Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 19

Does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism?

The Wikipedia article on Secular Humanism does not mention Confucianism, yet the article on Confucianism argues that it is "humanistic". That makes sense, since Confucianism does not really appeal to deities and the supernatural, even though the Confucian people may be a bit devotional. However, the devotional aspects seem to be tied to a religion, not really Confucianism. So, does Confucianism fall under Secular Humanism, or is Secular Humanism a Western European concept? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Two different senses of the word. Confucius is only "humanistic" in that it doesn't involve a deity. It did involve ancestor worship, which ends any similarity it has with secular humanism. — Melab±1 ☎ 06:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "ancestor worship" is a mistranslation. Also, the rituals are not necessarily confined to Confucianism, as it is part of the indigenous Chinese religion. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on which form of Confucianism we're talking about. Some Confucian authors wrote or interpreted from a purely political perspective, treating ancestor worship as a civil ceremony. Others wrote under the assumption that worshiping ancestors was necessary to maintain the approval of Heaven. Due to the latter form (Confucianism as a definite religion), there is only and at most potential overlap with secular humanism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediatrix of All Graces

I have attempted FIVE times to edit [5} [6] because of a dead link. I have read ALL there is to do to edit the page and it will not allow me to do so.

Please edit both [5] [6] to read : The True Story of Fatima by John de Marchi, I.M.C. page 87 "the third blasphemy"

I am weary. aged 60 with RA and cannot stay up past the 11:19 MST where I have attempted to do this for over an hour and 1/2.

I FINALLY created an account (which was holding me back) but I do NOT know how to code at all ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitojoy (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To help us out, could you provide a link to the article you are trying to edit? Go to the article, copy what is in the address bar (the URL, which will have "en.wikipedia.org/wiki" in it), and paste it here. You can turn it into a link by putting [ and ] around it, or just paste it here and I'll fix that.

In the mean time, WP:TEAHOUSE is a really excellent place to ask questions about how to get started on Wikipedia. 31.54.195.38 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In case it isn't obvious, you can reply to this by clicking the blue 'edit' next to your section title. Can you tell me what I.M.C. means in this context? Also, assuming you're trying to edit Mediatrix of all graces, why does reference number 6 need to be replaced? 31.54.195.38 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To save a bit of time, I suspect that Mediatrix of all graces is the article in question. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

IMC is the Consolata Missionaries (no article, but see this website). De Marchi's book is discussed in Miracle of the Sun. Tevildo (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous sources and journalism ethics

I've read several, several, several news stories which used a source "who declined to be named", or sources, most frequently in news reports about security issues, but also in sports articles, and sometimes, even relatively "harmless" articles. I've even seen news reports where spokespeople decline to be named. I've asked questions about anonymous sources here before on the Reference Desk. But recently, I've been reading codes of ethics of various Journalism organizations. Basically, one aspect that is common to most of these codes of ethics is that anonymous sources should be used with care, as misusing them or even inventing them can damage reputations (see Janet Cooke). In the cases where a person who wishes to be anonymous is quoted in a news report, many of these codes of ethics state that the reason(s) for anonymity should be mentioned. For example, the Associated Press has a page on their values and principles, which states that "we must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity". Not all codes of ethics mention this (for example, Thomson Reuters' code of ethics does not require reasons for anonymity to be disclosed), but a significant number of codes of ethics do. However, most of the news articles I've read which quote anonymous sources do not explicitly mention any reason for anonymity. While my previous questions here have said that the reasons are obvious anyway, or that giving a reason for anonymity could give a clue to the source's identity, the fact that many codes of ethics mention the requirement for disclosing reasons of anonymity (to the point that it is suggested that the source not be used at all if the reason for anonymity is weak or suspicious) suggests that this is not considered a significant issue; in fact, these codes of ethics suggest almost the opposite: describe the source as closely and accurately as possible without explicitly naming the person.

I'm aware that codes of ethics are not binding, and there is usually no penalty for breaching them (except for serious cases), but it nevertheless makes me wonder: how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"? Before anyone asks, I've read Journalism ethics and standards and Source (journalism)#Anonymity, but they don't answer my question. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There could be various reasons. It might help if you could provide an example or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One reason: When you consistently pop up in the top Google results or have a name like "The Most Trusted Name in News", you can do without worrying if poor sourcing is going to hurt the reader's confidence, by that point. The line between news and entertainment is blurrier than ever, and if you can get the eyeballs with a headline like "ISIS 'too extreme' for al-Qaeda", it doesn't really matter who said it. The important thing is whether people hear it. Like you say, there's no or little punishment for unethically increasing business. Same reason people cheat at many jobs. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflicts) If I've interpreted you correctly, your essential question is:

". . . how come several news reports continue to exclude reasons for anonymity of anonymous sources even if codes of ethics (which are probably taught to journalists) frequently state that reasons for anonymity must be included to "give the reader full confidence for the source"?"

There could be various (not mutually exclusive) reasons for this:

• The particular news agency concerned might not subscribe officially or in reality (Fox News, anyone?) to a particular set of ethics that requires it;
• They might be omitted for the sake of brevity, particularly in a broadcast story where only seconds are available;
• The journalists involved might not be working to their highest standards – we all have off days at work;
• One or more journalists involved might not be fully competent in this respect;
• The journalists might be under pressure from higher management to get the story out and fill the column or broadcast, even though they themselves do not have full confidence in it;
• One or more of the journalists involved might actually be breaching guidelines deliberately, using illegal sources, obtaining information via bribery or blackmail, or making some things up, and is using the anonymity as cover;
• Inclusion of the reasons might give to much of a clue to the source's identity, leading to that source being reprimanded, fired, arrested or assassinated, depending upon circumstances. (You mentioned this yourself, but I include it for completeness.)

I'm sure others can add further possibilities. Long story short: we live in an imperfect world, and there can be any number of innocent or non-innocent reasons why something doesn't measure up to an ideal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.80.169 (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And of course, when some people say "some people say", those some people are the same people. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to have an organization whose sole purpose is to confirm the existence of anonymous sources. The news org and source could agree to have that org confirm the source, and they would then meet them, with the same promise to keep the source hidden. This org should be located in a nation with strong protections for anon sources, and could be run on donations, as a charity, so no money is taken from the news org. In time, only news orgs with this type of confirmation on anon sources would be taken seriously. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to echo the above reqeust for examples. In particular, it sounds to me like your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. When you have two of the major news agencies not agreeing on whether it's necessary to give the reasons why, this would suggest it's hardly something settled among major proponents of journalism ethics. The fact that you found a significant number who do recommend it, only means it's something which a significant number do recommend, it doesn't mean it's had widespread consensus. (And I would note, at least to me significant can still be far from a majority, particularly in something with so many participants as this.)

Perhaps journalism ethics courses will consider giving the reasons the safer bet and so may be more likely to recommend this, perhaps not.

The more relevant question which you don't seem to have touched is whether people are violating the code of ethics they're supposed to be following. For example, are you finding many stories from AP or other sources where the code of ethics do suggest it, where the stories are not reporting the reason for anonymity? If you're primarily seeing stories from Reuters and other sources which don't recommend it, it seem again all you've got evidence for is that this isn't something with anything close to consensus and that journalists are following the code of ethic they're supposed to be following, but not necessarily following other ones which recommend different stuff.

On my part, I commonly hear or read a source saying something like "who asked to remain anonymous because she/he didn't have permission to speak to the media".

Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In both politics and in the business world, information is often leaked "strategically". This gives a false sense of empowerment to the media, the employees, etc. A way of getting the real story out there to kind of "prepare" the audience for what's coming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)