Talk:Modern Theology (journal)

It's real

I can't find its impact factor, and I suspect it's low, but you can't say it has been completely ignored...

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=modern+theology&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en

It has published a handful papers with citations in the double digits, which isn't earth shattering, but should be worth something. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

impact factors are not normally calculated in the humanities; they would be relatively worthless, since most of the citations are generally from books. Books are not included as sources in Scopus or WoS, and GoogleScholar only includes those for which the publishers let it. DGG (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But is it notable?

Mere existence isn't sufficient reason to have an article, and a single citation to its own webpage doesn't do anything in that respect either. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an academic journal, and there aren't a lot of those, especially in theology. Not an especially prestigious one, I suspect, though I don't know the field. But it's been around a long time and it's published a number of papers that have received some recognition (see the google scholar link above). There are some links to the page from on Wikipedia, mostly WP:Project pages. There probably isn't a lot written directly about it, but that doesn't disqualify it, there are some subjects that people tend not to write about. (See WP:DEFACTO). It isn't a speedy, but I won't be offended if you take it to AfD. In fact, that's probably the best place to take it. There'll be people there with more idea than us about whether it is as minor as we think, and if so, what is the threshold for notability for a small academic journal. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rarity ≠ notability. That "there probably isn't a lot written directly about it" is in fact an excellent reason to disqualify it. Not only for the reason that this means it doesn't meet WP:GNG, but because it means that the article contents is likely to be WP:OR and/or a WP:DIRECTORY listing (generally containing a collection of WP:PRIMARY-sourced data). (As you might have guessed, I'm not a big fan of WP:Inherent notability.) My first inclination is to (i) allow you some time to create a notable article then (ii) restore the redirect if this doesn't occur. I would only bother taking it to an AfD if the redirect were disputed. For one thing, such an AfD would be more likely to be ideological, rather than fact/guideline based -- I know of at least one AfD/journal regular who has stated the opinion that any journal cited in WP should have an article (as an argumentum ad absurdum, I wonder what would happen if that were applied to every website cited as well). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any documented guidelines for which academic journals should have articles. I think the only way to get a firm determination would be to go to AFD. The main things I would look at are the history and the editorial board (not the impact factor – that is only relevant in the sciences). — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic: not only the sciences, unless you include social-sciences. I don't have the inclination to spend the time needed to expand on the article. Others might. I would dispute a redirect. It's past my bedtime. Carl, will you AFD it? Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that journals by major publishers, such as Wiley, should either have independent articles, or should have redirects to a list of journals by that publisher. This lets us link to journal titles from citations. Thus I am somewhat reluctant to start an AFD when I don't think outright deletion is a good option. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the closest analogue would be WP:ACADEMIC, but would note the caveat in that guideline: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I would suspect that it would be even more important in dealing with journals. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the opposite is more likely to be true. With academics, we have the issue of biographies, and we often have little information about the person beyond the titles of their publications. With journals, we almost always have sourceable basic information: editorial board, mission, year founded, publisher, etc. The question is when a journal is important enough to warrant a separate article, and I think that probably has to be handled on a case by case basis, because there are so many fields involved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Such "basic information" would most probably be more suitable for a list (or better yet a table) entry. In any case, such WP:PRIMARY information is generally considered unsuitable as a sole basis for a (separate) article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's notable. It is an established peer-reviewed journal from a major academic publisher, is held by hundreds of relevant libraries, and is indexed by the specialized indexing services in the field. (& in this case also all the general humanities indexes, and even Scopus, which covers relatively few humanities journals.) There is no need for a case-by-case basis--these are usable general criteria.

We have consistently been adding all such articles, and are trying to fill the gaps. See the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals for additional discussion. Hrafn, I am afraid your view is opposite the consensus; you are welcome to go to AfD, but the only indexed peer-reviewed journal not kept in the last few years has been one not even held by the library of the university that published it. I have added all the basic material, which is easy for anyone to find, being in worldCat and the journal site (Since I have Ulrich's immediately available, I use it for convenience) , and red-linked the articles we need--including the editors, for if one is editor in chief of a journal like this it is sufficient to show notability. If someone wishes to do the work it is also appropriate to include the best known articles.

Though usefulness is not the criterion for an article, it is particularly valuable to include a journal that is used in Wikipedia articles as it is not always easy to tell the major academic journals from a very wide range of others and information to that effect is helpful in determining the reliability of content in disputed articles. We have a project to add every such journal, so Hrafn, if you really do oppose, you'll have a good many thousand articles to oppose-- and much convincing to do. DGG (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG:

1. Crusio has recently requested that I be less "aggressive" in my comments. So beyond stating that opening comments like "Of course it's notable" really (really REALLY) get up my nose, I will attempt to be mild-mannered about this.
2. I will note that the information you cite about it addresses none of the established notability criteria.
3. I will note that "all such articles" is not an "occasional exception" to such guidelines, as envisaged in {{guideline}}.
4. I will note that the article as it stands, based solely on such information is simply a WP:DIRECTORY listing -- something Wikipedia policy purports that it is WP:NOT.

For these reasons, I am less than happy with a statement such as "Of course it's notable." I cannot help but hear in it the smug implicit qualifier "…because we say so." I dare say that there are enough WP:WikiProject Academic Journals members who are also AfD regulars to enforce this subversion of policy. All I can do is withhold my respect from those who impose their wishes by stealth, rather than seeking a relevant guideline or change in policy. The end result of this, and other such subversions, is an ever increasing proliferation of 'non-articles' and trash articles, with a resultant lessening of focus and lowering of quality. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a friendly acknowledgement that we will probably continue to disagree on this.

When I comment, I try to differentiate between my own views and those I think are accepted here. You may notice I did not say that I personally agree that all peer-reviewed journals referred to in Wikipedia should have articles. I avoided saying that because I'm not sure I agree with it, although the majority of those working on the subject follow that practice. "of course" did not mean "because I say so" but "because the others say so" -- and that's the basis of consensus. DGG (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

I am very tempted to rename the page to Modern Theology (Journal)... Ben Aveling 09:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps better not to. I did the same with Psychiatric Genetics and moved it to Psychiatric Genetics (journal), to avoid confusion with Psychiatric genetics, but some admin jumped through some elaborate hoops to get that undone, so there may be some policy against it. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If A has been moved to B, and no-where else, and nothing else happens at A, then it is simple to move B back to A. My motivation is that it makes it clearer that Modern Theology is a journal. My motivation for not doing so is that nothing else wants the title, and that is usually the main reason for a disambig. I'll leave it. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, we only use titles like "XXX (foo)" if there is some other article already at XXX, trying to avoid the "(foo)" part unless there are two articles with the same title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It would have made life much easier if they called themselves "Journal of Modern Theology". Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the move, and have made it. If it is reverted, we should have a general discussion on the suitable style. The general rule about (foo), like all general rules, is not good practice if there is lack of clarity. (I will also say fwiw, that in my opinion the general rule is wrong, and we should disambiguate all common terms and non-distinctive names that do not indicate properly the subject of the article. This is a particularly clear example of why we need to change it. The point of an encyclopedia is to be useful to the readers.DGG (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)