not about the actual content of a journal. Just as we don't repeat the advertising slogans of breakfast cereals unless they become somehow culturally significant beyond their original purpose, we shouldn't repeat this kind of advertising unless we have evidence (in the form of independent reliable sources) that this particular advisory board is somehow different and more significant to its journal than most advisory boards of most journals. The argument made by e.g. FreeKnowledgeCreator and SarahSV that we should include these people simply because they're famous or respected is completely counter to the spirit of WP:NOTINHERITED, which advises us that being associated with someone famous is not by itself significant. It's usually used in arguments about notability of whole articles, but I think it applies just as well to this specific piece of article content. And FKC's "alleged consensus elsewhere does not over-ride consensus at this page" is pure special pleading. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It's always been my understanding that consensus at an article sets its content, absent special reasons such as BLP or copyright enforcement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I need to describe for you the dictionary definition of special pleading? You are explicitly asking for the standards applied to other similar articles to not be applied to this one, for no other reason than that you don't think they should apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for an (irrelevant) dictionary definition. I'm asking for some (relevant) guideline or policy that would show that your position is correct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And given the criteria of "you should like this journal because these famous people endorse it" to use your own words, in the context of the journal in question the editors are famous within the field. Snowded  TALK 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How do they differ in that respect from any other significant journal? They all choose advisory board members who are famous within their fields (and too senior to be willing to actually work as editorial board members). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No As David Eppstein explains (and DGG above), journals have such boards mostly for promotional purposes. That we have a reliable source (albeit not independent) for the list of people on it does not mean that inclusion is justified. We also have reliable sources about the tables of contents of this journal and we could say about this that "[i]ts a statement of fact and given the mission of this journal even more relevant to readers". Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that inclusion of those is justified. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the people on the board really have an important role in the journal that merits their inclusion in the article. However, I'm not willing to believe this on the authority of a WP editor saying "I know this is so". Sources are needed, otherwise this is just promotional name-dropping. --Randykitty (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No unless there is an independent source discussing the importance of the board to the work of the journal. Anything self-published about the importance of the board to the work of the journal is too unreliable, IMO, because of the obvious conflict of interest. It's not to say that it isn't true that the board are important to it, just that without independent sources we can't know and the COI makes it harder to know. GoldenRing (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you think why any independent source would write in depth about the importance of an academic journal's editorial board, naming all its members? And one that would keep the list up to date? It's an entirely unreasonable requirement, added to that essay by Randykitty to keep editorial boards out, period. SarahSV (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, I didn't ask for a source that would write in depth about the importance of an academic journal's editorial board, naming all its members ... And one that would keep the list up to date. I asked for an independent source that would write in depth about the importance of the journal's editorial board.  I'm perfectly happy with a primary source for the membership of the board, but I don't think that taking the journal's word for the significance of the board to the running of the journal is wise, given the blindingly obvious COI and the common practice of journals to use the star names on their board to promote themselves; this naturally leads to exaggeration of the role of the board.  Again, I'm not saying that this is what's happened here; I'm saying that without independent confirmation, we can't know.  That may well mean that you can't find a suitable source for the work of the board and so can't include it; that's just how it is.  Including material that we can't independently source but we know is true is (a) obviously contrary to WP:V and (b) the nastiest of slippery slopes for Wikipedia to embark upon.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No - Per DGG/Epstein. Unless there are independant reliable sources about the board in relation to the journal, its standard academic promotion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No - this seems, frankly, utterly unambiguous to me, and I've read the entire mess of a discussion at AN and the chat on Randykitty's talk page, so I'll do it all the honor of articulating my thoughts at length.
 * 1) There is clearly a consensus to exclude editorial boards from journal pages by default (which seems like the only workable option, since otherwise the mere fact that a journal was notable enough to warrant its own article would license everyone on the editorial board automatically being 'entitled' to a mention - which is about as mad as suggesting that any school or company's being notable license the inclusion of the entire slate of trustees or directors).
 * 2) Obviously this must be defeasible, though, since it's clearly not the case that an editorial board is incapable in principle of warranting inclusion, but presumably in order for a particular board to so distinguish itself (in our eyes) we'd need... exactly the same warrant that we ever need on Wiki, independent RS. Admittedly, you rarely find independent RS discussing editorial boards of specific journals, but that's because... editorial boards of specific journals are rarely notable enough to warrant it in the first place.
 * 3) If there was extended discussion of the role of members of the editorial board, or of some particular issue involving members of the board and their actions at the journal, in the relevant academic blogosphere (for a philosophy journal, I'd expect, say, Leiter (or similar) to have posted items on it that sparked extended commentary from notable (by our standards) academics, etc. - and would probably be willing to consider that sufficient sourcing). If that exists, someone needs to cite them so they can be assessed; if that does not, that seems more than dispositive enough.
 * 4) I should further note that an additional strike against the inclusion of celebrated editorial board members at a new journal, in the context of a general and effected consensus to exclude, is that said inclusion seems more likely than not to actually miscontextualize the journal to unfamiliar readers, in the sense that it will artificially inflate the journal's standing relative to absolutely everything else that follows the consensus, if there is no cogent explanation of why the board is suddenly worth mentioning. Advocata (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. All journals should be treated equally provided that they notable enough to be included. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC).
 * No Essentially, there's no independant sources for this,so without Independant and reliable sources, we can't include them.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   12:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's one of the references that was cut in all the rounds of undoing: http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/philoSOPHIA%20call%20for%20new%20editors.pdf -- It is from the publisher, not the editors of the journal, calling for nominations for the next editors and specifying that the advisory board makes the final decision. Hypatiagal (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A job posting for the next editor(s)-in-chief from the publisher isn't a WP:IS concerning the role of the editorial board, and the role of the editorial board as choosing the editor in chief is not something that needs to be mentioned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes include it. Reasons repeatedly invoked to exclude the advisory board are that they are too senior to be really involved; they are there only for promotional purposes; and that they are not actually involved in the running of this journal. But the actual evidence is otherwise. The board is in fact involved in choosing the next editors as one of the references attests. Also I believe that every single member of the board has had a piece published in this relatively young journal, including Judith Butler. I am going to dig up old table of contents and come back to confirm this. Hypatiagal (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "But the actual evidence is otherwise." I note we also do not include lists of authors either. Double-so when editorial board members publish in their own journal. Publishing in your own journal... that's the really the epitome of non-independence / a recipe for conflicts of interests. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, good lord, Headbomb, this is exactly the problem. First, we can't include the advisory board because they are only advisory, and then when anyone shows that they are not merely advisory the response is, we can't include the advisory board because they are involved. If one of my students kept doing this, I'd flunk them and have them go back to baby logic class. Here's the evidence that the advisory board is more than advisory -- and note that none of these people need any further publications to pad their CV's. Board member and the issue in which an essay of theirs appeared: Sara Ahmed, 2:1, 2:2; Linda Martin Alcoff none; Judith Butler, 5:1; Tina Chanter, 4:2, 7:1; Roderick Ferguson (none); Bonnie Honig, 5:1; Catherine Malabou (none); Kelly Oliver, 1:1, 6:2;; Mariana Ortega, 7:1; Falguni Sheth, 7:1; Cynthia Willett, 2:2, 5:1.Hypatiagal (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I edit a journal, and publish an article in that same journal, how is someone to know that the peer-review process has been properly followed, and that I haven't been given a free-pass on editorial norms, or that the board selection of reviewers was not biased (consciously or not) in my favour? That's what impartial independent peer review is about. If you fail your students because they care about academic integrity and reviewing standards, I'm very glad I never was your student. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You just did it again -- switching your rationale when someone rebuts your previous rationale.Hypatiagal (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think I switched my rationale, I invite you to read my words again, because I most certainly haven't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is strange. It's not inherently notable or even necessarily interesting that every member of the editorial board for some journal has published in it. It might conceivably be interesting, especially for a brand new journal, but we cannot simply go document that all of them have indeed published in it and then offer up our synthetic summary, because we have no actual reason to suppose that this piece of OR/synthesis/trivia is notable, absent someone else making the claim for us. (Do note that I'm not suggesting that the result of the mild synthesis necessary to document that all board members have published in it is flawed because the research is going to be flawed, or even biased, so much as not demonstrably relevant. The mere fact that the members of the board are themselves notable (even highly so) does not mean that their publications in this journal are notable/noteworthy, or that the fact of their having published them is noteworthy. I haven't looked at the article I assume we have for Phil Rev, but I'm virtually certain it will mention Two Dogmas, and not because Quine happened to write it.
 * This journal has the prerequisites to be a successful and celebrated journal, which publishes successful and celebrated pieces, which will be documented here, should things indeed so transpire. Until then, I cannot understand why we ought to adopt tabloid standards in this one article about an academic journal. Advocata (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No: Without proper independent and reliable sources covering the advisory board and their importance to the journal they should not be included. Without the independent sources to back up the claim that the board does have an important role in the journal it seems very promotional to include their names. Especially since in a number of cases with journals the advisory board are created for promotional purposes. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  15:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No if this is just for the sake of listing some names. If some of those people have done something that is otherwise notable in this context, and there are sources... sure. But I very much doubt it. In my experience as an academic majority of such people do nothing, and such lists are just niche promotion for both the journals and the academics. Let's avoid needless advertising. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No barring extraordinary cases. Let's run a veil of ignorance experiment:  Let's strip away the concept of the Journal and the concept of gender from this dispute.  Let's say an local community support organization has a board of trustees or advisory board.  Let's say that some portion of the board members are celebrities or local community notables to serve as promotional draws.  Would we include the list of board members in the article in that case?  In my thoughts, it would be no because (barring the board taking an activist role in the company) the composition of the board is not important to the organization's notability and day to day operations.  Having celebrities on the board does not merit mention in the organization's article. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Question for Headbomb - can you take a look at Georgetown Journal of International Affairs and provide your assessment if advisory board section as it currently stands should be included in the article?Hmlarson (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As it stands, no, since there are no WP:IS discussing the role of the advisory board. Likewise for the (incredibly impressive) list of contributors, but with such a list, it shouldn't be too hart to find an WP:IS. I'd even accept a self-published retrospective article in this case given the pedigree of GJIA assuming one exists (and would from most journals too, similar to ), but from a quick look (e.g. ) those WP:IS do exist because GIJA truly is a massively impactful journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Cinema: Journal of Philosophy and the Moving Image, German Medical Journal, Social Science Japan Journal and Journal of International Affairs? Hmlarson (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to glance over every journal you can find and opine on each of them. Do these advisory boards have WP:IS discussing their roles, or not? If yes, it's probably fine to include, if not, leave them out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Are you trying to make an argument along the lines of WP:WAX? Because, by all means, if you find other articles about journals making the same mistake, go ahead and fix it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just trying to understand this editor's aggressive focus on this particular one and not others. Hmlarson (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes include it. Membership of advisory boards is frequently included in academic obituaries, making it suitable for inclusion after these people are dead. If it's suitable for inclusion then, I see no reason why it shouldn't be suitable prior to then. [Addition: we need start and end dates for these roles too.] Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an obituary or CV. Obituaries often mention hobbies, "a love of life", volunteering at the local church / food kitchen / other organisation, and other things like that too, and we don't include those either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Serving on such boards is an integral part of the professional practise of many academics. Their profession practice is how they get their notability (as described by WP:PROF). Editorial boards are no-topic for an encyclopedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Include - Seems fine to me. Would be better in a referenced sentence than bulleted list in my opinion. Hmlarson (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Include - akin to listing the editorial board (or in the the case of JAMA previous editors) journals live and die by their credentials. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this kind of information doesn't need IS; it is ok per WP:PRIMARYCARE ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * JAMA lists past editors in chiefs, not the advisory board. And the issue is not of WP:V, it's of WP:PROPORTION/WP:PROMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Still about credentials ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, more info in this case is good. Encyclopedia and all. perhaps other journals should have their advisory board listed in their articles ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So is every academic job out there. We don't list every department head / dean of faculties / who sits on the board of governors of say Dalhousie University / University of New Brunswick / . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE is highly relevant to the "more info is good" argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in this case. I like to know who is involved in a journal that I haven't seen before. It helps me decide how seriously to take their papers. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * do not include Unless there are independent resources describing their importance. I realized this is just repeating the above arguments, but I think that attests to how simple this argument breaks down. Valeince (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not include Unless there are independent resources describing their importance or contribution, individually or collectively. Per everyone else NOTINHERITED would apply, even if it were possible to know the board were 'hands on'. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No as has been said before, it shouldn't be included unless reliable sources show their active contribution to the journal. Cjhard (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

DS Notice
The DS notice up top can be added in by any uninvolved admin, per Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. The admin that added it in was involved, therfore, I've removed it for that reason. Any uninvolved admin is free to revert.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This will do lots to restore a collegiality. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I please beg everyone not to edit war over this while there is an ongoing ARCA request specifically discussing its suitability. Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Please. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It took me awhile to find this, so for anyone else trying to find it: the ultimate status of that WP:ARB/R discussion can be seen in this July 2 2017 page version before it was removed/"archived". – Athaenara  ✉  02:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You weren't kidding, that was not an easy discussion to find. I found the archive location, in case anyone goes looking for that as well. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 20:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What's God like?
Re: the society and journal were named after Sophia, the feminine aspect of God who fell from grace because of her love of knowledge.[9] The name serves to illustrate that women who love philosophy are not necessarily in love with the patriarchy, although one of the functions of the journal is to ask what the daughter's responsibilities are toward the father: "Must the daughter be patricidal?"

Now I'm guessing that this is from some kind of rhetorical editorial 'blurb' and may possibly be wholly/partially quotes, which might give it context. However, as written, it is putting in WP voice statements about 'God', weaved in with Greek mythology. I've done a temp fix, but probably someone with access to the source could improve. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The text "According to its founding editors" is completely unnecessary. It is common, for example, to show the motto of a university in its infobox. The infobox would say "the motto is X" rather than "according to its founding academics, the motto is X". It is also standard writing to describe the characteristics of ancient gods without a disclaimer. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong feelings either way, but I don't find "According to its founding editors" very necessary here. It's rather implicit that the rationale behind the name is according to those who named the journal. The rest is not a statement about God, but about 'Sophia'. If anything, I'd write "Sophia, the feminine aspect of God who fell from grace because of her love of knowledge according to [insert religion here]." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the (linked) reference to the Gk personification of Wisdom, to a degree absorbed into Orthodox theology, but I have no idea what the relationship of a Gk mythological figure is to a narrative of a monotheistic God (which narrative? whose God?), nor why any of it is in WP voice. I recognise that 'According to' is clumsy, (and might be better rendered as a quote?) which is why I brought the matter here. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem I have with that passage is the second sentence. to ask what the daughter's responsibilities are toward the father: "Must the daughter be patricidal?". I literally cannot understand what is meant by that, or how responsibility is somehow related to patricide, or that patricidal daughters are somehow assumed to be default. I've tried getting the original, but I can't find any full versions available online. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is that someone is being creatively, mischievously polemical by mixing allusions, which is fine, but it should be their voice, not WP's. Pincrete (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the "must the daughter be patricidal" line is that the journal's editors are accusing other feminist philosophers of throwing away too many worthwhile contributions of the dead white men of past philosophy in their zeal to overthrow the patriarchy. The daughters are feminist philosophers, their fathers are the male philosophers that came before them, and the act of patricide is their deliberate snubbing of the works of the fathers. But instead, these particular feminist philosophers want to avoid patricide: their goal is to salvage past contributions to philosophy by redirecting them to feminist ends. As part of a manifesto (the one we cite as the origin for this quote) it's a fine piece of writing. But I think it's too elliptical and subject to interpretation to be a helpful inclusion in the encyclopedia, where (even for subjects such as this one) our writing should be clear and direct rather than poetical. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A very insightful interpretation, and I congratulate the editors of PhiloSOPHIA for including this subtle critique of previous feminist philosophers. However I agree that the material is too esoteric for inclusion in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC).

if that's what's meant by that, no one will ever understand it. If that's the explanation beyond those words, it makes sense, but that certainly was not how I read the initial passage. I took it to literally mean "what are the responsibilities of literal daughters with respect to their literal fathers", and that they were questioning the need to commit a literal patricide (a need which was somehow held to be the default position). Which was just a big bucket of WTF. I suggest rephrasing (if this is indeed what is meant, and is clear from the text that this is the meaning behind those words), or simply omitting the passage if these words can be interpreted differently when reading the original. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I instinctively understood the second part in a way that is very similar to Xxanthippe's reading, though the question "must the daughter be patricidal" equally implies that maybe earlier feminists insufficiently eviscerated patriarchy. The phrasing 'cuts both ways', did we go too far? Or maybe not far enough? I also think that 'Sophia' and 'God' and 'God's feminine aspect' who 'fell from grace' because she sought knowledge is freely mixing allusions to several mythologies. They can do that, we can't, not at least in our voice. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement seems so ambiguous and open to interpretation as political grandstanding of some sort. Until the editors of PhiloSOPHIA sort out exactly what they want to say and say it in a way that can be understood, I suggest that the statement be excluded from the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC).