Talk:Telos (journal)

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)Reply

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)Reply

==Critical reception==

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (April 2011)

In a 2008 article for The Public Eye magazine, Spencer Sunshine wrote:

In the United States, the influential journal Telos (known for disseminating Western Marxist texts into English) moved rightward in the 1990s as its editor showed sympathy for Europe’s New Right and published [Alain de] Benoist’s works. It continues to publish Benoist, and explores the thought of Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt. Many Leftists now consider the once venerable journal anathema.^[1]

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

The criticism by Joane Braune, who unfortunately is not listed as an author in Scopus and whose publication 'Journal of Social Justice' does not appear in Scopus either, should be completely removed from the article. If the article is already littered with 'impact factor' figures, this should be stated. Otherwise, there is no evidence to support the claim that Telos is promoting a debate that distorts the Frankfurt School as an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy'. As one of the most prominent Jewish intellectuals in the US, the long-time editor of Telos, Professor Russell Berman, a full professor at Stanford and a researcher at the Hoover Institute, deserves a different echo in the pages of Wikipedia. However, the article as it stands can only be interpreted as an attempt to denigrate Telos simply because it does not suit the political views of some Wikipedia authors. Right' or 'left' are not categories of academic quality. Most Nobel laureates in economics and most Skytte laureates in political science could be denounced as "right-wing". The article, as published on Wikipedia, also denigrates the Telos authors of recent years in a way that should be discussed in the wider academic and political world. Bibliographer social science (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The editors of Wikipedia should carefully consider what to do with this article on Telos. In any case, the fact is that an intellectual flagship of the humanities, involving two leading faculty members from Stanford University and the University of California, is being 'belittled' with reference to a single article by a researcher, Joane Braune, who published her 'heavy artillery' in a journal that is not even mentioned in the world's most comprehensive journal database, MIAR, at the University of Barcelona. Ms Braune - and anyone can check this on Google - has published articles among others in the Jesuit magazine 'America Magazine', and she is a researcher at a smaller Catholic Jesuit university, Gonzaga University. As such, she would have done well to leaf through recent issues of Telos, where she would have found articles by committed 'progressive Catholics' such as Adrian Pabst. Instead of claiming that Telos is full of fascists, racists and sympathisers of the Italian political party Lega Nord, she should have looked at what leading social scientists such as Andrei Markovits had to say for Telos and Telos Press. I do not wish to belittle Ms Braune's commitment here, but she seems to be doing great harm to the ideals of a cosmopolitan, ecumenical Catholicism committed to ecological and social justice in the tradition of Pope Francis I, both in this matter and in her apparent participation in the current 'campus intifida' against Israel. She should also learn from Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits: "Humility - the acceptance of truth - requires honesty. Honesty and humility require a surrender or a letting go of our desire for control, security, esteem and approval." As it stands, the Wikipedia article is a shambles that goes far beyond Wikipedia and should be also discussed at the level of the leadership of Gonzaga University and the American Jesuit order. Defaming some of the world's leading researchers as racists, fascists and even neo-Nazis is a really strong piece and an absolutely untrue statement. Bibliographer social science (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Enough is enough: a courageous user of Wikipedia has tried to correct the misrepresentations in the article on Telos, but apparently without success. Mrs Braune’s completely false analysis - and her slanders about Nazis, racists and fascists in Telos - are still emblazoned on the pages of Wikipedia, while a simple content analysis (using the Telos website) of the mentions of terms and names in Telos articles during the tenure of the two editors, Russell Berman and David Pan, can convince any user, that Adorno is mentioned 255 times, Michel Foucault 193 times, Max Horkheimer 125 times and, incidentally, the Catholic Church 72 times and the Jesuit order 30 times during this period; it is up to Mrs Braune, as a member of a Jesuit university, to provide a truthful assessment of this issue. In any case, it is absolutely unacceptable for the entire faculties of the humanities at two of the world's leading universities, Stanford and UC Irvine, to be slandered in this way on the pages of Wikipedia. Finally, as in the earlier discussion sections of this Wikipedia article, a reference is made to the MIAR database of the University of Barcelona, which evaluates more than 50,000 journals, and to the ICDS quality index of Telos, which is currently 11.0, which means that Telos is certainly one of the most prestigious humanities journals in the world for the reference year 2021. Enough of these misrepresentations, and Wikimedia has an ultimate responsibility for what is put out into the world on its pages; as Russell Berman was right in a recent article when he said "draining the swamp", yes - draining the present Wikipedia swamp will be an important task in America; and an end to the role of self-appointed anonymous experts in the field of science over highly qualified representatives of the humanities from Stanford and UC Irvine. Frete unicolore (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Regarding this diatribe, just two remarks: 1/ Minor point: the MIAR ICDS index is rather meaningless and is irrelevant for the demonstration of notability. 2/ WP editors should NOT perform "a simple content analysis", see WP:OR. It is not up to WP to impose its views on the world, what we write should be based on reliable sources independent of the subject, not our own opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  As any visitor to the MIAR website at https://miar.ub.edu/about-us can see, the MIAR team which designed the Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals (50743 journals, 120 sources, 7 evaluation resources) comprises leading researchers in the field of bibliometry, who published widely on the MIAR matrix, and the ICDS journal indicator (2008-2021) and the new cN+mN+eN+xN indicator since 2022. TELOS performs well

  on all these indicators, and interested readers are being referred to the available literature. Frete unicolore (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  by the way: Somoza-Fernández, M., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., & Urbano, C. (2016). Presence of alleged predatory journals in bibliographic databases: Analysis of Beall's list. El profesional de la información, 25(5). Frete unicolore (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latest Clarivate data (December 6, 2024) Frete unicolore (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)suggest that the journal Impact Factor is 0.1. Frete unicolore (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)The data used in the article are a decade (!) old Frete unicolore (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) The Journal Citation Indicator in Philosophy (AH Index) is Q3; not Q4! Frete unicolore (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking more closely at the alleged connection between Telos magazine and Chronicle magazine in the Wikipedia article, it all boils down to a 3-decade-old article in the aforementioned magazine 30 years ago - more topicality, please! Frete unicolore (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article now debates at length an event in 1994, quoting a journal „Konturen“ which is - again - not included in Scopus, MIAR, and which is described in a badly written Wikipedia article. No Wikipedia authors correct this article. But any attempt to present a truthful picture of Telos is doomed to failure. And it seems that any piece published anywhere can now be used to degrade an important scholarly journal and its current authors. Frete unicolore (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

A number of independent reliable sources describe the 1994 event (including sources not currently cited), so it warrants some inclusion per WP:INDY and WP:WEIGHT. I agree that less length is warranted about the 1994 event. The quotation from the conference announcement, a primary source with limited uses in the encyclopedia, should be removed or replaced with a reputable secondary source. Llll5032 (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I removed the summary of the conference announcement primary source. The description could be restored if cited to a secondary source. Regarding the remaining information about the Francis speech, how much detail should be kept is unclear, but what is kept should follow the emphasis of the independent reliable sources per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:REPUTABLE, and WP:INDY. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The vilification of a scholarly journal and its editors and authors of articles on the pages of Wikipedia and by the two scholars, Joseph Lowndes and Joan Braune, is certainly not trivial and should also be considered in the light of the presence of the apparently conflicting parties in international libraries and how the international markets for scholarly products consider their works important enough to give them a presence on the shelves of their libraries. here are some facts based on OCLC Worldcat firstSearch: Telos is listed in 466 libraries worldwide, while the Journal of Social Justice is only available in 84 libraries worldwide, and Konturen could not be found by me in the OCLC catalogue system. well, the world's professional libraries have spoken with their journal orders. In the literature, the indicator "Libcitation" is often used for academic authors and not only for journals, and here the results are just as clear: the long-time Telos editor and professor at Stanford University, Russell Berman, has published no less than six books that have been purchased by more than 500 libraries worldwide, and his two critics, Joseph Lowndes and Joane Braune, each have three books with this level of distribution. It should also be added that the impactFactor data in the Wikipedia article, which is more than ten years old, urgently needs to be updated. As of today, a query of the Clarivate Journal Citation Indicator shows that Telos ranks 228 out of 331 journals in the field of philosophy, 254 out of 318 in political science and 183 out of 217 in sociology. But one thing must be made clear here: The article by Mr Lowndes from the University of Oregon is more of an impressionistic journey with subjective impressions about the development of the journal Telos, and it does not use modern methods of political science text analysis such as quantitative content analysis, which if Mr Lowndes had done, he would have come to the conclusion that Telos has discussed an absolute variety of articles and ideological viewpoints in all the past years and decades, including contributions on the now so important Austro-Hungarian socialist Karl Polanyi. More objectivity, please. To speak in a completely impressionistic way of a collection of racists, fascists and right-wing radicals at work in Telos is absolutely inaccurate, and a serious analysis, as one might expect from the head of a prestigious American university Pol Sci Department such as Professor Lowndes, would prove the contrary. Frete unicolore (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some other reliable sources have cited Lowndes' article, which confirms WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If other reputable English language sources independent of Telos have characterized the journal recently, then can you suggest such sources to summarize? Llll5032 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some long quotations have been added recently and should be reduced, per the guidance at WP:LONGQUOTE. Also, WP:SCHOLARSHIP advises that "care should be exercised" about appropriate use of doctoral dissertations, and masters theses "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Llll5032 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I removed the masters thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Problems with some other recently added material remain, especially the overquoting of the dissertation. Are there other reputable sources? Llll5032 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply