Scholarly vs. Popular Sources (the "When to use a newspaper article reference question")

I just had a very good question from one of my REM 100 students:
"For the term paper are we allowed to use newspaper articles or should we stay clear of them?"

I have often wondered when to use popular sources in papers? The answer is basically, depends on the source's stake in the material and the audience in question.

"To understand this difference [b/w scholarly and popular sources], it may help to recognize that when you write for a departmental class, you are writing for an audience more expert than the common reader. When writing about Republican and Democratic voting patterns on stem cells, science reports from a general interest magazine like Newsweek might be considered sufficiently authoritative. But when you write about stem cells for a Biomedical Engineering class, your teachers and classmates are considered more expert than the average non-scientist reader. For this audience, your sources must have stronger science credentials, must generally be working scientists, not journalists.

Newspapers are not as easy to classify as other sources. Newspapers are not scholarly sources, but some would not properly be termed popular, either. Every source must be questioned for its stake in the material. The New York Post is known for its conservative political bias, for instance, and for its high opinions of Fox television shows (owned by the same parent company). You might be able to trust its sports coverage, but it would not be considered a neutral source for political news. But some newspapers have developed a national or even worldwide reputation for fairness and accuracy. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The London Guardian are a few examples. On issues of fact, major mainstream magazines such as Newsweek and Time are also generally reliable.

Finally, it’s worth noting that many Internet sources are less reliable than print sources."
-Yale Writing Center

Environmental versus Natural Resources, a worthy distinction?

Maybe not a "worthy" distinction, but one that has come up more than once when dealing in environmental economics.
"Environmental economics was once distinct from resource economics. Natural resource economics as a subfield began when the main concern of researchers was the optimal commercial exploitation of natural resource stocks. But resource managers and policy-makers eventually began to pay attention to the broader importance of natural resources (e.g. values of fish and trees beyond just their commercial exploitation;, externalities associated with mining). It is now difficult to distinguish "environmental" and "natural resource" economics as separate fields as the two became associated with sustainability."
-Wikipedia

So I work for a department entitled: Resource and Environmental Management. Environmental management refers to the management of interaction by the modern human societies with, and impact upon the environment. While resource managment refers to the management of natural resources such as land, water, soil, plants and animals, with a particular focus on how management affects the quality of life for both present and future generations. This I think is a worthwile distinction. Now about the management part............

Queens versus American English (analyse v. analyze)

So I continue to fail students who use the queen's English in my assignments. It's not cause I hate the queen, it's cause I thought they were wrong. Turns out there is in fact a "Canadian English" that is allowed to poach from either American or British (queen's) English.

"Canadian English should not be described as a mixture of American and British English with an insignificant number of Canadianisms added. Canadian English, like all ‘Englishes’, possesses an important characteristic, referred to as wholesale borrowing, which has allowed it to develop a very rich vocabulary. Canadians have in the past and will most likely in the future continue to borrow freely from both American and British English; however, once a lexeme is borrowed, it has the possibility to evolve differently. In other words, Canadians appropriate it to suit their needs. "

And when it comes to the analyse v. analyze....

"Canadians unlike Americans have a choice in matter pertaining to spelling. Canadians can choose to spell the following words either the American or British way: center/centre, practice/practise[5], analyze/analyse, color/colour. However, consistency must govern usage. Thus, if a Canadian in a formal paper chooses to use British spelling, he or she must take care to use all British suffixes where there are common suffixes to chose from. This is the advice given by the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary in the Style Guide section under Appendices. The aforementioned dictionary is considered, and for good reason, the authority on matters pertaining to style."
-Canadian English


So bottom line: Canada has its own English. It's just either British or American English, but not both.