Talk:International Cultic Studies Association

Criticism
To begin to address concerns expressed about reliability and controversy, I began a new section on criticism. I found a reliable scholarly deconstruction of the ICSA's checklist of cultic characteristics as a start. Mwright1wa (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

POV and Advert templates
I've had a go at tidying this article up: removing non-encylopedic information, trimming puffery, flagging broken and questionable sources, restructuring sections, and adding some better sources.

It's far from perfect, but at least in reasonable enough shape to lose its POV and Advert tags, I think. I therefore propose removing these. Alexbrn (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

✅ Hearing no dissent Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources tag
I have added a tag for lack of third-party sources. By my count, at least 8 of the 14 current references are directly related to the organisation. I will look to do some trimming and add sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

AFF involvement in Chinese Consulate anti-Falun Gong actions?
Under Reception / Criticism, the reference makes no mention of the AFF, so it's left unknown what their involvement was. Did the Chinese Consulate members distribute the anti-Falun Gong materials with the knowledge and permission of the AFF, or did they wander in and start handing it out? Without referenced details, this just seems like grasping at straws using a source at several removes from the article. AndroidCat (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the passage referred to: "In 2005, the Hate Crimes Unit of the Edmonton Police Service confiscated anti-Falun Gong materials distributed at the annual conference of the American Family Foundation by staff members of the Calgary Chinese Consulate (Province of Alberta, Canada). The materials, including the calling of Falun Gong a "cult," were identified as having breached the Criminal Code, which bans the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable religious groups." Since it makes no reference to the ICSA, I suggest it is irrelevant and should be removed. Pelarmian (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Noteable?
This article has had a tag on it for years. The references in the article are almost all from sources either produced by or directly related to the subject of the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)