Talk:The New Atlantis (journal)

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.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title needs correction[edit]

The title of the journal is The New Atlantis. Hence the editors sometimes abbreviate it TNA. JKeck (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the page, Lowellian! JKeck (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic[edit]

The primary topic for this title is New Atlantis by Francis Bacon. It has been referred to as The New Atlantis for decades, if not centuries before the publication of this journal. Also, the "what links here" shows that Bacon's book is the primary topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impact factor / What type of publication is this?[edit]

In a series of recent edits, Freepsbane significantly altered this Wikipedia entry. His edits, which are based on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the kind of publication The New Atlantis is, affect several aspects of this entry. Even though I suspect Freepsbane is trolling, I am going to use this section of the Talk page to address Freepsbane's claims and his edits.

1 - Is The New Atlantis a "research journal"? Freepsbane states, in justifying his edits, that "Research Gate and Journal Citation Reports classify TNA as research journal," that "Scimago Journal & Country Rank clarifies [sic] as misc biomedical journal," and that "TNA itself says it publishes research." These statements are wrong in four ways:

First, Research Gate does not make any assertions about The New Atlantis being a "research journal." Research Gate is a service that automatically collects publications, including many that are not research journals. For example, the New York Times appears in Research Gate, as does The New Yorker. Neither of those are research journals, but following Freepsbane's suggestion, Wikipedia should treat them that way. A publication's appearance in Research Gate implies nothing about whether or not it is a research journal.
Second, The New Atlantis does not appear in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). JCR is the "official" keeper of impact factors. I have checked the JCR for the sciences and the JCR for the social sciences. The New Atlantis does not appear in either today, and it did not appear in either in the past.
Third, appearance in Scimago Journal and Country Rank is not an authoritative source for determining how to treat a publication on Wikipedia. Just like Research Gate, Scimago lists both the New York Times and The New Yorker under the heading "Medical (Miscellaneous)." Following Freepsbane's suggestion, the Wikipedia entries for both of those publications should be stylized like entries for science journals. This is absurd.
Fourth, Freepsbane's edits are accompanied by claims that "TNA itself says it publishes research," and a reference to TNA describing itself as publishing "groundbreaking research." Searching the TNA website, it is clear this is false. The only potential claim that comes up is on this page, where the journal's editors clearly are describing the writings of historians, not scientific research. The New Atlantis does not publish the results of original scientific experiments, and the "original research" it publishes is the same kind of research that other journalistic enterprises publish, not what scientific journals publish. Freepsbane is clearly being very disingenuous in his description of what TNA publishes.

Further, Freepsbane argues that "it's contrary to [Wikipedia] policy to blank established sources," when he's referring to material he himself added just a few days prior. It would clearly be nonsensical to drop an impact factor into the article for the New York Times and then argue against its removal on the grounds that that's "blanking an established source." The source is irrelevant in both cases -- it's an obvious attempt to mischaracterize this publication on the non-applicable standards of an academic publication -- and it's nonsense to argue against the removal of irrelevant, misleading sources on the grounds that they exist.

2 - If The New Atlantis is not a research journal, what is it? Given the facts above, and given the rest of this Wikipedia entry, and in light of the obvious nature of what TNA publishes (as seen all over its website), it is clear that TNA publishes on policy, politics, literature, science, and other intellectual matters for a popular audience. Its Wikipedia entry should be similar to those of other general-audience, intellectual, or policy journals and magazines, such as the following: The National Interest, The New Yorker, The American Interest, The Atlantic, Democracy Journal, Commentary, Pacific Standard, Wired, Whole Earth Review, Policy Review. These are publications that publish academics but are not for academic audiences only or even primarily. These are publications that publish "research" of various kinds — journalistic, analytical, historical, philosophical — but are not scientific journals.

3 - Which edits flow from this mis-description of The New Atlantis as a "research journal"? Several of Freepsbane's edits flow from this misunderstanding (or mispresentation). I am reverting those edits, and offer these explanations:

Freepsbane redesigned the infobox, claiming that since TNA "is listed under technical and science journals" its entry "should be brought to conform with the standards of usual articles" and its "art [should] conform with what Science mag and others have." For the reasons described above, this is simply a misclassification. I am reverting the infobox, including restoring the cover art. (Note that the entries for most of the journals and magazines listed above have cover art in their infoboxes.)
Freepsbane added text about the supposed "impact factor" of TNA; as shown above, TNA does not now and has never had an official impact factor. This misleading text has been removed again.

MarvinKMooney (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read The New Atlantis over the years. It is definitely not an academic research journal and more of a popular publication, albeit serious, comparable to The Atlantic in intended audience and rigor. I suppose the monochromatic covers and paucity of artwork might give the impression of being a "research journal," but "you can't judge a book by it's cover"! JKeck (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what, JKeck? Your personal experience and views are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Why did you even bother to make this comment? It's utterly meaningless and useless here. 71.55.139.248 (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JKeck. It's helpful that you mention The Atlantic, since, if Freepsbane's criteria were to be accepted, that magazine's Wikipedia article would have to be overhauled to make it appear like an academic journal. After all, The Atlantic is listed in the ResearchGate database (with a supposed impact factor of 0.00), and it publishes articles that discuss original research. But of course neither of those is helpful for understanding the kind of publication The Atlantic is, or how it should be treated on Wikipedia. Those criteria are not authoritative or even useful. So, thanks again. Uhhhhhno (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, MarvinKMooney, your objection pretty much amounts to "Nuh-uh! Is not!" It seems your actual position regarding these edits, given your comments attacking another editor here and in edit summaries, is purely from dislike of both the New Atlantis and Freepsbane. 71.55.139.248 (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, anonymous user! As I read it, this does not seem to be a fair assessment of MarvinKMooney's analysis on this Talk page. Here is how I understand what has happened: (1) Freepsbane made a number of edits to this article. (2) MarvinKMooney reverted at least one of them. I did, too. The reversions then went back and forth. (3) MarvinKMooney posted a reasonable analysis here that seems to meet the Talk Page Guidelines. The next step here, if you would like to participate in achieving Consensus, would be for you (and others) to respond to MarvinKMooney here on the substance. I don't see anything here on the Talk Page that rises to the level of an "attack" by MarvinKMooney on either the subject of this article or on any Wikipedia editor. Uhhhhhno (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MarvinKMooney, for this reasonable and constructive analysis and for all these many sources. I agree that these particular edits by Freepsbane need to be reverted. We should not guess or insinuate anything about Freepsbane's motivations (we Wikipedians are obligated to assume good faith!), but it seems clear that if Freepsbane's sourcing suggestions were to be followed, many other magazines and journals would have to be classified in ways that are clearly inappropriate for them. Uhhhhhno (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarvinKMooney has made a number of well-supported claims that the people who dispute him have not yet addressed. If you object to MKM's claims, please be so good as to write your objections down here point by point. If there is no real response to what he says, then I think we're obliged to make the changes he advocates. JKeck (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over three weeks later and no response. Going... going... (gone?) JKeck (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus emerges," Uhhhhhno?[edit]

You've got to be kidding me. It's you and.... you. 71.55.143.253 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The New Atlantis (journal). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Pointlessness of Vagueness[edit]

Sexuality and Gender Special Report section is breathtaking in its vagueness. What exactly did McHugh state that Beyrer et al rebutted? Can't someone who supports retaining this subsection provide a sentence or two summarizing each side, to make a substantive NPOV here? Does Undue Weight favor a roughly equal number of pro and con references cited? And isn't a short statement explaining the POV of the journal (webzine) itself a key part of Criticism on its page, rather than on the author's? Martindo (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]