Talk:ManKind Project

Criticism Section (WP:RS, WP:EL, Notability, etc)
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)


 * 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)

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

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)

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)


 * 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)

Point of view, Neutrality, References
and 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)


 * 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)

First-hand resources about ManKind Project
I have found the following resource directly from MKP's website: https://mkpconnect.org/sites/default/files/2011PrimaryIntegrationTrainingandI-GroupManual.pdf

Even though it's from 2011, it seems to give very deep insights into the practices of MKP, which might be very relevant for the Wikipedia article.

It's part of "The ManKind Project Information Web" (mkpconnect.org) and quite certainly it's not meant to be publicly available. So probably it makes most sense to store it in the Internet Archive (archive.org) first, so that it won't be lost. Sigalor (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)