Talk:International Association for Near-Death Studies

Tagging
The organization is obviously one that is set-up to promote studying Near Death Experiences. A legitimate fringe organization, we need to point out that its advocacy has been criticized by outsiders as being particularly one-sided and credulous regarding the subject. In particular, they support a number of "researchers" who believe that NDE are somehow materially indicative of spiritualist planes. We also need some additional third-party references to help clean up the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't most advocacy groups one-sided by definition? This critique seems as credible as crticizing a skeptic group of being one-sided in their materialism. Defending a potentially dogmatic position or world view is what advocacy groups do. The IANDS entry is simply a description of an organization that supports a number of researchers (or "researchers", depending on your perspective) who believe that NDE's are somehow indicative of spiritualist planes. Yes, it is. So? I personally have a distaste for the seemingly surreal pronouncements of some of the "researchers" in the ilk of P.M.H. Atwater, but then, that is what they do. The IANDS entry seems to be an accurate description of a group fighting for their perspective. Pushed to the impartiality limit, then the Republican Party entry should have the Democratic Party platform posted in its description, and vice versa. C'mon...--Rabbitdawg (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree: IANDS is indeed set up to promote studying NDEs but IANDS strives to provide a balanced presentation of the research on NDEs, both by those who lean toward a transcendental interpretation and those who are skeptical. Several recent issues of the Journal of Near-Death Studies featured articles by Keith Augustine, a well-known skeptic, and responses by other, neutral researchers in the field such as Bruce Greyson. I think the tags on this article are unjustified. If IANDS's advocacy has been criticized by outsiders as being one-sided and credulous, then reliably sourced statements to that effect should be added. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added several secondary sources to this article in order to address the problem of notability. The sources are: Wall Street Journal (2010), The Christian Century (2011), The Herald Sun (2012), Chicago Tribune (2004), The Seattle Times (2001), The Houston Chronicle (2008), New York Times (1986), Psychiatry (Edgmont, 2009). Primary (IANDS) references are also included in order to address specific details (primarily Informational brochure REV 4/11, and IANDS fact sheet). I argue in favour of removing the tags.--Hawol (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional secondary source. The University of Virginia Magazine (2007). Removing "primary source"-tag. --Hawol (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)