Talk:The Philosopher

message: The contents of this page are taken, unreferenced, from the web page, but I doubt it matters in this case. Anarchia 08:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: The central feature of The Philosopher is that is NOT an academic Journal. Exactly what it is is described on its website. The material in this opening paragraph is from the official history, and is not promotional but informative. Now you know, but I may take any further reverts as 'trolling' and involve an administrator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemtpm (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: a "learned, peer-reviewed journal" is one of the better definitions of "academic journal" that I have yet encountered... --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, but your arguments are not convincing at all. Being an alternative to academic philosophy does not mean that this is not an academic journal. And notability is not inherited. Articles are only notable if we have sources that are independent of the journal that say so, not just because their authors happen to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page is inaccurate - do not impose a false version of the Journal on the world 

message: These points are not relevant. The sufficient source for what the Journal is, is the Journal's official website. 83.200.237.248 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues box 

message: Here are some examples - the Journal is of course cited in many, many places and publications.
G.K. Chesterton on "The Need for a Philosophy"
is cited in Faithful Reason: Essays Catholic and Philosophical
 by John Haldane (2004)
Science., Art and Play - Prof Erwin Schrödinger
is listed in the biography for Schrodinger as a Nobel Prize Winner
http://www.zbp.univie.ac.at/schrodinger/ebibliographie/publications.htm
see: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/schrodinger-or.html
Other Resources
Biography
Moritz Schlick on 'Unanswerable Questions",
is cited in 
Questions and Questioning
 edited by Michel Meye (1998)
And a more recent article, 
James Danaher on "The Laws of Thought"
was cited in ‪The Enduring Significance of Parmenides‬ by ‪Raymond Tallis‬ (2007)
All of these can be Googled to see the actual pages citing the Journal. Thanks.90.55.9.227 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re. the Notability 'issues' raised  

message: There has been an attempt to redirect the website that the page for the journal/ magazine called "The Philosopher" directs to. For many years on WP it has pointed to the site www.the-philosopher.co.uk.
Nominet shows that this site was registered in 2000.
https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=the-philosopher.co.uk#whois-results
The site has articles on it for this period and continues to operate.
The Wikipedia page has been recently edited to now give this as the web address:
https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/
Wikipedians can check out when this site was started, but it has not been around long.
Secondly, the name of the editor of the Philosopher has been retrospectively' altered to give, for example "Mike Bavidge" as editor in 2011, whereas the page used to give "Martin Cohen" as the editor. (The www.the-philosopher.co.uk site still gives Martin Cohen as the editor.) If you check previous versions you will see how the list of editors has been altered in several places to suit someone's new agenda. Wp should be very suspicous of retrospective changes to pages that have been offering a different account for many years.
Presumably there is a new publication edited by Mike Bavidge/ Anthony Morgan, printed by "Biggs Books", just as there used to be, and maybe still is, a publication called "The Philosopher" in Australia.
However, neither of these other "The Philosophers" are the ones started in 1923 and produced more or less in a continual sequence, as can be seen by looking at the www.the-philosopher.co.uk website which carries articles from scanned from the printed journal in the 1920s and 1930s as well as more recent ones.
eg. http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/2016/08/originally-printed-in-philosopher.html
What I think may have happened is that this company, "Biggs Books" has started publishing a new philosophy magazine and for some reason feels the need to pretend that it is inheriting a much older one. The problem with this is that the Journal called "The Philosopher" that started in 1923 has kept publishing and so what has been done is to create a 'fork' - backdated to 2014 - with TWO publications claiming to be the Philosopher. However, because the www.the-philosopher.co.uk site has been around since 2000 and is still going, I think WP should count this as the 'real one'.
2A01:CB18:8461:3400:226:BBFF:FE18:843A (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page has been cyber-squatted by a new journal also called "the philosopher" 

message: This is somewhat of a continuation of previous discussion points started over the last couple of years. Some of this will also apply to Philosophical Society of England as well, given the relation between the publication and the society.
There are currently two publications carrying the name The Philosopher. Both trace their routes to a split, following a series of internal arguments within the Philosophical Society of England in 2014. Following that split, two publications emerged. An online only blog ran by Martin Cohen (philosopher), and a print only publication ran by Anthony Morgan. There seems to be some sort of animosity between the two groups, doubtless the result of the internal arguments within the PSE in 2014, and both make claim to be the sole continuation of the publication prior to the split. An IP based editor raised some of these issues here back in 2019. At the time, the only secondary sources they could find referred to Martin Cohen's version of the publication. I've since tried to find any other secondary sources, however the name of the publication makes that difficult as a simple Google search returns a lot of non-relevant news articles. 
The article as it currently stands almost entirely refers to the print only publication. The two citations in the article link to the society website, and the [ttps://www.thephilosopher1923.org/ print publication website], both of which appear to be run by Anthony Morgan. It does not make easily clear that there are two publications with the same name, with different editorial teams. It also solely relies on WP:PRIMARY sources to establish notability and content. 
One of the claims made in the article is that the journal is peer reviewed. The print format of the journal is not peer reviewed. Quoting from the lead editor . It is also not an academic journal, quoting from Adam Hodgkin:  These claims are reiterated a couple of times within the interview. 
The same appears true for the online format of the journal. The purpose of the online version is to . Articles submitted to it are  to reduce . The editorial team stress that 
As you can see from the words of the editors of both publications laying claim to the name, neither is peer reviewed, and neither is an academic journal. I'd like to propose, per WP:VERIFY that we remove the terms "peer-reviewed" and "journal" from the article, replacing it with something like "philosophical publication". I believe we also need to make it much clearer that there are currently two publications with the same name. Whether this requires an article split, or separate online and print sections is a matter for debate. The article itself doesn't receive much editorial attention at present, so I'm not sure if I'm talking into the void here or not. Hopefully someone sees this, but if there's no response in 72 hours I'll be WP:BOLD and start to clean up the article along the lines I've stated above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to this point, I've started a revamp draft in my sandbox. Any feedback is appreciated, with the goal of making clearer the delineation between the online and print versions of the journal. I plan on incorporating the secondary sources linked previously by the IPv6 editor, along with any others I can find. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

text: This seems like a reasonable suggestion. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've done as best as I can over at my sandbox. There's a distinct lack of secondary sources about this publication though I have managed to find a couple not linked previously, despite its age as a publication I am concerned about notability. Of the two current formats for the publication, neither is peer-reviewed, and both are aimed at a general non-academic audience. If there's no objections I'll be WP:BOLD and replace the article content with my sandbox version in 48 hours per my last reply here. If there's any sources I've missed, I'd greatly appreciate it but I'm not sure there are any more to add. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also going to ping active editors who have contributed here or the article in the past to get some more eyes on this. . Sorry if this bothers or is of no interest to you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty. Made the change to the main article now. Hopefully its all good and I'll be keeping this on my watch list in case changes are needed/suggested. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as a peer reviewed academic journal, a tale of two publications, and state of the article