Undid revision 611592577 by Randykitty (talk) Correct. I removed any personal references to Randykitty, though not a Personal Attack as I sent his/her rationale to which I replied |
Joe Decker (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{oldafdfull| date = 2 June 2014 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Democracy & Nature }} |
|||
{{talk header}} |
{{talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject Academic Journals|class=Stub|needs-infobox=no}} |
{{WikiProject Academic Journals|class=Stub|needs-infobox=no}} |
Revision as of 15:28, 12 June 2014
![]() | Academic Journals Stub‑class | |||||||||
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archived talk
Stable version
I'm pleased to see that we appear to be editing in a slightly more harmonious manner since the re-write.
There are some things we should all agree on:
- There does not exist any ownership of this article. (See WP:OWN)
- There do not exist any special positions with regard to editing. (See WP:VANITY)
There are also some valid concerns expressed right now about Wikipedia:Reliable source. If could proceed in as calm and dispassionate a manner as possible, that would be helpful. And henceforth commenting at all times only on the contributions and not on the contributor would be good, too.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Talking
Talking is good. So if there's something that anyone thinks could be improved, here's a good spot to make a concise case for it.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Content of Journals is not "encyclopedic"??
It is for me rather strange that 'sharek.of Vulkan', thinks that the content of a journal should not be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry. M.M. 02.11.06
See Also section
This is a message left by --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC) at my personal talk page. (Nikosgreencookie (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)) The message left after Randykitty deleted whole sections of the article without giving a reason and without to open a discussion at the talk page.
- See also sections
- Hi, "see also" sections should not contain links to articles that are already linked to in the main body of an article (see WP:MOS). The whole section should therefore be removed from Democracy & Nature. Also, it's fine to list editorial board members, if there are independent sources that document what these people did for the journal. Most editorial board members don't ever do anything for a journal, so unless there are sources, we don't list them, no matter how notable they are. The same goes for contributors. If you want to tell readers that John Doe contributed to a journal, you will need an independent source that confirms that this was a notable contribution. It is not enough that John Doe himself is notable. Please see our journal article writing guide and WP:NOTINHERITED. In addition, WP does not allow original research and/or synthesis. So unless you have independent reliable sources, all those "references" to the journal itself and claims that "significant debates" were ignited will have to go. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh my, "attempting to destroy the article". That's quite an audacious interpretation of what happened! And "deleting whole sections without giving a reason" is even more surprising. I thought I had clearly indicated in my edit summaries why my actions were taken. I might add, my friend, that that is quite a contrast with your edits to this page, not a single one having any explanation, not even an edit summary. And apparently you did not appreciate my attempt to explain things, which I posted on your talk page either. Nevertheless, now you have copied it here and vented your heart about my destructive actions, you are perhaps also prepared to answer my questions about why you think this article should not follow the same manual of style of all 4.5 million or so other WP articles? Of why it should not follow the writing guide like all several thousand other articles on academic journals? It surely can't be the independent sourcing that I asked for, because that is still missing. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, please refrain from further attacks on my integrity. If you have complaints about my actions, you can post them at ANI, but not here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
On the Notability of "Democracy & Nature"
Democracy & Nature, as well as its predecessor, Society & Nature have been noted journals in the radical Left dialogue, encompassing the views of notable figures. The journal and the debates in it still affect and influence the dialogue in anti-systemic, ecological, feminist, libertarian and Marxist Left, as can be seen in citations referring to the journals in various publications and books (secondary sources), from the 90s, up to now. Anyone interested may have a cursory look at only a few of plenty of references to the journal, e.g. by using "Google Books" (although the journal began its journey before the take-off of the Internet as a major investigation source, so on line material on new journals can be found more easily than on older ones)[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Secondly, the peer-2-peer journal is indexed in significant indexing services[8], and a lot of its articles are indexed in the Alternative Press Index, which is the cornerstone of alternative journals' indices. [9] [10][11][12][13]
The above and after more clarifications added directly to the entry by other contributors, considered, I strongly believe that the tags which raise doubts based on the notability of the article are totally redundant.Panlis (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Copied from ADF discussion, for further use in improving this article
|
---|
First and foremost, I would like to make an “ethical” remark on the totally unjustified attempt to delete a historical journal of the radical Left, eco-left, Anarchist, feminist, left-libertarian and socialist dialogue from Wikipedia, an on line Encyclopedia that despite its dilative and “liberalistic” structure, may at times become a means to promote truly independent and autonomous voices that cannot be heard easily in the mainstream or sometimes even the (some of the so-called) "alternative" media. In the relevant entry on “Prestige” and Rankings of an Academic journal, it is stressed that:
As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge may understand from the primary sources provided in the article of Democracy & Nature, the journal is a radical, left-libertarian, direct-democracy Academic Journal, which does not conform to a “hard” science array of journals, no matter if they are natural or social. For example, a professor of the University of Oxford stresses that [14]
Then, if we also try to compile (and this only for Democracy & Nature, and excluding “Society & Nature” for which there can be found plenty of references in books, journals and indices), we can make a -certainly not exhaustive, but representative- collection of: (1) Bibliographical Databases, Journal & Research Indexes,[15][16][17] [18][19][20][21][22] [23] [24] (2) “Bibliographies and Further Reading” recommendations[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] (3) References (many of which are accompanied by commentaries and recommendations) [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] ,and (4) References used on libertarian and, not only, Education,[81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] then it can be substantially verified that there are plenty of important references and a significant impact of the journal in its field (something testified by contributors in the relevant talk pages as well), for Scholarly, Research, Educational use etc.. Panlis (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
Democracy & Nature should be kept
This entry gives a description of a journal that operated successfully for a number of years. Anyone coming across an article from this journal should be able to look up information about the journal so as to assess the article's provenance. If anyone feels the entry lacks information they are free to add to it. I don't see why it should be deleted. WallabieJoey (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to delete entry for Democracy & Nature
Keep As a former member of the editorial panel and contributor to Democracy and Nature I find the suggestion that this entry be deleted astonishing. It is not just that the journal was very significant internationally during its period of publication; it is a reference point for current work on how to deal with the threat of a global ecological catasrophe. If Wikipedia does not have a place to keep alive memory of the recent past, it seems to me we are in a sorry state, coming closer to 1984. Memory, as Samuel Butler argued, is a defining feature of life. Associate Professor Arran Gare, Swinburne University, Victoria, Australia.Arran Gare (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.26.222 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Very unlikely that this article will be deleted as it conforms with WP:SJ, WP:NJournals. Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)