Talk:Philosophy (journal)

Description
This description is based on the one given by Cambridge Journals Online here:
 * "As well as a principal journal for the field of philosophy, the journal serves the philosophical interests of specialists in other fields such as law, language, literature and the arts, medicine, politics, religion, science, education, psychology, history, as well as those of the general reader."

Can this be really considered as "promotional"? It looks to me as simply a fair summary of the content of the journal. The website also describes it as "one of the leading academic journals of philosophy" which I personally think is also true, but might be considered as promotional.

And how can "Recent contributors have included Michael Dummett, Noam Chomsky, Jurgen Habermas, David Wiggins and Mary Warnock" be considered "promotional"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Copying text from the publisher's website is (rather obviously) not really a good idea. If there's an independent source that has reason to say that this is "a principal journal for the field of philosophy", that could perhaps be used. Enumerating all the professions that could benefit from subscribing to this journals also seems rather obviously promotional. As for the contributors, we include those in articles on journals if we have independent sources (and not our own perusal of the tables of contents) that discuss how this particular contributor influenced the journal (which may be by publishing an article that made an especially huge impact). Barring evidence that a particular contributor was important for the journal and its development, such listings are just name dropping. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They're non-controversial facts. I don't see those are necessarily "professions" just areas of interest/ academic study. I agree that secondary sources would be better; but until they might be found, I don't see that the article benefits from not having this kind of general description. Notable contributors are good for journals - I think that's just a simple unavoidable truth. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)