Talk:Dionysius (journal)

Philosophy: Literature / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Contemporary philosophy

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Editorial Advisors

Although it may not be customary for boards of editorial advisors to be listed in Wikipedia articles that relate to scholarly journals, it nevertheless seems to me that an exception should be made in this case. This journal, though well-known to those concerned with the history of neoplatonism, might be thought (wrongly, but understandably) by others to be of little importance. The fact that the original board of advisors (I have open at my side a copy of Volume I as I write) contained a number of the most celebrated scholars of ancient philosophy and religion alive in 1977 surely is important for establishing the journal's notable history. Among them are: Werner Beierwaltes, Henry Chadwick, Mary T. Clark, Emil Fackenheim, J.N. Findlay, Hans-Georg Gadamer, George Grant, Malcolm Ross, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, and George Williams. Note that I mention only those who have Wikipedia articles. Note also that most of these advisors were also contributors to the journal. It seems to me that this information is likely to be of great interest to readers who make use of this Wikipedia article.

I hope I don't seem disrespectful if I suggest that to omit information very likely to be of interest to those turning to this article for help simply makes no sense.

Tillander 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a list of the editorial board members makes perfect sense. I would encorage you to add it. WHoever deleted it in the past has clearly not posted their reasons adequately here, so I do not see why you are giving in to their demards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list of advisory members and some dates. I have seen lists of advisory board members connected with other institutions, and I have seen lists of members of boards of trustees. Such lists are acceptable at some points, they are best however entered in list form and not text form. This list does need to be expanded and updated, but that can be done.

There have been repeated long discussions at the Wikiproject Academic Journals about whether or not lists of editorial board members/advisers should be included. Those who are familiar with the inner workings of academic journals know that editorial boards are basically lists of names of people who endorse a journal by agreeing to be listed in that way. Rarely do these board members actually do something. The consensus in the project is not to list board members, unless there are reliable sources documenting that a certain person actually did something of relevance for the journal. Just being listed is not regarded as "doing something of relevance". Hope this explains, the discussions can be found in the talk archives of said project. --Crusio (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]