Talk:Dutch Crossing

Untitled

No copyright violation, written by myself.

References and notability issues

28/07/10 Citation for "leading journal" added. "The Low Countries" who operate the Low Countries blog is a yearbook on Dutch Studies, ed. by the independant Foundation Ons Erfdeel in Belgium. There is no connection Dutch Crossing. I hope this addresses the notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiedau (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The CELJ awards are notable: from http://www.ucd.ie/sils/newsandevents/silsnewstitle,58529,en.html: "Welcoming the delegates to UCD, Professor Brigid Laffan, Principal of the College of Human Sciences, who commented on the distinction achieved at the recent 125th Modern Language Convention at Philadelphia in December 2009 by the Association’s Journal, Dutch Crossing http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dutch/crossing/index.php?journal=dutch-crossing. Now fully digitized, and with an Online Archive going back to 1977, the Council of Editors of Learned Journals recognised the title for the 2009 annual Phoenix awards (http://celj.org/phoenix ) for Significant Editorial Achievement. Given the size of the academic community in question, this was truly a remarkable development, as Professor Laffan noted." Citation added. UT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiedau (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this does not really address the issues. A blog is not a reliable source. And I don't think that the citation from Prof. Laffan establishes the importance of the award. In fact, after having had a look at the Council's website, the award appears to be only minor (and note that DC did not get the award, it was only the runner-up). --Crusio (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks, Crusio. Runner-up is true (and mentioned) but the award is certainly not minor. The CELJ is an Allied Organization of the Modern Language Association, and the awards ceremony took place on the last MLA convention in Philadelphia, the largest and arguably most important conference in the field of Modern Languages. 91.104.25.99 (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• The point made about Dutch studies being a small academic community (in the UCD article) is important, imho. Uli (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• I have added a link to a review on Ulrichs Global Serials Directory (name similarity coincidental), hopefully helping to address the notability issue. Uli (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Uli (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry Uli, but Ulrich's Periodicals Directory is not a selective database, because it tries to be all-inclusive. Similarly, the BNTL accepts additions from users, so it does not contribute to establishing notability either. All these sources do is confirming that the journal exists, which is not in doubt anyway. Have a look at WP:Notability (academic journals) for some suggestions. The fact that the academic community is small is a two-edged sword, as it may also be taken to mean that in the greater scheme of things, this is not notable... --Crusio (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• PS:The link you gave to Ulrich's is only accessible if your institution has a subscription. --Crusio (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, link edited. I meant to refer to the review of DC by Sebastian Hierl published there (http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/Search/fullCitation.asp?tab=6&navPage=1&serial_uid=209203&issn=&cxxhs=045035950986488) not the fact that it was included in Ulrichsweb. I have now also added the ESF's European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) which is highly selective. Dutch Crossing has been listed twice, for history and linguistics. Uli (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have no access to Ulrich's, so I couldn't see this. But I think ERIH does the job! Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I obviously don't agree with the fact that something just because it is small is not noteworthy. Quite a number of academic subjects, certainly from the Humanities, would note be noteworthy then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiedau (talk • contribs) 09:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Uli (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily agree with that myself, all I was saying is that statements like that can be interpreted in different ways. And getting a minor award is not more notable because the journal is from a small field... Most journals are operated by only a small group of core editors. --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree and believe I have given my reasons for that above. The ERIH ratings, how controversial the ERIH project may be (which is why I originally did not include it in the article), were quite something, imho, especially as one of the criticism the British Academy, the AHRC an other funding bodies raised was that the ERIH's fairly traditional disciplinary structure disadvantaged interdisciplinary journals. Nevertheless DC was listed on two of the initial lists, for history and linguistics - and that was even before the 2009 transformation of the journal for which DC received that honourable mention for siginificant editorial achievement. The two entries were in the "C" category (a case for upgrade has been made) which stands for "research journals with an important local / regional significance in Europe, occasionally cited outside the publishing country though their main target group is the domestic academic community." While a case for an upgrade in the final lists has been made (also because the cohorts of both contributors and subscribers are more than 70% outside of the 'domestic' academic community) category C is all but a residual category, as the ERIH guidelines explain (http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/be_user/research_areas/HUM/Documents/ERIH/ERIH%20summary_guidelines_Sept_07.pdf&t=1280571134&hash=41284aefc1d0c34bc381c4954fc12f3b). Being included in these lists is a recognition in itself and "important local / regional significance in Europe" ('regional in Europe' meaning relating to the territory of three modern states in this case, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) should be equivalent to noteworthy, shouldn't it? And even if something had only "important significance" for a region it is noteworthy, imho. If you disagree, by all means, feel free to delete the article, no hard feelings. Uli (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry, Crusio, just saw that our postings crossed each other. Many thanks for your scrutiny!! Uli (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Crusio, I just had an e-mail confirmation by ThomsonReuters that DC "has been selected for coverage in our products Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, and Current Contents/Arts and Humanities" Uli (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Hi, congratulations! However, although I certainly don't doubt you, WP is an encyclopedia and "I just had an email" is not a useable source for an encyclopedia. You will have to wait with listing this information until Thompson has updated their databases and the information can be sourced to a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. --Crusio (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Right, fair enough. Apologies for the premature entry (hadn't checked). Will wait until the data is included. Uli (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• It is now, so I will add the Web of Knowledge databases. Uli (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch Crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714165539/http://netherlandicstudies.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/aansnewsletter-71-spring-2010.pdf to http://netherlandicstudies.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/aansnewsletter-71-spring-2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)