Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 2

Sexual assault policies
Regarding this edit:

FIRE is a political advocacy organization, the NYpost is a tabloid. Neither seem wholly inadmissible, but the section, as written, appears to treat their assertions as fact. I think its okay to mention the criticisms from these groups, but statements like "Per Stamford policy, students cannot consent to sex—even with a spouse—if “intoxicated” to any degree." give the impression that this is a fact rather than an assertion from a biased source. FWIW, the characterization of Stanford's sexual assault policy as prohibiting all intoxicated sex seems to directly contradict the actual text of the policy:

Nblund (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to depend on your original research about Stanford's policy (which didn't even quote the appropriate section of the 2011 policy for Pete's sake. Here's what their policy says, "A person is legally incapable of giving consent if under age 18 years; if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol;"). If you feel more attribution is needed, then that's fine for consideration, but you just deleted the material wholesale. As for attribution, then shouldn't we do that across the board, including some of the stats that you have previous added with no context as to the source which could be "biased" as you freely argue about other sources.  If you believe that FIRE and NY Post need attribution, then so do other "facts" as presented by many sources in this article.  And then there are so many other Reliable Sources that we present as "fact" without any consideration of their biases.  Or shall we just delete things due to the same attribution and bias standards you require?Mattnad (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy I quoted is the one currently available on Stanford's website. The document you're linking to is 6 years old. I don't know if "intoxicated to any degree" was ever the policy (the phrasing in the 2009 doesn't say anything about degree of intoxication), but it explicitly isn't the current policy.
 * I don't really know what you're referencing with the comment about other stats, most of the stats listed in the entry come from peer-reviewed journal articles, which are generally considered reliable sources. FIRE is an advocacy organization without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the NY POST editorial page is opinion content from a tabloidy paper. Neither seems to qualify as a reliable source for a statement of fact. I really can't find any source for the "intoxicated to any degree" standard other than FIRE itself. Nblund (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure I have this right. So the article refers to 2011 including the policy in place at that time.  Are you saying that a newer policy renders what happened moot?  As for "fact checking", what evidence do we have for most sources that they have a reputation for fact checking?  Do you have any evidence that Fire has it wrong on this matter or others?Mattnad (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And while on the topic of Stanford, the Atlantic covered it too . Do they not fact check?  Are they an advocacy group or a tabloid?Mattnad (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pointing out that this statement -- "Per Stamford policy, students cannot consent to sex—even with a spouse—if “intoxicated” to any degree." -- is clearly false in the present tense. It may have been accurate at some point, but I haven't really been able to find anything outside of an editorial that makes that claim. The implication of the quote is that Stanford treated sex after any amount of alcohol as rape. I don't see any evidence that Stanford ever applied the standard in that fashion, and it seems like a fairly exceptional claim.
 * The Atlantic does have higher editorial standards than the NY POST, but the article you're citing is another op-ed, and the "intoxicated to any degree" claim only appears as quote from FIRE. Friedorsdorf himself says that the policy "doesn't specify how intoxicated one must be", which seems to contradict FIRE's claim.
 * FIRE is offering an interpretation which is open to dispute, not a fact. Its reasonable to include some of their criticisms in the article, but they need to be properly contextualized, and clearly presented as statements of opinion.  Nblund (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC) --
 * It's not an exception claim since it was covered by three separate sources regarding the 2011 event (Fire, NY Post back in 2011, and the Atlantic retrospectively). And the quote you provide above refers to CURRENT (circa 2015) policy per The Atlantic which we can all agree is a reliable source.  I'll add the Atlantic article is an article.  There's is nothing there that says it's an Op-Ed and I'm starting to think you're being a little tendentious here.  Your opinion is noted, but we go by reliable sources here, and even editorials qualify (which the Atlantic article is not anyway). So here's what I'm going to do.  I'm going to put it back in and make some edits to make sources clearer.  And have three sources including the NY Post which is ranked #6 in circulation in the country which makes it pretty mainstream as far as reliable sources go.Mattnad (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the same quote from FIRE mentioned in different editorials. That doesn't make it a fact. The Obama birthplace conspiracy theories were mentioned in dozens of reliable newspapers articles, they still can't be asserted as a fact.
 * The Atlantic article is absolutely an opinion piece: Friedorsdorf regularly publishes opinion pieces in the Politics section of the magazine, they're never called "Op-eds" but they are. (example: this recent article titled "The Case Against Encouraging Polygamy"). This doesn't necessarily prohibit its exclusion, but it does mean that the statements it contains ought to be recognized as opinions.
 * You've been reverted by myself and another editor who made more or less exactly the same arguments, and you've got an ongoing discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Its fairly obvious there's no consensus in favor of your including the statements, and you haven't even given the other editor a chance to respond. I think it would be more sensible to hold off and try to work out a compromise here. Nblund (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've stated what you think should happen, and I will make changes according to that. The other editor was not reacting to the Atlantic, and you're kinda making it up as you go on whether or not it's an editorial. The Atlantic makes no indication at all that it's an editorial and even if it were, please show me where in Wikipedia policy we cannot include editorials as reliable sources?Mattnad (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-inserting material that's been reverted twice by two separate editors seems perilously close to edit-warring. What did you have in mind? Lets hash it out here and give it some time to marinate before escalating things.
 * Wikipedia doesn't prohibit the inclusion of editorials, and I've said repeatedly that I don't think that we have to exclude it just because its an editorial -- we just need to clearly distinguish statements of opinion from statements of fact (See: Neutral_point_of_view). Nblund (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Coming from the RS/N, I'll drop in two suggestions for this TALK: The NY Post is an RS, as is the Atlantic and Wall Street Journal -- so get past that.  As a separate topic, the item itself does seem both notable and appropriate to fit within Cleary Act criticisms.   So -- find a way to present it.   How you present a criticism as criticism is a wording matter.  I will suggest put it back in as it was and proceed to wordsmith from there on the tenses and context and spelling 'Stanford'.  The start-from-as-it-was suggestion is on the basis of those typo-level issues are better than total absence and that doing this gets beyond 'find a way to present it' and into 'how to present the criticism better'.    Markbassett (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a NY POST editorial written by a director at an advocacy organization a reliable source for an interpretation of Stanford's sexual assault policy? Can you provide some supporting evidence based on a specific portion of the polcy? RS is content-specific, there's not a blanket "reliable" source.
 * I don't actually see how the exclusion of this statement hurts the article. It references a 4 year old case at a single university and press coverage of the issue seems mostly limited to opinion pieces. It kinds of smack of WP:COATTRACK to insist that this singular case is essential. Instead of adding in this oddly specific factoid, why not include a brief, clearly attributed, mention of FIRE's general criticisms of college policies involving alcohol and sexual assault? Nblund (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was brought up again in the Atlantic article which was written in 2015 as an example of how a male who was sexually assualted might have put himself in jeopardy at Stanford by reporting it because his assaulter was drunk and he could have been subjected to a counter claim. Now.... are you going to argue that the Altantic is a) not a reliable source, b) an agent of FIRE?  Nblund, why are you so against this?  It's not a WP:RS issue.  What's really going on here?Mattnad (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its quoted in an opinion piece by Conor Friedorsdorf. Friedorsdorf himself says the policy is ambiguous. I think you're misunderstanding RS: sources can be unreliable for some things and not others. Context matters. Opinion pieces, even when published in respected newspapers, are only reliable sources of information for the opinions of the person writing them, they are not a reliable source of facts. Even if there are multiple opinion sources, they are still opinions. This is explicitly stated in the policy, see: WP:NEWSORG. Nblund (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nblund :
 * * Yes, that's still RS: A NY Post editorial is an RS to cite, as are the alternative articles by other authors in Atlantic and WSJ.  RS may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. You may add the other sources as further support, but really I think NYPost is appropriate in this context of criticism and it is not self-published so her (that authors) association with FIRE is not a RS block.   So it seems to me now a matter of context and taking care on how to present a criticism as a criticism wording matter.
 * * The harm is to WIKI behavior and to POV. First, the initial reason for deletion has been answered so it's more a matter of I don't see how continuing exclusion is justified as a procedural matter.   Voicing items like 'needs past tense' is an opportunity for WP:BOLD fixable with refinement and observing WP:ROWN of that others feel it belongs is all it takes at WP, we don't wait for perfect before starting.  Second, as POV in this article is showing a criticism section it should present POV major views, and until and unless enough more than this noteably covered item shows up to make it trivial, it's absence is a noted event/criticism the article missed so put it back in as it was is the best available content and keeping it out is making it worse.  Start from there until and unless you write that FIRE statement or someone else comes up with better edits.
 * Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just re-asserting what you said earlier, you still haven't provided any evidence. Why is it an RS? I don't see where you've answered this question, and there's no indication of a consensus in support of your claim on the noticeboard.
 * I think there's a big difference between WP:BOLD and just re-inserting material that we seem to agree is objectionable in one way or another. We don't need perfect, but we also don't need to just throw up junk without any editing because you declare it "good enough". Wikipedia can wait.
 * This is an obscure case from four years ago, FIRE has dozens of cases like this on their website. Why does this particular case demand consideration? I don't disagree that something from FIRE could be included, but I don't see why we need to set ourselves on fire to cover this case. Nblund (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic Article is current. But I guess you didn't hear that (again).  So there are quite a few editors who have weighted in on this. While Fire may not be a reliable source in this context, several have said other sources are fine and not a single one has taken your position on "editorial."  You are alone, and arguing against consensus here. So you have a weak argument that the observations are "opinion".  If I couch it as such will you relent? Or is there another argument you plan to bring up?Mattnad (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize the Atlantic article is fairly recent, its still something that happened four years ago, isn't it? Why is this single case so important? Is it more important than the other cases covered by FIRE or in other editorials? If you can't answer basic questions about why the content belongs in the entry, then it probably doesn't belong there.
 * As to RS: This isn't something I just dreamed up, its pretty clear in the RS policy. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." To be frank, I don't really think this is even a debatable point: the NYPOST and WSJ articles are on the editorial pages of those respective papers, and anyone who reads Friedorsdorf's essay would recognize it as an opinion piece. If this particular detail is included, it needs to comply with the guidelines, and that means that it needs to be indicated that it is an opinion, and the speaker needs to be clearly identified. If that portion of the guidelines are satisfied, I'm content to let someone else deal with the COATTRACK issue. Nblund (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you've come around.Mattnad (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty much exactly what I said in the very first comment on the RS -- we need to communicate better! Nblund (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the sources are opinion pieces, and therefore definitely cannot be used to source contentious facts. Possibly their opinions could be stated with in-text attribution, but it would be necessary to show that they're noteworthy and relevant first. --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)