Talk:ManKind Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ManKind Project article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Men's Issues Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am going to sit this one out to avoid conflict of interest, but how relevant are criticisms coming from an internet forum, particularly those which are completely closed or closed to one side? This would be relevant for the criticism sub-headings re Rick Ross and the Yahoo Group "Ex-MKP." Rorybowman (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any experiences of those who were involved with the group are relevant. The MKP's website is "closed" to editing or discussion; yet it is quoted in the article (describing the group in quite a flattering way). If the group's own descriptions can be used, surely those of former participants can as well. Whistling42 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Internet forum sites WP:RS? Please note the relevance of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Rorybowman (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if the criticisms come from those who were involved with the group, I would deem them relevant.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I split the obvious positive stuff from the actual criticisms in the criticism section. Both positive lines address the same issue, but it'd make an excessively long paragraph if they were joined, and as it was, it didn't read as a response. I think it's clearer now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbothma (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there's the POV problem that "criticism" is separated from "public reception", as if it's not part of that reception... and even given that separation, the "criticism" section is laden with defenses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years, the main source of criticism in this article are the opinions of Rick Alan Ross. Is he a reliable or notable source? He is a professional deprogrammer, who has a record of kidnapping people to try to deprogram them by force. His own article contains assessments of Ross, which state that the man is driven by "a personal hatred for all religious cults". His main claim to fame to date is getting blamed for his role in the Waco siege (1993). Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{POV|date=June 2017}} and {{third-party|date=June 2017}} were added to the article five months ago, but there is nothing on the Talk page regarding reasons for their addition, what is needed to remove them, etc. That is one reason I created this section, i.e., to have a place to discuss the POV and third-party notices.

In addition, this article has been contentious for many years, although perhaps less so in recent years. Nonetheless, it elicits strong reactions from folks, so I think it's important to discuss any controversial issues here.

I made some edits today that others might disagree with, e.g., I removed the Cults category; I took out a section that was all criticism and cited the 2007 Houston Chronicle article, which is already referenced with some detail in the Criticism section. Let's discuss such issues here and try to reach a consensus.

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the POV and third-party templates as I believe these problems have been rectified. If you believe otherwise, please discuss here, particularly with regard to how we can add more information from reliable sources that would in your view eliminate concerns about the article's objectivity and accuracy. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]