Talk:International Affairs (journal)

	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.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Promotional tone

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article was expanded by WP:SPA, but sadly, this rewrite is clearly promotional, with wording in lead such as ' highly regarded ', 'leading journal'. Only the 'featured work by some of the leading figures in global politics and academia' claim seems substantiated, the rest is rather subjective, and even so the word leading (used twice in the lead at some point) is hardly neutral. A good chunk of the history is WP:OR/WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia is not the place to publish an essay about a history or importance of the journal. If a journal board want to write such an item up, they should have it published in a peer review outlet that is preferably not their own journal (through I'll note that when I wrote the entry for the International Sociological Association, I used a non-peer reviewed study published by ISA itself, since nobody else bothered to discuss ISA's significance/history in-depth). User:Randykitty suggested we remove all the OR/PRIMARY stuff; I am not so sure - it seems moderately useful, if promotional/ORish. The journal is notable, the question is can we keep the entry that is in the end not based on required independent sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This page has since been updated with promotional language removed.

Add topic