Talk:Journal of Historical Review

	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
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Jewish history

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

journal-stub v. Scientific journal stubs

Unfortunately, there are journals which are not at all scientific.

But Wikipedia automatically classifies the as SCIENTIFIC!!!
This needs to be changed!!!

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book

To compensate for the fact that Wikipedia automatically classifies a {{journal-stub}} as SCIENTIFIC I have ellected to classify this antisemitic periodical as a comic book--until we ressolve the issue of this journal not being SCIENTIFIC!!! Yours truly,--Ludvikus 06:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journal of Historical Review. 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/20061202163147/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?xpicked=3&item=ihr to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?xpicked=3&item=ihr

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of template designed for academic journals

@Randykitty: You have restored a template which is explicitly designed for academic journals, as is stated in the template's documentation. The sources already on the article, and the text of the article, make clear this is not an academic journal. Why have you done so? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it’s inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is an academic journal. A very bad one (as the sources in article show), but an AJ nonetheless. We need a reference for the assertion that it is not peer-reviewed (if it is, "peers" will be extremists with the same ideas, but it is said nowhere that peer-review needs to be high quality). We have similar problems with Mankind Quarterly, another pseudoscientific rag. There, people review each others' papers and that is peer-review, bad, but nonetheless. I don't see any problem with calling the JoHR an "academic journal", as long as pour article makes it abundantly clear what we are dealing with here. --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reliable source claiming this periodical is an academic Journal. JimRenge (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is there a reliable source claiming this is a magazine... Being an "academic journal" is not an honorific, it's ust a type of ^periodical. We don't call predatory journals "magazines" either, even though they are far from respectable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. As has long been observed in our article at the Institute for Historical Review, the academic journal The History Teacher, in an examination of bad-faith attempts such as this to lend holocaust denial a facade of substance, states:^[1]
The IHR, which publishes The Journal of Historical Review, offers another interesting case. The Journal first appeared in 1980, and was intended, in the words of the publisher, "primarily for academics." In January 1993 they changed their format to a glossy magazine and the publisher observed, "We are expanding The Journal. We are making it even more interesting for a bigger circle of readers."'9 They are also, in the words of the editor, making "more generous use of photographs." Still, these people yearn for academic respectability in the greatest way: they make a point of advertising that of the twenty-six members on the advisory board, nineteen have Ph.D.s or the equivalent. The editors also boast on the first page of every issue that The Journal of Historical Review is listed in standard periodical directories and is a member of the Conference of Historical Journals. The quest for respectability also in- duces them to claim that they "continue in the tradition of Historical Revisionism of scholars such as...A.J.P. Taylor." An endorsement by the "mainstream" historian John Toland has also been utilized, even though he never appears to address the issue of the gas chambers.21 In fact, the magazine is shockingly racist and anti-Semitic: articles on "America's Failed Racial Policy" and anti-Israel pieces accompany those concerning the gas-chambers. One recent description of a protest aimed at one of the movement's leading figures described the "crowd of Marxists, Jews, homosexuals and Rastafarians...." They clearly have no business claiming to be a continuation of the revisionist tradition, and should be referred to as "Holocaust deniers."
So we have one highly reliable source which explicitly states it is a magazine and indicates that its claims to be an academic journal are fraudulent. As you implicitly concede, there are none which refer to it as an academic journal. There are also a significant number of other other scholarly sources which state it is a pseudoacademic or pseudoscientific publication. pseudēs from the Greek meaning false, or to lie. As we have sourcing for magazine, and none for "academic journal", the latter's use here is inappropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not this is a 'magazine' or 'academic journal' (fake or fraudulent or legit), the relevant keypoints are better summarized by infobox journal so that's the infobox that should be used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the above, I agree that infobox journal would be more representative of what the JHR actually is. It's not an academic journal. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: This comment is slightly confusing, as it seems to point in two directions – is there a typo? Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? I'm agreeing with Headbomb. What typo? Doug Weller talk 12:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I know that your time here is limited these days, but your perspective as an academic librarian would be very helpful here... --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are cases for inclusion of non-peer reviewed journals, but this case is an explicitly pseudo-scientific/fraudulent "journal". Just because they describe themselves as a journal/target academics, does not mean we should regurgitate their fringe views. If the infobox had an explicit field for fringe journals, I would support its usage, but till then,{{Infobox magazine}} is the way to go. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not {{infobox legitimate academic peer-reviewed journal}}, it's {{infobox journal}}, regardless of legitimacy. Journal of Cosmology might be a nutcase journal, but it is a journal nonetheless. And it's the same here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So was this peer reviewed or not? Citation needed tag about this in the body would be good to address. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was at best reviewed by revisionist peers (and likely just needed EiC approval). I doubt you'll find a source talking about it specifically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the absence of it, we have to stick to sources. Citation needed should be addressed, if necessary, with the claim to the website itself that it is peer reviewed (according to itself)... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) PS. We can always tag such a claim with ^{[non-primary source needed]} to indicate the problem and wait for a secondary source that questions the peer review process in this outlet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it should not be listed as an academic journal. journal would seem best. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is precisely an "academic journal"? Wikipedia defines it as follows: "A periodical publication in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published. Academic journals serve as permanent and transparent forums for the presentation, scrutiny, and discussion of research. They nearly universally require peer review or other scrutiny from contemporaries competent and established in their respective fields." The key word here is "nearly," so maybe we are confusing a plain attribute, i.e. "academic journal", with scientific, research, or academic credibility as a given fact. Because there are many examples of journals fitting the definition that have been shown not to have followed what is accepted as a scientific process.

Additionally, the fact that the template used here is one for academic journals does not bestow academic worth to the Journal as such. Wikipedia is not, in itself, a creator of information, or, worse, a means of assessment. Templates are mere instruments of editing. We could use a plain "journal" template, of course, but even the use of the "academic" one is not significant.-The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Petropoulos, Jonathan. "Confronting the 'Holocaust as Hoax' Phenomenon as Teachers". The History Teacher. 28 (4): 523–539.

Unreliable source

Can we all agree that this magazine is an unreliable source? Some people on Wikipedia wrongly think it is ok to cite the source to be "neutral" because apparently us Wikipedia editors are not supposed to be biased against Nazi propaganda. --QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Petropoulos, Jonathan. "Confronting the 'Holocaust as Hoax' Phenomenon as Teachers". The History Teacher. 28 (4): 523–539.

[1]