This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Magazines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

According to this publication's own submission guidelines, editorials will be reviewed by a single reviewer. Nothing is said about other types of articles. This does not sound like the classical peer review process of academic journals, but more like the editorial procedures followed by magazines or newspapers. This publication should therefore be called a "magazine" and the words "peer-reviewed" should be removed from the lead. --Crusio (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That it be non standard is little surprising, it should not be censored nevertheless. Electronic journals are forming an observable trend, especially in reaction to the many acknowledged biases of standard peer-review. I submit the journal be labelled "non standard peer review", out of respect for Crusio's seasoned though possibly conservative point of view GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is talking about "censoring" here. Could you please tone down your rhetoric to what is customary on WP? There is no evidence that there is "non-standard peer review" (whatever that may mean). I don't understand the resistance to calling this a "magazine", that's a perfectly respectable thing, albeit a different one from an academic journal. --Crusio (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once and for all, the standard of reference in wikipedia is not the academic but the juridic one. Namely any factual reference holds, just like it would in a trial, not for a journal commitee. In that any third party reference (CV, etc.) holds juridically. Justice is quite older than academic journals you know... GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You should re-write the appropriate rules and guidelines on WP, so that they conform to this view. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's don't use CVs of third persons as sources. In the justice system, a witness may be heard and that constitutes valid evidence. Here on WP, "X or Y said so" is not an acceptable source. There is a difference between juridically valid proof and encyclopedic sourcing. --Crusio (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E-International Relations. 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/20100822000009/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0617_human_rights_korea_cohen.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0617_human_rights_korea_cohen.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

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) 10:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]