Talk:Feminist Africa/Archive 1

Disruptive editing by Guillaume2303

You can see my reasons for speedily reverting Guillaume2303 from this conversation on their talk page:

Guillaume2303, I'm sorry to say I found your cuts to the Feminist Africa to be unhelpful, bordering on vandalism. You delete several paragraphs worth of material that detail the journal's significance—and then slap a notability template on the top of the article! (Bad enough even if we didn't live in a world where African women are inherently at a disadvantage with respect to internet media, and Feminist Africa has nevertheless succeeded in establishing notability online.) I echo the concerns of users above in the discussion about Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra Jaume Almera, right down to the unjust dismissal of "in passing" discussion in references. groupuscule (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• The references that I removed did not discuss the journal, did not substantiate anything that was said in the article, or were not independent of the journal. Every edit was explained in the edit summaries. If the journal is notable, then please add references that show this (see WP:NJournals and WP:GNG for what is needed). As for vandalism: reverting wholesale even edits that correct errors (like adding the correct ISO abbreviation to the infobox) is much closer to "vandalism" than anything that I did. Some tips for writing articles on academic journals can be found in this guide. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• You deleted (among many others) a sentence with two sources, stating that Feminist Africa is the first continental African gender studies journal. The sentence is an obvious justification for notability and the sources were valid. You've deleted all sources that speak positively of the journal but left in a piece of criticism. The article meets the guidelines specified in the style guide you provide—and this style guide is furthermore no reason to limit information about the social importance of a journal. I don't work for Feminist Africa and the article as it stands is not fluff or PR. Your edits are truly baffling to me and I cannot see what purpose they serve. groupuscule (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Groupuscule, "disruptive editing" is edit warring over edits and wholesale reverting them with no better explanation than "undid a series of severely unhelpful cuts to the article". Anyway, I have proposed the article for deletion and the rest of the discussion can take place there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you agree that the disruptive edit where I transformed a reference into a correctly templated one (Berger, Iris (2008). "Feminism, Patriarchy, and African Women's History" (PDF). Journal of Women's History. 20 (2): 130. doi:10.1353/jowh.0.0021.) was, perhaps, not really disruptive, you can perhaps place it back. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New era of peace and cooperation

Thank you for the peace offering on my talk page. Consensus > fighting. As far as the citation is concerned, I do prefer to avoid the template, since it significantly increases load times (particularly as articles get longer)—and this effect has been reported as a particular problem in areas of Africa where connection strength is not good. I don't agree that the template is the only proper citation format, but I do understand that there are advantages to using the template. Also, one citation does not make a big difference, so we can change it if you feel that it's necessary.

I will look for more information and sources discussing the journal. I think the source of our disagreement is that I am viewing it as an important social phenomenon, resource, and achievement for African feminists, not as a an academic journal per se. I think it would be great for the article to contain all the information that is due to academic journals, but at the same time there is additional content that should be included. (See Encounter for another publication of this type.) Thanks again for your offer to cooperate, and I will do my best to consider your perspective when we disagree. I'll start compiling those sources as soon as I finish the edit I'm working on now. groupuscule (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the problem is, I think, that our ideas of what is "worthy" not always square with WPs ideas of "notability", whether this is a journal or a social phenomenon. One advantage of regarding it as a journal is that WP:NJournals is designed to find ways to show notability for academic journals, which often lack in-depth coverage in other sources (i.e., journals are not often discussed in other publications). In any case, there are several ways of showing notability and we don't need all of them, an article only needs to fulfill one, that's enough. As for the template, I like it because it includes things like the doi and also standardizes reference formatting, but I was absolutely unaware of the fact that it increases loading times (I guess that in Europe and the US we're a bit spoiled in this respect). If you think that this is an issue here, then, sure, leave it as it is. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think the journal is notable on all three counts. I don't know about those citation indexes, and I see that Google Scholar is not by itself reliable, but if you do the "feminist africa" search on Google Scholar you do see many widely-cited articles. Example. Example.

• I don't think this is the way to go. It shows that some articles have been cited, but the citation counts are not very impressive. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Article on social impact of the journal on feminist organizing in Africa—satisfies criteron 1.
• Two sources in the article on "first continental African gender studies journal" (also why Berger describes it as "pioneering")—satisfies criteron 3.

• Can you clarify what is meant with "accreditation"? Sounds weird, as this is usually something done for schools and such. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• On accreditation, refer to the Opening Scholarship case study on Feminist Africa (also a good source for general notability). It says: "The journal was recently accredited in 2005 by the DoE, which entitles local authors publishing research articles in the journal to collect publication subsidy" (p. 10).

• Ah, now I see where this comes from. This may be a better way to show notability. Is there perhaps a listing on the DoE website of "accredited" journals? Figuring on such a list is almost always accepted in an AfD as proof of notability (even though I myself often disagree with that... ;-) As for the pdf that you cited: is this independent from the journal and/or its editors? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• List of accredited journals. AFAICT that study is hosted at UCT, so not fully independent (though I can't determine whether the people who conducted it are affiliated with Feminist Africa or the AGI.

• Accreditation...what a concept. Try to do that in the US and you'll be hanged, drawn and quartered. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment

No worries, either way, was just trying to help out and format the talk page with WikiProjects, etc. Feel free to modify as needed. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Added links and portals

I've added some links and portals, diff, feel free to take 'em or leave 'em at your discretion, no worries, either way! :) Have a wonderful day! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of see also links

• Regarding removal of see also links, totally no worries, these were just some thoughtful suggestions, feel free to prune/add others as needed. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Added some different relevant links to "See also" sect

I've added some different relevant links to "See also" sect, please see diff link. Feel free to add/trim/prune as needed. Have a great day! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)