Talk:Telos (journal)

Criticism
On March 31, 2011, I added a Criticism section to the Telos (journal) article in order include content from a 2008 piece for The Public Eye magazine written by Spencer Sunshine. On April 15, 2011, User:Fizzbot86 removed the section while simply stating that I should see “WP guidelines on NPOV”.

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

I've therefore restored the section, renamed it Critical reception, and I will be adding more content in the coming days or weeks. --Loremaster (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To the contrary, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view is being abided by correctly in this case. The quotation in question from The Public Eye magazine, which would not be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia's classification, but rather as a questionable source, defined by WP as follows: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." The Wikipedia entry for The Public Eye notes that researchers for the magazine's sponsoring organization, Political Research Associates, have been accused of being "conspiracy mongers" who use "guilt by association" techniques. Whether or not one agrees with this characterization, the source is manifestly questionable to those whose political viewpoints it opposes. As an analogue from the world of cable tv news, this would be like treating Bill O'Reilly as a reliable source for information about Keith Olbermann, or vice versa.


 * In addition, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view stresses the avoidance of "contentious labels" and "loaded words," to which associations with Nazism (as in the cited quotation) would certainly belong. It should go without saying that linking a publication, however indirectly, with Nazism or fascism constitutes a contentious use of language. Placing these accusations in a quotation from a source with a strong and contrary political viewpoint only ends up using the source to ventriloquize this viewpoint; it does not remove its bias.


 * Given these issues, and rather than engaging in an edit war, I am moving the criticism section to the discussion section pending its revision. Pending your revision, I would recommend (1) locating at least one reliable source, and ideally more neutral sources, to back up the evidence of "critical reception"; and (2) avoiding indirect linkages to Nazi or fascist ideology, particularly given what I think we can all agree was one of the lowest and ugliest points in the history of the human species. Fizzbot86 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ==Critical reception==
 * In a 2008 article for The Public Eye magazine, Spencer Sunshine wrote:
 * In a 2008 article for The Public Eye magazine, Spencer Sunshine wrote:




 * I agree with everything you have done and said except for your objection to an indirect linkage to Nazi ideology. If a reliable source makes the indirect linkage, we should report it. --Loremaster (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
This is regarding the edits to the Telos journal. Not sure why you erased the contribution of the journal in introducing European philosophers to the English speaking world. (Lukacs, Baudrilliard and later Schmitt). This has been very significant for many of the social sciences and the humanities. And much more important than "impact factors". The latter is insignificant because while of possible use int he sciences it is of no relevance for the social/sciences and humanities. This is because of the nature of the latter. For instance you might have much more citations of a particular article in a particular field because the field is much bigger (contemporary crime in america compared to the nature of crime in Hegel). This does not indicate "value" in any sense. Which is why universities across the world, and I can speak of America, Europe and South Asia) do not every ask for "impact factor" of the journal one contributes in for their promotions. This is well known. And therefore reason enough not to take "impact factor" seriously. In the light of the above please restore my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe1765 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite your distaste for the impact factor, it is widely used also in the social sciences and humanities. More importantly, the information has an impeccable source and there is no reason whatsoever to remove it. As for the other contributions of the journal, that is at this point just POV and name-dropping. If you have an independent reliable source that says this, we can think about adding it, but unsourced like this is a no-no. So, no, at this point I see no reason whatsoever to restore your edits. (Copied from my talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not a question of my "distaste" for the impact factor. You say it is "widely used", but provide no evidence. The fact of the matter is that for "impact factor" is not used as a criteria for the most important functions of the University. It is not used as a criteria for hiring academics, for promotions, or for granting fellowships for research. This means that the academic community in the social sciences and the humanities do not consider "impact factor" as a reliable indicator for quality. And as this entry is for an academic journal, the impact factor should not be included as a description of the journal. In the case of Telos, this problem is compounded by the fact that it is classified as a sociology journal. Which it is not, as even the wikepedia entry will make clear. This further makes the "impact factor" and the methodology used (which presumes its a journal of Sociology and therefore compares it with Sociology journals), wholly erroneous. So the accuracy of the source, is not relevant, and therefore should be removed. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "name dropping". If you were to look at the back issues of Telos either through the its website or any University library you will see that it has indeed published the writings of the figures that I mentioned i.e. Lukacs, Baudrilliard, Adorno (and many others). This is there even in the first article cited in the wikepedia entry. But if you want more evidence, in addition to this, the one's I could easily find are here: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=SPJFw9Sr264C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=telos+journal+translations+lukacs&source=bl&ots=ime5n7QehI&sig=kcIB8wr25jj45_4R0UlgucxcDA8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=075uVbfkOI6R7AbV-4KwCQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=telos%20journal%20translations%20lukacs&f=false, and https://books.google.co.in/books?id=I7CnBc47xWIC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=first+of+the+year:+2008&source=bl&ots=Cn_eBvFH2R&sig=xVqFTn8pn-2FaDNIE_rSZlkyR-o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l79uVdbREszW7Ab9_ILQAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=telos&f=false From these sources the importance and characteristic feature of the journal include the introduction of important European philosophers, a fact established and known without doubt. In the light of the above, I hope you have been persuaded, and will restore my edits.Joe1765 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1/ Impact factor: this information is well sourced and displayed in every single article on an academic journal that is included in the JCR. Please note that removing sourced information is considered disruptive. Thomson Reuters reports the journal in its category "sociology". We report that. If it is incorrect, you have to take that up with TR. If you think it is irrelevant, you'll have to convince them to delist Teleos. 2/ "Name dropping". Going to the tables of contents and make an eclectic selection of what you think are important contributors or topics, is what we call original research. If you have a reliable source that says "John Die was an important contributor to Teleos", then we can include that. As long as it is you who says "i think it is important", sorry, but your personal POV cannot be included. Please stop adding unsourced material and removing sourced content. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)