Jump to content

Talk:ManKind Project/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cult Criticisms

66.118.223.6, it's not Wiki policy to register annoyance with an organization by destroying Wikipedia content! It's expected that you'll leave correct and relevant contents, such as the external links in this article. If you can find a way to put a link to LGAT that doesn't violate Wiki's NPOV (neutral point of view), Wiki will allow that, too -- but copying the text of one article into another isn't how we do things. These might be relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Best of luck with your edits.


Do you not think that people have a right to know? If they only type in mankind project, should they also not beaware of what techniques the group uses as they are "secret". I am not putting "inaccurate" information on this page. I am putting accurate information on this page.


You still aren't using Wikipedia format, anonymous. Links to other Wikipedia pages are done differently from those outside; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link for more details.

As you know, I didn't say your information was inaccurate. It doesn't fit Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, however. There might be a way to include LGAT information on this page beyond the bare link, but importing a huge amount of text that is not all relevant to this page isn't the way to do it -- it doesn't fit style guidelines.

I've followed a few of these off-site anti-cult links and it seems pretty clear to me that MKP does not fit the most common definitions there, particularly given the great infrequency of MKP activities and the general lack of emphasis on fundraising (some local areas where they were trying to build a center or somesuch being the "exception" to this cited). The closest I can see that MKP has to anything approaching LGAT is the New Warrior Training Adventure, which is no more strange or occultish than common male experiences such as militar boot camp. Rorybowman 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Cults in our Midst (book) because the book does not mention MKP by name, only has a passing mention of LGAT's and explicity notes that the descriptive term cult "denotes a group that forms around a person who claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge, which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-appointed leader." (p. xx). Whatever Rick Ross (consultant) may say, MKP does not meet this definition, making mention of the book gratuitous. Rorybowman 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical. Smee 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Third party opinion

Hi, I got here through Mediation Cabal. In my opinion the article should not include the disputed text about LGAT. It's inappropriate for all the reasons cited above, and it's also too long, so that it overwhelms the article. If the anonymous editor thinks it's necessary to include criticism of the ManKind Project, I suggest they learn to write in Wikipedia style and then add a single paragraph citing a critical source with specific details about ManKind, not about LGAT in general. As a compromise, for now, I'd suggest adding a sentence like "It has been suggested that the ManKind Project uses LGAT methods as part of its program"--something like that, to suit the context. Include the link so that anyone concerned can go and read about LGAT in its own article, which is the proper place for that information. --Grace 12:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...Thank you, Grace. I'll add a further opinion of my own -- that it's only reasonable to add facts about opinions if they are opinions common to a significant group or a noteworthy individual. Something like "Democrats opposed this Republican policy" or "FDR supported such-and-such," but not, "It has been claimed by some that..." as a cover for injecting the author's opinion into the article. Facts about opinion, yes, but not mere opinion. --Hooponopono 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. Though I'd add that since this isn't an extremely prominent topic, it doesn't need to be the opinion of someone as noteworthy as FDR--even something like an anti-cult watchdog site talking about ManKind would qualify as a source. Wait for the anonymous editor to find it, if it isn't just their opinion. --Grace 09:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Criticisms"

This section is troubling to me, because it is not verifiable, or, at least, is not verified. (I understand this is an attempt to resolve a problem, and believe it's in good faith, but I dont' think we're there yet.)

Some criticize groups such as Mankind Project as dangerous LGAT cults -- who? How do we know this?

drawing men away from similar or "competing" groups such as Promise Keepers -- who says this?

Those affiliated with the organization tend to dismiss such criticisms as ideologically motivated -- do we have any evidence of this?

reflecting general divisions within the men's movement, particularly those between pro-feminist men and masculists -- I know a fair amount about this, and I've never heard of any controversy involving ManKind Project being a dispute between feminist men and someone else. Evidence?

Most of those affiliated with the organization would classify it as a mythopoetic organization, asserting that it tends to score low on most secular, non-denominational cult checklists. -- Does it show up on any secular, non-denominational cult checklists? Can we verify what its score is?

This is troublesome, because it's all opinion. Now, Wikipedia does report facts ABOUT opinions; but these aren't facts about opinions -- they're opinions about opinions.

I will check back in a while and see if anyone was able to resolve these problems. I think it's legitimate to have a criticisms section, if it can be made factual.

The LGAT thing I have first heard of here (aside from generic objection to all self-actualization techniques as culty brainwashing) but I've seen a few charismatic Christian critiques of MKP as new age Paganism online (and even a testimonial from a Christian man who who was sent to MKP to "cure" him of his homosexuality!). Most of these articles weren't substantive enough to remember except for one at http://www.intotruth.org/pk/pkmm1.html [1] that I saved. There is also a fellow named Stu Weber out of Beaverton Oregon, United States, whose "tender warrior" franchise reworks the MKP material to make it more acceptable to charismatic Christians, but does not make the LGAT assertion. Given that one anonymous editor has come back in with this twice in rapid succession, it seems worth including politely in the same way one would include assertions that Jews eat babies in an article. Yes, some people assert this: look at the evidence yourself. I think with these clues someone would investigate in more detail. Most written criticisms I have seen of MKP's methodology are solidly from the charismatic Christian camp, who often seems to call most non-compliant beliefs heretical or cultish. Rorybowman 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Making some note for myself...

intotruth mentions something called New Warrior Network which is at least similar to MKP but I can't confirm it's the same organization (although MKP members sometimes call themselves "new warriors"). There is no direct criticism, although there's criticism of the books of Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette as incompatible with Christianity, and a note that New Warrior Network trains people in their model; this model is indeed popular in MKP. I may try some future edit (unless someone beats me to it) saying MKP uses this neo-Jungian stuff which is considered heretical by some Christians.

The other links don't mention MKP.

--Hooponopono 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but I think the general criticisms are good because (fundamentally) the article cited criticizes PK in much the same way some within PK have criticized MKP as "unchristian." The larger point that I think is implicit is that criticism of MKP as cult-like is usually part of a criticism of self-help groups or alternative "spiritualities" such as twelve-step_programs or "consciousness raising" generally. I'll try to find some MKP-specific criticisms, but most of what I've seen is more broadly "anti-cult" in a fairly imprecise and narrowly sectarian sense. Rorybowman 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Some more links for notetaking as well:


Just a quick note that The ManKind Project (MKP) was formerly known as the New Warrior Network (NWN) back when the organization had essentially just a single "product," the New Warrior Training Adventure (NWTA) intiation weekend. The organization changed its name to MKP several years ago. The moniker "new warriors" is simply shorthand for men who have completed the NWTA weekend. ArtZ 18:45, 25 Sep 2006 (CDT)

"Ideologically motivated"

I did an edit, removing the line below. I think it applies well to Promise Keepers, but not ManKind Project:

Those affiliated with the organization tend to dismiss such criticisms as ideologically motivated, reflecting general divisions within the men's movement, particularly those between pro-feminist men and masculists.

Thing is, although I am sure most -- at least, very many -- ManKind Project members are on one side of this (the feminist side), I haven't seen anything to indicate that masculists dislike the organization; or that the members of ManKind Project dismiss criticisms of the organization as ideologically motivated. (Dismiss, perhaps, but not as ideologically motivated.)

I think the criticisms section is getting close, though. The next link, about "mythopoetic," is accurate, and contains good information about ManKind Project's focus on self-help rather than political positions.

--User:Hooponopono 01:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think categorizing these critics as "Christian" is broadly wrong, as they are a pretty darn narrow sect within American Protestantism: Evangelicalism is the closest descriptor I could find, and certainly there are no Russian Orthodox or Coptic criticisms of MKP I've heard of. I still think apostacy best captures the spirit of the criticisms, but evangelicalism is the most lucid article on their general worldview. "Christian" here seems a vague dodge. Rorybowman 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This group is a cult type group and I think you were wrong to remove the information in regards to this fact. If you keep removing factual information I will have to assume that you are promoting a cult with this knowledge. Mankind Project is an LGAT, do your research a bit more before you jump to the conclusions that only "christians" have problems with them. I know someone who was talked into going to the weekend initiation and this person agrees this is an LGAT cult. Emails are received trying to get him to take more classes (for a fee), and trying to get him to recruit. If you research this group you will find that they have some questionable ethical activities. The following is from the International Cultic Studies association. Talk to them! http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_lgat/grp_mankindproject/grpindex_mankind.htm Cultic Studies: Information about Cults and Psychological Manipulation

That link provides virtually no information. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not limited to Protestants, and Russian Orthodox and Copts (a very small population in the US) are hardly the only alternatives to evangelical Protestantism. There is substantial Catholic criticism of MKP, and at least one diocese has forbidden its priests to staff MKP weekends.

Repeated Vandalism

An encyclopedia must be objective. Every attempt to provide details of the Mankind Project, or to balance the presentation, has been met by vandalism. The vandals are apparently advocates of MKP who do not want there to be discussion of the objective content of the weekend or links to critics of it.

Wikipedia is not a place for infomercials! Keep this objective, and stop vandalizing all attempts to bring in an element of objectivity and accountability.

We still have MKP advocates vandalizing this site and removing pertinent information.

Question, if this group was as "legit" as they claim, why the deleting of information that brings objectivity, thought and questioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.45.66 (talk • contribs)

Sources, here are some sites, do your own research, you will find.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.203.71 (talk • contribs)

Sources, sources, sources. Provide the sources to back up the information. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Brace for some more anonymous edits. The whole LGAT thing seems a pretty broad brush, with various camps claiming to be "experts" and calling the others "apologists" or whatnot. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but I found some other links that seem more within the mainstream of APA-style commentary and research, which I'll note here for folks who wish to explore the "cult" aspects of MKP. I place them here of course only as a witless pawn... 8^)

It seems to me that Singer's original concept of LGAT is being stretched a bit to fit MKP but there is probably more money in it for that way. In the interests of objectivity I'm not going to touch this article for a bit. Verifiable or substantive crits of the organization absolutely should be noted, but much of this stuff seems a bit fringe. Rick Ross, for example, lists the arts festival Burning Man[2] Rorybowman 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Listen, I'm no advocate of the Mankind Project. I've done my own personal research unrelated to Wikipedia and I have my own personal doubts about the group. But continually adding unsourced allegations and information from unreliable sources goes against one of the standard principles of Wikipedia (WP:V). So please, unless you have verifiable information from a reliable source, please stop adding this junk to Wikipedia. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability Concerns

First, my bias for full disclosure: I had bad experiences with this organization - I was a potential recruit that was pushed into joining but never did so, having backed out at the last minute, with severe concerns about the ethics of the organization. Nonetheless, I am an editor.

I am concerned about the availability of independent sources of information on MKP, as it seems that the only things available online are websites sponsored by them or affiliate organizations of, or concerns of their cultist nature of questionable legitimacy. While it is not necessary to know their every behind-closed-doors activity, the only evidence we have that they are who they say they are is their claims. Public records indicate they have significant cash flows, however 990s do not make an encyclopedia article for many reasons. Has anyone been able to find news articles or other independently verifiable mainstream signs of activity? skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In a similar interest of full disclosure, I attended an MKP NWTA in 2001 and found it very useful. As a 501(c)3 and not-for-profit corporation in several states, I would assume that the same techniques one would apply to other organizations would work for them. I followed one of the links from this article to the Rick Ross "cult education forum" threads on MKP but those are heavily moderated and tend to shut down counterpoints to Rick Ross' universal view of MKP graduates as brainwashed pawns. Because the words "mankind" and "project" are so common, generic "google" searches are unlikely to be fruitful. I would suggest trying to research them as you would any other 501(c)3 but doubt you'll find anything of use. The Rick Ross site had various nuggets from such public-records searches as the salaries of their three highest-paid employees ($40-$70K if memory serves), but I just don't think there is much "dirt" or anti-MKP stuff out there outside of the evangelical concerns about them being an unchristian cult (whatever that means). Rorybowman 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Through some digging what I've found is a number of scholarly papers, none of which are freely available to use in an article. Without anything in the mainstream media or in a reputable source to verify the claims of the organization, all we can do is cite their claims in the article, mention the proven links to other organizations, the established biographical and notable information of its founders, and give mention to the criticism that has been levied (for what it's worth - all I've seen is the Rick Ross forum and a Yahoo group, and they sort of speak for themselves in terms of credibility). Assuming nothing can be found of use I intend to edit the article according to mention unverified claims and delete items as I see necessary, but I didn't want to do that without discussion seeing as this is a difficult article and given previously stated potential bias. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I can appreciate that! (and appreciate the response). If you check my edit history on this (or other articles) I tend to have an editorial bias toward including criticisms of an organization or subject with as much reference to the original sources as I can find. I agree that it would be good to get more publicly-verfiable stuff, and wish you luck with that, but I suspect that there isn't much stuff. I didn't really know much about Rick Ross (consultant) until just now, but since he is one of the most substantive and persistent critics I think it is important not to remove those criticisms. The whole LGAT thing and how far Ross has gone from her book and the whole APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control seems a bit of a stretch, but I think it is important to keep that information out there for those who want it. I originally touched this article because I was concerned about NPOV and think that removing criticisms risks it tending back toward being a puff piece. Wikipedia readers are mostly adults, and should be given as many research tools as possible. Thanks for your response! Rorybowman 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My concern isn't in weighing your personal bias - again, it has to do with this article in and of itself. In regards to Rick Ross, what he personally has had to say about MKP is worth including in the article, but I am questioning the value of the forum itself if it does not include his commentary itself. I went through the massive threads many many months ago and saw a considerable amount of flames back and forth between supporters and critics, most of which have no scholarly credentials, and I presume often exaggerated their experiences. Other than saying that forums sponsored by his website indicate considerable criticism, I'm not sure how much more can be obtained from them than a very general synopsis of the types of allegations. As far as you claim that Wikipedia readers are mostly adults, that is absolutely an invalid assumption (sit on recent changes patrol for a day and you'll see how many youths and childish adults patronize Wikipedia!). Nonetheless, we are not censored and should write to the community consensus of standards as best we can as we see them. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick Ross' comments in the forum are as "rrmoderator" and he is pretty assertive in closing threads and banning what he calls "apologists." I thought that your concern about Rick Ross' fora was around him having a business which depends on making himself (and other anti-cult activists) appear more professional to command higher speaking and expert witness fees. In any case, I hope that you can find more verifiable and substantive criticisms. I just don't think they're out there except on the fringe "anti-cult" sites. Financials would be the most logical place to look, but that is pretty obscure and specialized stuff which might violate the no original research policy. Rorybowman 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters and Structure

Poking around, it seems that MKP is pretty decentralized, and the main corporation (currently in Indiana) is just that. The various "centers" are presumably domestic corporations in their own states, provinces or countries and not foreign corporations or subsidiaries. I would assume that these license intellectual property from the original corporation, but this might explain how "headquarters" are reported in such different places, particularly by non-technical (non-business and non-legal) reporters. This seems a pretty standard model for non-profits, no? This may be useful for folks who are searching for financial numbers, as reports for each corporation would presumably be in its "native" jurisdiction. Rorybowman 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very very intersting. Do you know of anywhere where this type of info is cited? Smeelgova 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
No, I don't know of any public records, but this structure is explicitly noted at their "sister organization"[3] and would be consistent with many other non-profits. It is essentially the same sort of structure that many churches and non-profits such as the worldwide scouting movement uses. I just wasted a lot of time looking on state websites for corporations that did not exist in that particular state. Financial research on non-profits is pretty darn jurisdiction-specific, and outside of my bailiwick. I note the info here to make it simpler for others to pursue. My personal view is that the organization is benign and that further research will show that, which is why I want such research done, in honest and verifiable ways. With no charismatic leader, no rigid doctrine and no clear financial gain, I believe all this anti-cult nonsense about MKP is garden-variety moral panic. Rorybowman 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Term "initiates" for members or participants

Looking at Pistonian revolution's substantive new edits, I am thinking that perhaps the term "participants" or "attendees" is more approriate and would make the article read less like an advertisement. Looking at the phrasing of the cheeky Montreal Mirror piece[4] with bits about "grand poobahs" and "circle jerks" and so forth, it only now occurs to me that internal terms such as "initiate" may not be best for a general encyclopedia article. Certainly there should be a link somewhere within the article to the initiation article, but the term "initiate" does seem slightly out of tone for a general encylopedia, however anthropologically appropriate or inappropriate. Rorybowman 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rorybowman, I had to revert some of your last 4 minor edits due to removal of material and vandalism from other editors and anon-ips. Please restore. Sorry bout that. Smee 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
No problems. Since Pistonian revolution registered I suspect s/he will be back. I've included the main material below, as I think there is a LOT of stuff which can be productively folded in. It hadn't occurred to me that "initiates" was such a loaded word for a general article. Rorybowman 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pistonian Material

Howdy, Smee! I can see why such a large edit may have seemed like vandalism but I think there were some very good bits in the removed material. I'd like to place it here so that it can be drawn upon (and hopefully Pistonian will return to take part).

The New Warrior Training that would later become the NWTA was founded in 1984 by three men: Rich Tosi, a former Marine Corps officer; Bill Kauth, a therapist and member of the "mythopoetic" men's movement; and Ron Herring, Ph.D., a therapist[1]. Designed to compress a large amount of material into less than forty-eight hours, NWTA purports to be a "radical departure" from the modern male psyche. The NWTA mirrors the three phases characteristic to the Hero's Journey of Joseph Campbell, and virtually all historic forms of male initiation: Descent, Ordeal and Homecoming. Unlike initiations of old, these passages are navigated internally, through a man's personal exploration of his emotions and the dysfunctional and healthy patterns within his life. The NWTA is grounded in the principle of bringing back a healthy form of initiation into our culture. Since the time of the industrial revolution, western culture has for the most part lost meaningful rituals to honor the transition that boys make into manhood. Consequently, many men may still feel like boys on the inside, having never received a blessing of their masculinity from their fathers. Our modern culture has tried to fill that void with things varying from fraternity hazings, to getting drunk on one's 21st birthday. Men who have typically been drawn to do the NWTA weekend have likely begun to struggle with the western definition of masculinity and its limitations.

The Mankind Project offers trainings which support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling. The trainings challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, partners, fathers, and elders in order to offer their deepest gifts in service to the world.

Specific details of NWTA trainings are kept confidential by both new initiates, and the initiated men who staff the training. The reason for this is to ensure that every man who experiences the training does so without clouding his expectations with the perceptions, experiences, and hear-say of previously initiated men. Confidentiality is maintained in order to ensure that each man has his own unique experience. Confidentiality also serves men who share intimate emotional details of their lives and wish not to have them repeated.

The initial workshop costs USD$600, with some weekends prices varying, and is attended by anywhere between 20 and 200 participants. Scholarships and payment plans are offered to any man who wants to do the training but cannot afford to pay the full price up front. The relatively high cost per participant goes to cover the expenses of renting the campsite and buying food for staff and initiates. Uniquely, Staff also pay a fee between 60 and 100 dollars to participate in order to lower the fee charged to initiates. The course typically takes place at a campsite over a 48-hour period although some centers offer workshops in urban areas. "Men are invited to participate in a variety of processes and highly experiential exercises that lead them to a place of safety. The weekend is, essentially, a male initiation ritual. All the noise of a man's life, like cell phones and radios, are removed so the man is separated from what he is comfortable with. The man is given the opportunity to take a deep, dark look into himself with the support of the group, and ultimately steps through his fears of going to that place." The weekend is a "male initiation ritual", where the "noise of a man's life" is removed. This includes cell phones and radios, the removal of which is explain by the Mankind Project as a way of separating the man "from what he is comfortable with"[2]

To avoid confusion with regards to the term "initiation", one must note that men who participate in the NWTA are not initiated into a given dogma or secretive group. the word initiation is used to give effect to the emotional transformation that many men report experiencing. The word "initiation" is frequently associated with religious cults or fraternities. Contrarily, the NWTA encourages each man to find his own truth and way of living, instead of adhering to some central dogma or leader. Although the NWTA is neither therapy, nor a 12-step group, men are given the opportunity to explore their deepest emotions, their definitions of masculinity, and how their relationships play out in their lives. one of the primary principles of the NWTA is providing emotional safety and support- to create a place where many men feel safe for the first time in their lives to actually feel and talk about their emotions, be it sadness, anger, fear, joy or shame. These men cut down the confining, dehumanizing rules that society puts on them; rules such as "Men don't cry", or "men have to be tough", or "men only hug other men if they're gay." The NWTA balances nurturing of emotions with a rigorous masculinity of integrity, where each man can learn how to be responsible for the life he creates for himself.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rorybowman (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Wyler reference

I have cut this because I'm not sure what it adds to the article. Should it perhaps be folded in to a section on the reparative therapy debate within MKP? Given that this article is just getting its references squared away and the cult stuff under control, I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms, especially given the general lack of citable materials. Rorybowman 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The training is designed to "challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, fathers, and elders" and to "support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling."[3]

About a year ago I first came here to complain that the article read like a press release and someone put up the current advert tag. What more needs to be done before taking this one down? My recent edits make me blind to certain flaws so I won't take it down, but encourage others to clarify what else needs to be changed. Rorybowman 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more citations from secondary sources unaffiliated with the article subject.... Smee 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Removed advert tag

I cleaned up the article a little, removed the cost of the training, condensed some press-release sounding material. I also placed the criticisms in the more appropriate spot within the article: at the bottom.

DISCLOSURE: I am a member of the mankind project, but was not acting on their behalf or with their input in any edits I have done on this article, and I have not added my own nor protected or preserved or removed anyone elses POV.

Jerry lavoie 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh. Well, thanks for the disclosure, and so far your edits look mostly okay. Smee 07:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
I hope by mostly okay you mean no problems at all. If this is not the case, please discuss on my talk page. You can put it here, too, but this article is not on my watchlist. I do not intend to be a major contributor to this article due to my obvious potential COI. I am certain I can keep my own POV out of the article, but I belive as a general rule that if the mere suggestion of POV based on a potential COI could be made, then I should avoid it altogether. Appearance is 90% of reality. Jerry lavoie 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting citation

  • Roggeman, Mark (Winter 2006). "Oh Man, What Kind of Project Is This?" (PDF). Midwest Outreach. 12 (1). Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc.: Pages 8-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

In preparation for more than a partial revert.
  • The Scinto lawsuit is settled and links to it are adequate to address it and the settlement
  • As proximate cause of death, Scinto's drug use (before and after MKP) is as relevant as his death
  • Rick Ross repeatedly "bans" people from his boards, calling them "trolls" and "apologists"
Earlier discussion clearly establishes that blogs (pro and con) are not WP:RS but I have asked for feedback from outside editors at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Internet_Fora_re_Mankind_Project
-Rorybowman (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
You are speculating as to the Henry's motives and background, although it is ironic that the Scinto settlement called for MKP to follow Henry's general advice through better psychological pre-screening of NWTA applicants. Rorybowman (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Post-Scinto Criticisms Section

Internet forums are inherently not WP:RS and repeatedly inserting them is against the WP:RS guideline. References to both Houston Press articles are adequate to cover the Scinto issue, and I have a concern that recent edits may not be WP:NPOV. In restoring the criticism section I was hoping to provide a clean and succinct reference to these sources without re-introducing controversial details such as the toxicology report that indicated Scinto had apparently relapsed and was both drunk and high on cocaine at the time of his self-inflicted death. Can editors please explain how 224253945 is an improvement over 224185640 with relation to WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Thank you. Rorybowman (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please. I don't know any way to determine which edits you are talking about, other than by sifting through, one by one, comparing long strings of numbers at the end of each diff. Doing that would be too time-consuming. Is there some other method that you intended for use? Whistling42 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mankind_Project&oldid=224253945 & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mankind_Project&oldid=224186586
Under what circumstances does it make sense for two fifths of an encyclopedia article to be details about a settled lawsuit and two fora that are not WP:RS under WP:SPS. Specifically "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Rorybowman (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced content moved here

The following content is currently unsourced. If appropriate sources are added, perhaps it could be included in the article. It was moved from the lede.

MKP is a grassroots organization, each of the 38 centers was founded independently. There is no one headliner or guru...
The original founders are only involved in an advisory nature. Over the years MKP has had to incorporate and put some structure around the protection of the intellectual property they own. At its core though, every center has a vote in running the world wide group and the vast majority of graduates only know MKP on a local level, sometimes only their individual men's group.

-- Whistling42 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Critics Need Their Own Article

Glancing at this article today I noticed that relatively little of it is about the main subject and, indeed, much of it (as measured by line count) is by a single editor. Examine the article and note the following line counts:

  • Lead (12) + Origins (3) + NWTA (12) + Integration Groups (5) = 32 lines
  • Other trainings (non-MKP groups) = 7 lines
  • Scinto lawsuit (30) + Criticism (7) = 37 lines

If anti-cult critics wish to assert that Michael Scinto is another Lisa McPherson, perhaps they should create a separate article. (A similar strategy worked over at fox hunting whereby the fox hunting legislation nicely tightened the main article.) Certainly the criticism section of WP:SPS things should be removed entirely, as all of these issues are addressed more concisely in the lead. - Rorybowman (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is an imbalance, a more appropriate response (considering your self-admitted potential for COI) would be to expand the rest of the article, not delete this content. Whistling42 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

I reverted Markworthen's blanking of the description of the NWTA, sections of the Scinto death, and the Rick Ross section. I preserved several of the edits for NPOV. Per WP:LEDE, the mention of Scinto's death should remain there. The other material is sourced and germane. I would appreciate it if we were to move towards discussion rather than an edit war. Whistling42 (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologized to Whistling42 for not first discussing my proposed edits with hir and other editors of this page. I noted that I am a rookie at editing and I committed to studying the Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies. I can see how an "editing war" only wastes time and does not resolve disagreements.
At this point, as I am still studying Wikipedia editing protocols, etc., I wish to offer only a piece of information. I am not sure if this information is relevant to any of the editors here, although I think it might be and will probably be relevant to future editors as well. Here it is: The ManKind Project does not provide or condone "reparative therapy" or conversion therapy. (The ManKind Project does not provide any form of therapy, although I realize that how one defines "therapy" is controversial).
To quote from the ManKind Project's "Sexual Orientation & The ManKind Project" statement[5]
"We support each man in pursuing his path to deeper authenticity. We do not provide therapy or endorse any particular therapy, including reparative therapy. Any group or organization that states or implies otherwise does so without our permission. We do not, and will not, attempt to change a man’s sexual orientation."
As I understand it, around 2004-2005 a few trainings were dominated by SSA (Same-sex attraction) men, i.e., men with "unwanted" attraction to other men. Some organizations and self-identified "SSA therapists" had been referring SSA men to the NWTA to help them in the "reparation process." The ManKind Project and the New Warrior Training Adventure became linked in the minds of some people with an anti-gay, homophobic, conversion therapy ethic.
In response, gay, bisexual, trans, and heterosexual men within MKP advocated for a clear, concise statement regarding MKP's stance on sexuality, a portion of which I quoted above. The "Sexual Orientation & The ManKind Project" statement[6] was adopted by the organization (I believe at the Annual Meeting in which representatives of MKP Centers around the world attend and vote on issues like this one).
I live in Utah, a state with perhaps the highest percentage of SSA men, due to the influence of the LDS Church (Mormon). I can tell you from personal experience that as a man who does not identify as heterosexual per se (sexual orientation terms and categorization is another hot topic in itself ;), I have never been told that attraction to other men is bad or that I should seek help for a disorder, etc. On the contrary, the NWTA, additional MKP trainings, and conversations with MKP men have been major factors in my journey from denial and fear to authenticity and self-respect.
I am sharing my personal experience to provide context to my comments regarding the ManKind Project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markworthen (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing this information. I'd like to refocus on the article per WP:TALK; are there any specific changes you would like to see or discuss? Whistling42 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Rustylane recently introduced a series of edits, some of which are somewhat problematic. Rustylane's additions rely heavily on MKP Chicago's own website as a source. At this point, per WP:BRD, I have reverted these changes and I have invited Rustylane to join us here on Talk to discuss the changes he would like to instate.

If we look at RL's edit series, here are the issues I see:

  1. The Times reference, removed: why was this removed?
  2. The "brochure-ification" of the lede. The original version was more neutral in describing MKP as an organization that does "x, y and z", essentially; the new version makes various claims that are difficult to substantiate. One such claim: that MKP "support[s] men in developing lives of greatness and connection". This is more of a statement of the intention of the group, yet it is presented as what the group actually does: this claim is pretty ambiguous and would be hard to substantiate. Another statement: the one that begins "MKP believes that..." - this does not make any sense; MKP does not have beliefs, people have beliefs; any "beliefs" should be sourced to whoever made the statement.
  3. "Each center conducts training courses dealing with life issues for men, said to be part of the mythopoetic mens movement" - said by whom? It previously stated that the leaders believe this; RL's version is weasel-worded.
  4. Removal of the mention of the Scinto death and lawsuit from the lede. WP:LEDE, this summary should be included.
  5. Long, italicized quoted section directly from the MKP Chicago website, RL replaced the existing lede with this. This is not appropriate; there are plenty of available third-party sources with which to describe the NWTA, we should use those.
  6. "Praise" section - this, again, is directly from MKP Chicago.
  7. "Criticism" section - a response from MKP was added, turning it into something of a debate forum.

For the "Criticism" section, since WP discourages these anyway, I have renamed it as a "Response" section and attempted to include the information that RL added. The issue of WP:POV and WP:RS remains for the other edits. Whistling42 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Recent Edits

  1. I removed the Times reference from the founded_date field of the Infobox because a) it has nothing to do with the founded_date, and b) it does not link to anything that would verify the founded_date of MKP.
    1. The original 1st paragraph was not more neutral: MKP's origin was in 1984, yet this paragraph starts in the middle (1991) citing various defunct and unsearchable corporations. This information MAY be relevant in the Origins section.
    2. Corporations are legal entities that do have beliefs, mission statements, goals and philosophies. If you want to argue semantics, would you be happier saying "Members of MKP" instead of "MKP"? Would you argue that the USA does not believe in freedom and democracy, but that citizens of the USA do?
    3. These are, indeed, MKP's claims; you can only dispute whether they are successful or not.
    4. You removed my edit from "40,000" men to "30,000".
  3. Find a better way to say it without using the word "purported", which is slanted towards disbelief.
  4. From WP:LEDE, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..." Michael Scinto does not define MKP, and he is not important to understand what MKP is. You don't see Lisa McPherson listed in the lead of Landmark Education. You don't even see criticisms in the lead; it's down in a section of its own, and Lisa McPherson isn't even mentioned there, but in a page of her own. I have removed the section on Michael Scinto; only removed mention from the lead. He really should be moved to a page of his own with a link from the "Criticism/Response" section.
    1. I did not replace the lead with this, but added it to the NWTA section.
    2. You reverted: "The participants surrender their electronic devices (cell phones, watches, radios) and jewelry for the weekend." This is a fact. They are not "taken away". We can also add laptops and weapons (guns, knives, etc.)
    3. How does it add to understanding what MKP is by added WP links to interdependence, countries, election, forest, mobile phone, Receiver (radio) and sleep?
    4. You removed: "Men are encouraged to share what they learned about themselves, without disclosing the specifics of the processes".
  6. It's not right to have criticism without praise.
  7. Great. Let's state facts in neither a favorable nor an unfavorable light. I believe I can do this. You appear to me to have an agenda. Do you? If so, what is it?

Rustylane (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You also lost my edits in the Newspaper articles section that ordered them in reverse chronological order. Rustylane (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I also claim that the volume of material regarding Michael Scinto violates WP:UNDUE. This section is loaded with the opinions of a tiny-minority. Rustylane (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed down EL sect, added {{No more links}}. The external links sect should not be a linkfarm for a list of media articles - if they are WP:RS, they should be worked into the article's text body itself. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Steven Eggleston Lawsuit

Article: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/lawyer-steven-eggleston-sues-over-nude-mens-retreat-pushed-by/19665438 LeahBethM (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

crap

Gay leaders have praised MKP? Absolute crap. One unknown gay journalist has said he was wrong to associate it with ex-gay conversion organisations. And considering the creepy Boys to Men thing, I don't think you'd find many "gay leaders" who would associate their name with this. 115.64.9.69 (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Man's Movement

There should be a link to explain what the Man's Movement is--people have heard of feminism, but not many know of 'manism'. 24.208.37.3 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ManKind Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

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)

  1. ^ A 'new masculinity', Susan Williams, 1999.
  2. ^ Mankind Project uses mysterious rituals to help heal wounded men, Chris Barry, Montreal Mirror, October 23, 2003.
  3. ^ "People Can Change", promotional website of Richard Wyler, retrieved 1/10/07.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ManKind_Project/Archive_1&oldid=1225461450"