Talk:Journal of Historical Review

message: 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)
thread_title:  journal-stub v. Scientific journal stubs 

message: To compensate for the fact that Wikipedia automatically classifies a  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)
thread_title:  Comic book 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see no reliable source claiming this periodical is an academic Journal. JimRenge (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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: 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)

text: *: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)

text: *::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)

text: *::: 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)

text: *::::? I'm agreeing with Headbomb. What typo? Doug Weller talk 12:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of template designed for academic journals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable source