Talk:Mankind Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mankind Project article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Interesting citation

Should be utilized to expand the article at some point. I'll do this if/when I get a chance... Smee 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't see that this adds much except by perhaps expanding on the cultism claim and asserting misogyny. Is a self-published church newsletter appreciably more reliable than Rick Ross' fora? The other articles in this source are against homosexuals and Mormons, pretty standard Christian countercult movement stuff. What does this add? Rorybowman 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The citation is valid if we attribute it and put it into a proper context. It is easily verifiable to the reader and other editors. Smee 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Links & Farming

Just a proactive reminder about WP:NOT#LINK to remind folks that Wikipedia articles should not become a "link farm," listing every possible center or site. Please remember to use as many links as improve the substance of the article and as few as the article can get away with. If there is enough substantive information in the article, readers can take that information and perform their own search engine quests for more specific data such as trainings, particular places or types of criticism. Thanks! - Rorybowman 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I originally came to this article because I thought it read too much like an advertisement or press release, and I would encourage editors to consider WP:EL for best practices around external links in the external links section. I do NOT want to be US-centric, and am thinking that perhaps it would be most logical to include links to the various worldwide centers just following the countries or continents in the text above. I'll put those links in now, with an eye to later removing them and winnowing down the "External Links" section to getter match WP:EL. Other than the references, does the article really benefit form an External Links section? - Rorybowman 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS, Rick Ross (consultant) and Blogs

We seem to have the makings of a possible edit war around *One Man's MKP Experiences a Blog and I would encourage folks to discuss this here. There was a similar issue over at Large Group Awareness Training regarding some message boards run by Rick Ross (consultant), wherein the decision was that those boards did not meet WP:RS. If User:Curt_Wilhelm_VonSavage could please explain his rationale for removing the link and 75.26.173.136 could please register and/or defend the reinsertion, I think it would make for a more civil discussion. Thanks to all. - Rorybowman 05:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Someone's personal blog is not appropriate to link to, or use as a source, on Wikipedia. This is virtually akin to linkspamming, see Wikipedia:Linkspam. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC).
    • This seems reasonable to me as per WP:EL and so support its absence. Rorybowman 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. I think it's always best to err on the more stringent side of WP:RS, and perhaps be a tad more lenient with WP:EL, but with something that is so obviously a personal blog, that is leaning more towards spam. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

[edit] Partial revert

  • Created new section for what Rorybowman called "counter-indicators".
  • Moved Scinto lawsuit back into its own section: this goes beyond "criticism".
  • Removed note about Scinto's drug use: it is out of context. If you want to add that in, it should also state that he had maintained sobriety for over a year, that he had started his own business, and that he enjoyed his hobby as a pilot -- that it was only after this retreat that he complained of nightmares, and "painful memories", sought help at a psychiatric hospital, fell off the wagon, and killed himself.
  • Removed suggestion that Rick Ross "forbids" discussion: needs proof.
  • Request source about MKPs claims of copyright infringement.
  • The Yahoo! Group does not claim that the group "uses shaman gurus".
  • It's misleading to refer to the group as "private" when anyone with a Yahoo! account can join.

-- Whistling42 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of repeated information, unsourced information, and undue weight

In this edit, Rorybowman added two paragraphs. I removed it in sections, giving a reason for each.

  1. Repeated information: if you look at Rorybowman's edit, in the area colored green; you will see a repetition of the information about the NDA and the group's denial that they are a cult: this information was already included. There was already a mention of the NDA in another paragraph, so I consolidated the information.
  2. Unsourced assertion: Rorybowman re-added an unsourced assertion ("The organization has routinely asked Internet sites which post portions of their training manuals, to remove the content..."). If we back up for a moment, I first removed the uncited material in my first edit to this page. Rorybowman added it back, without a source. I requested a source, for the assertion. Rorybowman then added a message board post as a "citation", but I removed it as a message board post fails WP:V. Rorybowman then added it back again, this time without a source. I have removed it, pending a reliable source for the claim.
  3. Undue weight: All that remains is the paragraph about what "some mental health professionals" think, which Rorybowman added in this edit. I had previously removed it, twice. If any major psychiatric or psychological association has published material on their views of the Mankind Project's activities, that could certainly be included. One single therapist should not be taken as a spokesperson for an entire profession, nor should one non-notable person's personal views be used as a standard disclaimer.

In short,

  1. The information about the NDA and the claim that "we are not a cult" was already in the article,
  2. The claim about the training manual copyright violation has already been challenged, and will be removed again if a source is not provided,
  3. Personal opinions are not a substitute for a professional consensus.

-- Whistling42 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent flurry of interest in this single Wikipedia article, but one of the more substantive (and at the time unsourced although such sourcing could be done through the Houston article) criticisms was that MKP engaged in therapy rather than education. The sentence as removed indicated that some therapists may support some clients in attendance at an NWTA, with a single cited example of who *one* therapist explicitly says should not (in her professional opinion) attend. Given that Michael Scinto (whom you seem interested in remembering) seems to have been EXACTLY the sort of person who should not have attended an NWTA, this seems relatively important to note, as a safety concern. The source for this is the professional web site of a published author with professional credentials and (as such) seems more WP:V and WP:RS than either the Yahoo Group or internet forum that is vaguely gestured at elsewhere. The APA has a general ethics policy but no general statement on MKP as an organization, although the Margaret Singer DIMPAC case does clearly seem to indicate their view on Rick Ross (consultant) and theories of brainwashing. It is important that WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:V be consistent for all views, to give a thorough and well-rounded overview of the subject, whether that subject is MKP or fox hunting. How are the other self-published internet forum sources any more WP:RS or WP:V than this certified counselor and published author? Rorybowman (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All editors are instructed, in this official policy, to "comment on content, not on the contributor". You have made several personal comments about me. If you have a problem with my edits, there are many appropriate avenues in which to approach such an issue. Commenting on the contributor on a talk page is not one of them; it is not allowed. Your accusation is not even accurate, anyone can check my contributions to see that, as a new user, I contribute on a variety of topics. Moving on:
"...some therapists may support some clients in attendance at an NWTA..." This is weasel-worded. Whether it comes from the "professional web site of a published author with professional credentials" is irrelevant (regardless of how many times you say the word "professional"): the fact is that we have no proof what "some therapists may" do, we only have proof of what this one therapist says. It is not reasonable to suggest that we should take Patti Henry's "Thoughts To Make You Think", or what she does in her private practice, as representative of the views of her entire profession.
Also, clearly, there is a potential conflict of interest between Henry and MKP. Michael Scinto committed suicide in July of 2005, after attending the NWTA held by the Houston division of the MKP. In October of 2005, in the reference you mentioned, Henry referred to "a survey [she] was asked to take by the leaders of the Houston division of The Mankind Project regarding the New Warrior Training Weekend". Henry stated: "The survey was sent to clinicians – psychotherapists, psychologists, counselors, and psychiatrists – asking why we sent our clients to the New Warrior Training and, more specifically, what impact did we see the weekend having on them". Why did they send out that survey?
If I had to guess, I would guess that this was part of MKP's response to Michael Scinto's death. He had participated in the Houston branch of MKP's NWTA, and ended up dead. The Houston MKP leadership may have been gathering "expert opinions" from psychologists on the psychological effects of the NWTA. Perhaps the MKP leadership were bracing themselves for the coming lawsuit which would later be lodged by Michael Scinto's parents. In August 2005, one month after Scinto's death, Scinto's sister found a copy of the letter that Scinto had sent to the Madison County sheriff's department in July of 2005. In the letter, Scinto described the MKPs practices as abusive (and that he was held against his will, which is illegal). He subsequently killed himself. Is it any surprise that a month after the letter was found, that the MKP specifically sought the opinions of psychologists, among them Henry, on the MKP and NWTA? At that point, she had only been sending clients to the NWTW "since its inception almost 15 years ago"?
Regardless of anyone's motives, clearly, it is indisputable that Henry has a long history with the MKP. She thinks highly of their activities: in the reference you cited, she waxed on about how wonderful the NWTA has been for her clients. In 2007, she suggested the "NWT weekend" to men who want to become an adult and a better father if those skills were not given to you". Today, Henry's relationship with the MKP spans nearly two decades, and she has consistently supported them and spoken of them in a positive light. Therefore, any mention of Ms. Henry's opinion of the MKP should be placed in a section titled "Support", with clear mention of Henry's spoken support for the MKP, and her practice of sending clients to the NWTA.
In regards to the self-published sources: these are referenced merely to prove that they exist. They are not cited anywhere as a reference for any factual statements. They are meant to prove only that these groups exist and that their moderators have said various things. Nowhere is the criticism presented to be true or false. They are clearly attributed as opinions. If you wish to include another self-published source such as that of Patti Henry, we should be as clear about her background and relationship to the MKP as we are about those of the people who criticize the group. Whistling42 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This rationale seems to me a gross violation of WP:NOR but I will let other editors speak to that. The important thing is that the same rules apply to self-published sources on all sides of an issue in a way which improves the encyclopedic value of the article. I'll wait for others to weigh in on various aspects of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:EL and WP:NPOV. Rorybowman (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What is this "gross violation" and how do you think it could be rectified? Whistling42 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Regarding Rorybowman's recent edits: this time, the issues are whether to mention the coroner's tox report for Scinto, and whether to explicitly alert readers to the fact that the Rick Ross forum is, indeed, a forum.

The latter strikes me as obvious: it is plainly stated that the topics mentioned are the Rick Ross website, the Rick Ross forum, and two Yahoo! Groups; to place essentially a banner alerting readers as to what they are about to read is unnecessary.

I have already addressed my concern with Rorybowman's previous attempt to insert the fact that Scinto was under the influence of cocaine at the time of his death. I will repeat what I said on April 22, since perhaps it was missed last time:

"Removed note about Scinto's drug use: it is out of context. If you want to add that in, it should also state that he had maintained sobriety for over a year, that he had started his own business, and that he enjoyed his hobby as a pilot -- that it was only after this retreat that he complained of nightmares, and "painful memories", sought help at a psychiatric hospital, fell off the wagon, and killed himself."

Rorybowman's more recent attempt to re-insert mention of Scinto's cocaine use came without any response to this concern. Therefore I have removed it, pending discussion. The mention of cocaine use is out of context without describing how his life had been prior to the weekend. It was not the life of an addled addict, it was the life of a happy, successful man who was able to engage in a hobby that requires a clear head, quick reflexes but a steady character. The truth of the situation is not reflected by mentioning only the cocaine use. WP:NPOV.

Rorybowman, what is the nature of the conflict of interest you mention on your user page? Is it coloring how you want to present Scinto? Whistling42 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I attended an NWTA in 2001 and found the experience to be a positive one. Reviewing my edits on this article, you will note that most of my objections and changes have been to try and support NPOV or provide specific citations from WP:RS sources that flesh it out and make it more encyclopedic. These have included objecting to earlier versions reading like an advertisement and inserting the initial mention of the Scinto lawsuit, so I am trying to be as honest as possible about COI and NPOV. In some articles (such as Rick Ross (consultant) the Rick Ross website has been considered WP:RS and in others (such as List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations) it has not. The relevant issues regarding verifiability in both cases are, I would argue, best addressed at WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Familiarity with such concepts as proximate cause is interesting in the Scinto case, to be sure, but I would argue that implication that MKP is responsible for it is a violation of WP:NOR. The immediate cause of death was shotgun, preceded by cocaine, preceded by relapse, preceded by NWTA, preceded by addiction and so on. Noting the existence of the Scinto lawsuit is absolutely appropriate, but how much detail is relevant for this article? I would argue that a more appropriate weight would be to include the gist of the criticisms (therapy without a license, internet fora, Scinto lawsuit) with clear references is cleaner. That is all. Given that links to positive YouTube videos adn pro-MKP blogs have been removed as violating WP:EL and inappropriate promotion, it seems fair that the same standard be applied to the self-appointed opposition. That is all. Rorybowman (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)