![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems that the journal title doesn't include the word The. Should this article be renamed "Journal of Controversial Ideas"? Throughthemind ( talk) 11:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
the current article is a pov advert that fails to include prominent criticisms.
Namely the criticism that the journal was mainly established to promote eugenic pseudo-science and extermination policies towards crip/disabl(ed) persons as well as providing a platform for bigots to normalise their woo woo ideas relating to race, gender, and sex.
Actual proof of editorial review has also been scant.
The current article fails to mention any of this, instead opting to take quotes from organisations with explicit connections to the journal.
Hardly surprising that a hokey journal has a one-sided hokey write-up on Wikipedia. Don't we need "both sides" here to? Or at least to cover the more prominent side? I.e. that this is an edgelord journal for bigots? So both sides or the more prominent side? Which is it? TalonX 77.191.173.70 ( talk) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems that the journal title doesn't include the word The. Should this article be renamed "Journal of Controversial Ideas"? Throughthemind ( talk) 11:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
the current article is a pov advert that fails to include prominent criticisms.
Namely the criticism that the journal was mainly established to promote eugenic pseudo-science and extermination policies towards crip/disabl(ed) persons as well as providing a platform for bigots to normalise their woo woo ideas relating to race, gender, and sex.
Actual proof of editorial review has also been scant.
The current article fails to mention any of this, instead opting to take quotes from organisations with explicit connections to the journal.
Hardly surprising that a hokey journal has a one-sided hokey write-up on Wikipedia. Don't we need "both sides" here to? Or at least to cover the more prominent side? I.e. that this is an edgelord journal for bigots? So both sides or the more prominent side? Which is it? TalonX 77.191.173.70 ( talk) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)