Talk:List of history journals

New scheme for sections

A couple of weeks ago this article began a reorganization from alphabetical sections into topical sections. The existing list was commented-out (it's still available) and some titles were moved into relevant topic sections that fall under one of these three:

• By period (research about the period, not journals published during the period)
• By region (research focusing on geographic areas)
• By topic (research focusing on select topics)

This classification is much more useful than the old alphabetical listing, but I have some questions:

1. What about journals that don't specialize in any topic of history?

This applies to The Historian, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, History, and Historical Research. Asfrom "Period", "Region" and "Topic", do we need a new section called "General history", "No specialization", "Multidisciplinary", "Interdisciplinary", or "Miscellaneous"?

2. What about journals that fall into multiple categories?

• Should Contemporary European History be in "Period: Modern and Contemporary" or "Region: General European"?
• Historical Journal does European/World history after 1500, covering "Period: Early modern" and "Period: Modern"
• The English Historical Review does European/World history since ~600 BC, covering all three time periods and multiple regions.
• Journal of the Oxford University History Society specializes in most time periods, Britain and the world, and economics, science and art. That fits several categories, I don't think it falls under the "general history" idea above (see #1)?

3. What about journals that are only close matches to a category?

• Itinerario covers world history relating to Europe during 1500-1950, but "Period: Early modern" is 1500-1800. Close enough? Maybe I should put it under "Region: General European".
• White House History doesn't seem like regional history, but it seems too narrow to fall into its own topical division (how many other history journals will be just about the White House?).

4. Do we need categories for differing historiographical approaches?

These journals cover all topics but they "do" history differently than just "general history".

The Public Historian — public history

Journal of the History of Ideas — intellectual history

Journal of Social History — social history

History Workshop Journal — people's history

I like the new change and want to convert the rest of the list, but I don't know how to handle these questions. Thanks. ——Rich jj (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

It's good that you're willing to convert the rest of the list. Your questions are really useful too. In (partial!) answer to your questions:

1. It might be an idea to add a 'General history' section or similar. Your other categorisation suggestions have issues, so 'General history' would be best:

   • 'No specialization' - suggests that the journals will accept articles on any subject, which is generally not the case
   • 'Multidisciplinary'/'Interdisciplinary' - could apply to a huge number of journals on the list, and would be difficult to define
   • 'Miscellaneous' - Not a very scholarly definition!

2. Not sure - that's one of the reasons I put my work on the list on hold for a while.
3. There will be many of these journals, especially period-wise. Terms like 'Early modern' are generally quite fluid. I think it's a case of finding the closest category, or the one to which the journal gives the most emphasis. Narrowly specialist journals should be placed into the category under which their specialism falls.
4. Good question - same answer as 2) above!

Maybe just do what you think might be best for as many of the journals as you can, and then post here again to continue the discussion? We can always discuss specific journals/groups of journals once you've attempted to categorise them? Moswento (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I also like the new layout, it's much more useful as a reference to those doing research and to those looking for potential scholarship outlets. Just a few notes:

1. I second the recommendation for 'General History.' This seems the most appropriate label for publications that accept and publish articles in all fields of history.
2. I find temporal category (Pre-1000, Early Modern, Modern and Contemporary) to be problematic. Historians will tell you that 'modernity' is a term with multiple temporal periods (for example, we consider the United States to be in a period of modernity and yet we consider many other societies to be in a pre-modern state). Keith Goodwin (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Just wanted to add that the regional classification might be better served on a broader regional basis rather than particularly specific (since many journals can be country-specific journals. Just going off my own research experience as a college history student, I believe the following categories may suffice: African, European, American (United States), North American, Latin American (Central/South America), Caribbean, Australasia and Oceania, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Asian (General), Middle East, I added a link to the article so that users can access the AHA History Journal Directory for a greater taxonomic breakdown.

Also, in thinking about question (2), if I journal falls into multiple categories, region should be given precedence since an author or student is more likely to be searching for an outlet/source on a regional basis. Keith Goodwin (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Following from the numbers above:

1. So far it sounds like we agree with adding a new "General history" group.
2. Going along with the idea that region takes precedence over period, can the order of precedence be first: Topical, second: Regional, third: Period?
3. When a journal doesn't fit a category, I can accept Moswento's advice to use the "closest category" where "the journal gives the most emphasis", though its subjectivity may allow for disputes. I also like Keith's region names ("European" instead of "Europe"), which bring to mind the culture as well as the geographic region. White House History easily fits into "American".
4. I'm may add journals specific historiographical approaches into "General history" or into another group called something like "Historiographical specialization" or "Single methodological approach". Can we find a name that isn't so esoteric and wordy? ——Rich jj (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Middle East

I created a "Middle East" category, but should Egyptology go there or under "Africa"? Does the "Middle East" belong as a category? If it remains, it could relate to southwestern Asia (Palestine, Persia, Babylon, etc) and northwestern Africa (namely Egypt). There's a lot of ancient history involved.

Regarding the ancient Near East, will casual readers look for it in the ancient period or in the Middle East region? Should such journals be listed in both categories, or be listed by region over period (as as Keith and I have discussed)? This relates to Antiguo Oriente, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and others. ——Rich jj (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Geographically, studies related to Ancient Egypt should be categorized as part of African Studies (since Egypt is in northern Africa and drew from sub-saharan Africa in many ways). It might also be grouped in a period category of "Ancient" history.

Since "The Middle East" is a cultural category more than a specific geographic definition, modern Egyptian studies should be placed in the middle east (since Nasser certainly tried to make Egypt part of a pan-Arab movement).

I think the issue of including Northern African countries (like Algeria, Libya, Tunisia) should be avoided unless they are included with Middle Eastern nations as part of an Islamic Studies topic.

Also, I don't think it's a problem of cross-listing journals in multiple categories. I did this with the Journal of Asian and African Studies for example. Also, thanks for fixing the Asia category, I didn't know how to group general Asia and I think it's a good idea for the European and North American categories as well.

Lastly, how do you want to handle Russia as a category? European or Asian? Keith Goodwin (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer confidently about Russia, but my initial inclination is that if it covers the entire nation, list it under "Europe", since that's where the political centers are and the nation's roots. If it focuses on Siberia or other eastern remote regions, I say put it in "Asia".

Regarding Egypt, I'll list it under Africa, including ancient Egyptological studies. I still like the idea of giving region precedence over period.

By the way, nice work adding and organizing in this list. ——Rich jj (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on journal list names

There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

It is not directly obvious what inclusion criteria are used, nor is it clear why some journals are included in the category that they are currently to be found. For instance, Medieval Studies seems to be in the "US history" category for the sole reason that it is published in the US... Some journals seem primarily to be area-studies journals, not necessarily history journals. Cleanup is needed.

Canadian Journals

It's kind of odd that there is no section for Canadian journals listed. And indeed no Canadian history journals at all. The Canadian Association of Learned Journals (http://www.calj-acrs.ca/canadian_journals.php) offers the following list. I'm not saying that they all need be cited, but you'd think some should be included, no?

Canadian Bulletin of Medical History; The Canadian Historical Review; Canadian Journal of History; Confraternitas: Reformation and Renaissance Studies; Digital Medievalist; Florilegium: ancient and medieval cultures of Europe, North Africa and the Near East; Hirundo: McGill Journal of Classical Studies; History of Intellectual Culture; International History Review; International Journal of Maritime History; Isis : the history of science, medicine, and technology; Journal of the Canadian Historical Association; Labour / Le Travail; Left History; Lumen: Eighteenth-Century Studies/d'étude du dix-huitième siècle; Mediaeval Studies; Mouseion: Journal of the Classical Association of Canada; Pseudo-Dionysius; Renaissance and Reformation; Research in Maritime History; Revue d'histoire de l'Amérique française; Social History; Urban History Review; Victorian Periodicals Review.

Zzoliche (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• If they have articles, they certainly should be listed. If not, first create an article on the journal (if notable), then add it here. --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering who on Earth described the Canadian Journal of History as covering all fields, except Canadian history. Their site clearly states that the journal covers Canadian and global history.SmallMossie (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Scope of article

Ideally the article should list several hundred major history journals. We have to be selective--EBSCO has a list of over 5000 history journals worldwide. The question is which ones should be selected? Finding important scholarly history journals are of value to Wiki users, whether they Wiki has a full article or a stub, or is in need of one. It is premature to assume that Wikipedia's catch-as-catch-can process has thus far covered the major journals--it certainly has not (not one of the major Canadian journals are listed, as one editor points out; I have started to add them). I suggest that we go for those produced by major publishers and scholarly associations (as opposed to the thousands of local historical societies), and by the editorial boards of JSTOR, Project MUSE, and similar agencies. That way we know we have the RS behind our choices. Rjensen (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

let me add that journals that appear frequently in Wikipedia footnotes should also be included here. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Adding journals that have no articles is an invitation to all those spammers out there to add their new OA journal that "really soon will become notable, I'm sure of it". The journals you describe above would all seem to need an article (or even a stub) here. I think your efforts would be better spent creating those. What this list needs is not more journals with only a "reference" to their homepage, but a clear inclusion criterion, more info on groups of journals (as opposed to info on the individual journals, which should be in the articles on these journals), in short, this needs to become a real list article. Otherwise, this will just be a copy of Category:History journals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is so carefully watched that spammers will not be a problem; more dangerous is the wholesale deletion of serious major history journals that Wiki has not yet done a stub on. As for creating criteria, I I have proposed using those lists developed by RS such as JSTOR and the AHA and published by scholarly publishers and societies. Up to now there has been no criteria at all. Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's why I said that developing criteria is urgent. What is the rationale for copying JSTOR/MUSE instead of just linking to them? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Guillaume2303 is unclear in his own mind about the role of this list. I suggest the goal is to help the users find RS with historical information about specific topics (like Labor history or Scottish history, say). That information may be in Wikipedia (hence an internal link) or outside it (hence a URL link). The Wiki rules say the individual items can be annotated, and that is an important aspect I plan to start on. Done well the article can a) guide users to scholarly journals in topical fields (this would be a unique valuable role), b) provide links either inside or outside Wikipedia to more information, c) add additional annotations of use (such as former names of the journal, or specific scope). Rjensen (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I'm the one confused here. To me it seems like you want to emulate existing databases like JSTOR and such, which most definitely is what WP is not about. You're basically converting this article into a link farm. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's a selection, chosen by Wiki editors using multiple RS, of important journals -- with categories, links and annotations that JSTOR completely lacks and includes many titles that JSTOR lacks. Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can't say that I'm getting this. Your argument seems to suggest that you're only including journals with articles ("chosen by Wiki editors using multiple RS ... with categories, links and annotations"), but that's not correct because you've been adding a lot of journals with as only RS their homepages. So I'd appreciate if you could be a little bit clearer. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding journals that qualify as important according to one or more RS: Jstor, Muse, AHA, published by national or state historical society (this excludes local journals), published by major scholarly publisher (such as Cambridge UP, Oxford UP, U Chicago Press), or is listed in major guides such as Stankus. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Those seem reasonable and journals like that almost certainly meet our inclusion criteria. These inclusion criteria should be specified in the lead, so that when other editors come along, they can apply the same ones, instead of applying their own idiosyncratic criteria. As for "state society", outside of the US, "state" often translates to "local journal", so you may want to refine that one. I still feel that all those links to the journals' homepages (each marked "see homepage", making the list of "references" very opaque) are inappropriate, WP articles or list-articles should not be link-farms. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Links are good

The Wiki rules on external links are followed:

1. 1. This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. followed
2. 2. Is the site content accessible to the reader?/ Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?/ Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? yes-yes-yes
3. 3 What can normally be linked....Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. yes
4. 4 Links normally to be avoided -- none of the cases apply
5. 5 Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, yes. In sum, we meet all the rules. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• These are not references (#1), they are "hidden" external links to the homepages of these journals, creating a linkfarm masquerading as references. "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." for example does not apply here: none of these links are about the subject of this article (the list). Same argument for #3. #2 is clearly not met (none of the sites linked is about a list of history journals). These links belong in the articles on these journals, not here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

references = "inline citations" = footnotes and that is where they are kept. repeat: This guideline does not apply to inline citations. "These links belong in the articles on these journals, not here." --a misreading: only those journals that lack a Wiki article are involved; each gets one and only one link to its official home page, as specified in the rules. Terms like "linkfarm' and "masquerading' are unprofessional and wildly out of place when dealing with a list of scholarly journals. Masquerade indeed--who is being fooled here??? Wiki's goal is helping the reader. Erasing the link to the homepage of an otherwise unlinked journal so the readers cannot find it is a major disservice to them. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether unlinked journals belong in this list at all is questionable. If they are notable, it would be better to spend your time writing articles about them instead of creating a linkfarm here. If they're not notable, then why include them at all? And it is incorrect that only unlinked journals have a "reference". In any case, these are not references or "inline citations". At best, these links confirm that the journal exists. And only presenting links "so that readers can find them", well, that's the very definition of linkfarm (and against WP:NOTADIRECTORY). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

words like "linkfarm" are unprofessional -- and totally false. (a linkfarm is a device to fool a search engine by having multiple websites link to each other) The Wiki rules all apply. Likewise it's unprofessional to tell a scholar what he should be doing. It's clear that Guillaume2303 has little or no experience with history journals, so his comments are not well founded. Rjensen (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LINKFARM. This term is routinely used on WP. And my comments have nothing to do with the fact that these are history journals. If they were journals in any other area (such as my own field, neuroscience), my comments and arguments would be identical. And, sorry, but telling me that I am unprofessional for telling a scholar what he should be doing is an argument that, for better or for worse, does not carry much weight on WP. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing rules is a poor idea if you don't carefully read the rules. WP:Linkfarm says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." There is no dwarfing going on here--all the links are in footnotes at the end and readers will go there if and only if they are interested in the journal. As for telling editors what they should write on, ok, let me try it: Guillaume2303 should work on science articles where he knows something and leave history alone. Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind advice. Please read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Guillaume2303 has been on a campaign to blank the URL's of journals listed here that do not have separate wiki pages--he has been unable to give an explanation of why that benefits readers, and in my opinion seriously hurts the readers by depriving them of exactly relevant information. He acts like he owns the Wiki rules. It would really help the article if he used his language skills to point out some German and Dutch historical journals that belong on this list. Rjensen (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

we have been over Guillaume2303's blanking campaign before; he wants to erase useful information for no good reason. To say that inclusion in Wikipedia is the standard of quality is an unacceptable/illegal use of Wikipedia as authority. Wiki can NOT be cited as an authority. The opening lede defines the journals to be covered. Red links are signals for editors to get to work, for Wikipedia is an unfinished project. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I find your above comment absolutely hilarious, thanks for enlightening my day! :-DDD --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I regret that Guillaume2303 is disinclined to be serious when he erases other people's valuable work for no good reason. An example of this is his recent erasure of Vivarium: Journal of the History of Medieval and Early-Modern Philosophy a fairly new scholarly journal published by Brill (a leading European sponsor of major journals) with this distinguished international roster of editors/editorial board: Lodi Nauta (editor) is Professor in the History of Philosophy at the University of Groningen. Editorial Board: P.J.J.M. Bakker (Nijmegen), L. Bianchi (Vercelli), E.P. Bos (Leiden), H.A.G. Braakhuis (Nijmegen), A.D. Conti (L’Aquila), W.J. Courtenay (Madison), C. Flüeler (Fribourg), S. Gersh (Notre Dame), D.N. Hasse (Würzburg), M.J.F.M. Hoenen (Freiburg), C.H. Kneepkens (Groningen), C. Leijenhorst (Nijmegen), J. Marenbon (Cambridge), C. Marmo (Bologna), R. Pasnau (Colorado), D. Perler (Berlin), I. Rosier-Catach (Paris), C. Schabel (Nicosia), Honorary member: L. M. de Rijk. That really should be good enough for Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I regret that I find it impossible to discuss seriously with people who do not see the humor (or at least the contradiction) when comparing the comment posted above (21:11, 12 March 2012) and the diff link that I put just underneath it. How on Earth you can call Vivarium a "fairly new journal" also escapes me, but then I'm just an information-erasing vandal, so what do I know. (I guess for someone working in history, half a century is not much). If someone would create an article on it, I would never dream of "erasing" it. But putting it in this list, with just a badly-formatted "reference" to its homepage, is plainly unencyclopedic. If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you create a stub on it. Should take you less time than posting snippy comments and then you could add a perfectly valid blue link to this article instead of the "black link" that there is now. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WTAF does not apply (it deals only with red links)

the WP:WTAF rule does not apply here. 1) it deals only with red links. and it explicitly deals with " list articles with many redlinks" ---there are no redlinks here. ["This page in a nutshell: Editors are encouraged to write the article on a given subject BEFORE adding a link."] 2) wp:wtaf is not an official guideline, it's an informal recommendation by a single editor. 3) our listing should include all the major journals, whether or not they have separate articles. Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• The difference between redlink and "blacklink" is, of course, only a technicality. WTAF is used in many list-articles to avoid them becoming spam-magnets for non-notable or even predatory journals. This list does have inclusion criteria and in order to know whether a journal complies with them, we need an article where we can verify this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. First of all our mission is to provide a list of the major journals. These major journals are important to the scholarly world whether not they have an article. Second wp:WTAF is not a ruler guideline personal opinion of two editors. Third WP:WTAF rupee the lease says it is primarily concerned with red links. Like links are different: using Google reader can immediately learn about the Journal. Our goal is to provide information to the users. Randykitty is contradictory: a) he insists on a rule; b) he agrees the rule does not apply (Because of what he calls a "technicality"); c) he refuses to admit it's not a rule at all. Rjensen (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said WTAF is a guideline. Fact is, however, that like many essays, it is applied quite widely. Without it, it becomes almost impossible to keep journal lists (and not just those) free from spam. Or those lists just become linkfarms with each (black- or redlinked) entry being "sourced" by a "reference" to their home page (having a homepage does not, AFAIK, establish notability). If you are consequent and really think that those unlinked journals are notable, then per WP:REDLINK they should be redlinked, which is why I said that the distinction between redlink and blacklink is a technicality. Creating a good journal article (following the easy instructions at WP:JWG) takes about 20 min, provided they are indeed notable and meet WP:NJournals (yes, I know, that's not a guideline either, but almost none of the journals that we have articles about meets WP:GNG straight on). Publishers like OMICS will be only too happy to fill our journal lists if we abandon WTAF. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete useful information on the pretense that it violates a rule--as you agree, no such "rule" exists. There is very little risk indeed that this particular article will become a link farm or otherwise be disruptive. Our goal is to have it maximally useful for readers who are looking for the names of scholarly journals in particular areas. In my opinion, these readers want to find the journal & its contents & its website, they are not especially looking for a Wikipedia article about the Journal. In order to compromise with you, I will be adding suitable footnotes to Journals that do not currently have articles, with the footnote providing suitable evidence that it is a recognized journal that fits our criteria. Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, but really have no time or inclination to get into a fight over this. I'm removing this from my watch list. I have seen list articles start out like this and then sliding off into linkspam territory pretty fast. So please keep it on your watchlist and keep it clean. I wash my hands of it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, good luck with your other projects. Rjensen (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I have to agree with Randykitty on this, though I think there is a place on Wikipedia for this sort of content. The gist of WTAF -- or at least the way I intend it -- is as a particular explanation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:N. Lists on Wikipedia are supposed to be encyclopedic lists, WP:NOT directories, yellow pages, link farms, or otherwise a lists that contain whatever an editor decides to add and/or what simply exists. That's why we have the common selection criteria. For a list that can be exhaustive, like the Rolling Stones discography, list of Academy Award winners, list of elements, etc. it makes sense to be exhaustive, but an open list of journals runs into problems which stem from WP:NOT, which the WP:CSC is intended to address. That it is useful is not typically itself a trump card as what's useful is highly subjective per editors' own evaluations. To me an ok compromise is when red/blacklinks are included accompanied by sufficient reliable secondary sources indicating notability. Now, all that said, I think there is a sort of article where this kind of information can live. It's kind of murky, since it does run into issues of e.g. WP:NOT, but it's in the vicinity of index and bibliography articles. Our bibliography of encyclopedias, for example, is great. It exists alongside list of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge. Most of our bibliographies are based on the notability of the group rather than of each entry. I think there would be far fewer arguments on list talk pages if we just came to agree that the coexistence of a bibliography and an encyclopedic list is standard, but as I say, it's kind of murky now. There's also an argument for moving it to the Wikipedia namespace.

TL;DR - This list should be for journals for which we have stand-alone articles, but I think we should also have a place that simply provides clear citations of history journals. Curious as to your thoughts (@both). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

sooner or later Wikipedia will get the articles on the major journals. Meanwhile users need a guide to the major 2-10 journals in a few dozen standard fields of history. The list also provides a guide to ambitious editors on what articles need to be written. Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

In theory I agree completely with Rjensen and this is how it would be in an ideal situation. In practice, it doesn't work. There's a lot of COI editing going on around academic journals. Publishers have people creating articles on their journals; journal editors, editorial board members, and editorial assistants create entries for their favorite pet journals, etc. Part of that is getting "their" journal on lists of journals, preferably with an external link to their homepage. It won't help their Google rank because of the nofollow feature, but it will drive some traffic to their websites. I track new journal articles as much as possible. If one gets created, it's relatively easy to check their notability. If fine, I'll do some cleanup and remove any promotional language (in case it was created by a COI editor) and often also some copyvio (word-for-word copies of journal scope and such). It is almost always possible to convince people creating articles for a publisher that they work for to adhere to WP:JWG and then they can create acceptable articles despite their COI. It's different with editors/board members/etc (and predatory publishers especially) and they often discover list articles as a target to promote their journals. In an ideal world, we'd have lots of "ambitious editors" keeping an eye on these lists. Unfortunately, in the real world we only have a few. And they can't know all journals in all fields and know whether they are notable or not. This is where WTAF comes in. If someone adds a journal that's bluelinked, I check that article for notability and if OK, I let the link stand. If it's "blacklinked" or redlinked, I basically would have to spend a lot of time checking sources, indexes, etc. to check whether that entry is legit or not, hardly leaving me time to do much else. So I apply WTAF and remove the entry. And if somebody turns up who fights about it like Rjensen here, I try to explain all this and if that doesn't work, I just withdraw from the article and let entropy do its work... Which is the case here: If any further response from me is needed, please ping me, because I am not watchlisting this. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty does not have history journals in mind. In the eight years of this article there's not been a single example of the kind of trouble that he talks about. I've been on the editorial boards of a lot of history journals, over the last 50 years, and can report that the editors do not consider predatory publishers the problem in history. The journals are very cheap, so there's no profit to be made. The vast majority of the 5000+ history journals are published by local historical societies by dedicated unpaid amateurs. In the case of this article, we have clearly defined criteria that exclude predatory publishers. I'm the only one here who's been adding "black" articles in every case I have done a background check and make sure that it is published by a leading publisher with a strong reputation. There are two types of mistakes: 1) including items that should not be there (Randykitty's concern) -- that has not been a problem for this article; 2) Excluding items that should be included. That is a serious problem that I have tried to solve it. Rjensen (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

See website - 66 times

Come one folks - this is just a drive-by comment to say can we have some proper references adding to this list, please, rather than virtually a bare url for each one saying "see website"? There are 66 of them like that- quite the worst I've seen for a long time. Whilst I'm here, there's currently a WP:AFD under discussion on History Matters. You folks might like to have an input. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

the links to the website are clear, permanent, highly relevant, and very useful. Every reader will know exactly what to expect. That's a very good record for 66 notes. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)