Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 11

STATEMENT/CLAIM
Freie Welt is a RELIABLE SOURCE, in the sense of WP:RELIABLE and WP:SOURCE.

Description

Freie Welt (freiewelt.net) is a newspaper ("Zeitung"). It happens to be a internet newspaper in a blog format ("Internetzeitung / Blogzeitung") but that does not make it a (self-published) "blog". (Nor is it a automated aggregated newsfeed, nor a vendor, nor an e-commerce site.) Several "reliable" newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs, and these are often acceptable sources. The difference is that the articles are not merely self-published posts, but receive editorial control and oversight. Its articles are reviewed by individual editors and a council of senior editors (see below).

No advertisements, no paywall, no subscriptions

Just like Wikipedia, Freie Welt has no advertisements and no "paywall" (subscription required to read the rest of the articles). Just like Wikipedia, it is only funded by voluntary donations ("Die Freie Welt.net ist eine Onlinezeitung, die sich allein aus Spenden finanziert."). This implies that Freie Welt has no financial incentive to publish factually inaccurate "click bait" or "sensationalist" articles for the purpose of generating revenue with online advertisements and new subscriptions, at the expense of quality or accuracy. This is of course by itself not sufficient to establish reliability, but it greatly increases the probability that a given source is reliable (in addition to the other arguments).

Substantial editorial review

Most importantly, Freie Welt, in order to properly engage in fact checking, is a publication with substantial editorial control and oversight. The Wikipedia page on identifying reliable sources states: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Freie Welt has an editor-in-chief, and, in addition, a council of senior editors ("Redaktionsbeirat") consisting of no less than five different editors (one of whom has an academic degree), as well as many individual editors ("Redaktion").

The editor-in-chief is:
 * Sven von Storch

The council of senior editors ("Redaktionsbeirat") of Freie Welt consists of:
 * Karl Feldmeyer
 * Jobst Kramer
 * Dr. Klaus Peter Krause (Note the scholarly title.)
 * Erhard Haubold
 * Hedwig von Beverfoerde

People who are individual editors ("Redaktion") for Freie Welt include:
 * Dr. Klaus Peter Krause
 * Dr. Gérard Bökenkamp
 * Dr. Alexander Ulfig
 * Prof. Adorján F. Kovács
 * Dr. Oliver Marc Hartwich
 * Prof. Dr. Hans-Olaf Henkel
 * Prof. Hans-Joachim Selenz
 * Dr. Andreas Unterberger
 * Prof. Dr. Norbert Berthold
 * Dr. Christian Weilmeier
 * Dr. Benno Kirsch
 * Dr. Albert Wunsch
 * Dr. Peter Heller
 * Dr. Wolf Schäfer
 * Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Krieger
 * Prof. Dr. Walter Kühbauch
 * Dr. Christian Hoffmann
 * Dr. Konrad Adam
 * Dr. Jörg Gerke
 * Prof. Dr. Roland Vaubel
 * Prof. Dr. Hans-Günter Appel
 * Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Ockenfels
 * Dr. Bernd F. Schulte
 * Dr. Klaus-Dieter Humpich
 * Prof. Dr. Walter Krämer
 * Prof. Gordon Neufeld
 * Dr. Brigitte Pötter
 * Prof. Dr. Rolf Schieder
 * Dr. Greta Tüllmann
 * Dr. Heinrich Günther
 * Dr. Karin Jäckel
 * Dr. Bruno Köhler
 * Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
 * Dr. Georg Alfes

Wikipedia policy considers academic and scholarly sources to be the most reliable. While such a large number and large variety of scholars, researchers, academics, and scientists, of course does not make Freie Welt an academic/scholarly source, it does come close, thus undeniably making it a reliable source: First of all, articles on Freie Welt would not be able to pass a peer review of such a enormous number of scholarly, academic, and scientific editors, if they were not of high quality and factually accurate. Secondly, if Freie Welt were an unreliable and unreputable source, one that published "hit pieces", "hack journalism", or "yellow journalism", then so many different scholars, researchers, and scientists, would never agree to be associated with it as its reviewers and authors.

Retractions ("Korrektur")

WP:RS says "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections."

Freie Welt enthusiastically encourages retraction of factually incorrect information: e.g.:


 * "It does in no way claim to be complete. It may be that it contains errors and requires further revision. Whoever finds such, may gladly contact me at any time.  I am grateful for correction and feedback." ("Sie stellt keineswegs den Anspruch, vollständig zu sein. Es mag auch sein, dass sie Fehler enthält und weiterer Überarbeitung bedarf. Wer welche findet, darf sich gerne jederzeit bei mir melden. Ich bin dankbar für Korrektur und Rückmeldung.")

Official endorsements

FreiWelt is explicitly endorsed ("getragen") by multiple reputable organisations, including the "Zivile Koalition", the "Bürgerkonvent", and the Institut für Strategische Studien Berlin (ISSB).


 * "Zivile Koalition" is a association, which is non-profit, economically independent, non-partisan, and non-governmental, and which is a common voice to the many dedicated individuals from civil society and represents the interests of citizens in politics. ("Die Zivile Koalition ist eine wirtschaftlich unabhängige, überparteiliche, nicht-staatliche Organisation, die den vielen engagierten Einzelnen aus der Zivilgesellschaft eine gemeinsame Stimme gibt und die Interessen der Bürger in der Politik vertritt.")
 * The "Bürgerkonvent" is now disbanded (as of 2015) but was a non-profit, non-partisan, association in the public interest ("gemeinnütziger Verein").
 * The Institut für Strategische Studien Berlin is an institute which conducts scientific research, and publishes scientific studies and arguments intended to stimulate public debate ("Wissenschaftliche Arbeit [und] Erstellung von Studien und Argumenten für die öffentliche Debatte").

The fact that multiple non-profit, non-partisan, independent organisations — especially including a scientific institute —, are willing to explicitly endorse Freie Welt, even more establishes that this source is a reputable source (even though it was already sufficiently established by the previous arguments).

Relevant quote

I have translated the relevant section from their article about MGTOW below:


 * MGTOW – "Men Going Their Own Way"

One offshoot/spinoff of the men's rights movement is MGTOW. The abbreviation stands for "Men going their own way" – "Männer gehen ihren eigenen Weg". MGTOW is not a movement in the proper sense of the word. Much rather, it revolves around a fundamental attitude ["Grundhaltung"] of individualistic men, who, because of influential life experiences (relationship crises, divorces, alimony payments), have turned away from the societally prescribed path. They subsequently renounce marriage, committed relationships, children, and family. Instead, they devote themselves to their professional self-actualization, or to their hobbies and interests.

MGTOW is a statement of self-determination. The philosophy of these men is: not to submit themselves to the societal expectations which are established by women or by society as a whole. Due to the increasing influence of feminism, these men see themselves as restricted and disadvantaged in their self-development. Because they know that the societal trend is working against them, they remove themselves from the system – "They are opting out".

There are two groups of MGTOW: The first have been punished by relationship crises, divorces, custody battles, and child maintenance obligations, and want to spare themselves these experiences a second time. The others are young men who have watched the fate of their fathers or other men, and therefore from the very outset renounce the adventure of marriage and family.

The MGTOW phenomenon can be observed in Europe and throughout the English-speaking world. The Japanese or more precisely East-Asian equivalent of this phenomenon are the "Herbivore Men". In Japan, this trend is significantly contributing to the population decline.

Putting it in numbers for the United States: in 1970, 80 percent of the 25-29-year-old American men were married, in 2007, merely 40 percent. Among the 30-34-year-old men, the number has fallen from 85 to 60 percent.

A new book about this subject has appeared, by the American psychologist Dr. Helen Smith, titled "Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – And Why It Matters" (Encounter Books: New York 2013). [Note: Smith and other authors refers to the phenomenon using the terms marriage strike, and marriage boycott.]

The above description is 100 percent true and factually accurate. In addition, the statements in Freie Welt's description are corroborated by other reliable sources. To anyone familiar with how the term MGTOW is used in the real world, there is nothing even remotely questionable, outlandish, far-fetched, or controversial about the above description. Even a cursory glance at writings about MGTOW can confirm this. For example, John Hembling (not WP:RS, but how the term is used in reality) writes (Sep. 2014):  Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), commonly called the marriage strike, is the rising phenomenon of men abandoning their stereotypical roles. Adopting MGTOW means rejecting social norms which are both irrational and toxic to personal well-being. Outside of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) a number of names exist for practitioners of MGTOW. Most of those labels are contrived to coerce or silence men through shame. “Peter Pan Syndrome”, “failure to launch”, “man-babies” are all failing attempts to shame men back into conformity. To date, the most accurate popular label remains the term “marriage strike”. [...] The MGTOW phenomenon is individualistic by design. Mainstream critics are often confused by these men and misrepresent them. MGTOWs are not bothered by this. It is central to the practice of Men Going Their Own Way that only their own philosophies matter. What the MGTOW phenomenon means to its opponents is of little concern. [...] Men are adapting to this state of affairs, rejecting the compulsion to conform and reclaiming their identities. Many MGTOW don’t even know what the term means. Yet they’ve found themselves in that lifestyle despite conformist pressure of the culture around them. And the whining will likely continue.

POV-pushing

A sentence in the article which cited this particular source was almost immediately deleted from the article, apparently on grounds that the source was just "a partisan blog". However, being a "blog" does not make a newspaper unreliable, even according to WP:RS. Many old media now also have blogs because of declining sales of paper newspapers. In the same vein, the fact that a particular source has certain guiding principles ( in the case of Freie Welt this includes rather mainstream views, such as: the democratic rule of law, the separation of powers, a social market economy, and protection of civil rights ) is also not an valid objection: having a certain political perspective does not make a source unreliable, according to WP:RS. While I initially assumed good faith (WP:AGF), this assumption has become increasingly hard to justify, especially in light of the recent massive negative POV-pushing quote-mining smear campaign against MGTOW that had taken place in the article, under the false pretence of objectivity. I can only conclude that this particular source was intentionally deleted, in order to paint a heavily biased picture of MGTOW as being a WP:FRINGE "cult" of bitter, paranoid men living alone in the wilderness (presumably with a Unabomber-like manifesto?) without electricity and without interaction with other humans, who (logically self-contradictory) take part with others in a online community; instead MGTOW is in reality a massive global phenomenon. I am not at all opposed to including criticisms, indeed I don't mind it if others add criticisms (in the "Criticisms" subsection), as long as the criticism section doesn't begin to dominate the article, as per WP:NPOV); but this article had been blatantly edited to contain nothing but criticism of MGTOW, and no description of what MGTOW actually is.

Conclusion

With the above arguments, I have demonstrated definitively that Freie Welt is a reliable source. Moreover, common sense, editorial good judgement, and a dedication to Truth, all demand that this source be included. All of the statements in this excellent, almost-scholarly, source need to be included in the article as statements of fact. (Of course, we can closely WP:PARAPHRASE the sentences.) Any further attempts to delete statements that cite this excellent source can and should be interpreted as vandalism (as per WP:VANDAL). — DystopiaTourist. 12:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, and thank you for looking in to it. - Scarpy (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I should clarify, I agree that the Freie Welt source is appropriate for this article (as documented above). I don't entirely agree with the above POV-pushing section. While there has been some editors using ad-hominems to describe MGTOW, there has also been a fair amount of POV-pushing from the other side favorable to MGTOW. I would say, at the moment, the article is written from a WP:NPOV. - Scarpy (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but perhaps you could explain how a newly created SPA can make a declaration like this? The references to policy make it very very clear that you have edited wikipedia before. So can be have a little honest please - under what IDs? I've normed the formatting as well Snowded  TALK 12:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if he or she would let us know, re-reading WP:SOCK it looks like it's desired but not necessary so long is there's not crossover between the other accounts. - Scarpy (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to declare multiple accounts Snowded  TALK 05:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly an unreliable source, as the forgoing blizzard of bullshit makes clear (once one has picked through it.)Dan Murphy (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dan Murphy can you be more specific as to why you believe the Freie Welt piece is not an appropriate source for this article? - Scarpy (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument, if I may paraphrase, could be summed up as "Is not!". Allow me to retort: "Is too! Marteau (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion forum for reliable sources. If anyone wants to continue this assertion then they should take it there.  In the mean time I have put a hat around the text to make it easier for editors to get to the comments  Snowded  TALK 05:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)