Talk:International Association for Near-Death Studies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: This free paper (cited here) of Titus PM Rivas was unpublished from 2003 to 2021. However, it probably represents not a personal point of view, but a remarkable point of view of the whole association of which the author, a philospher and a parapsychology researcher, is meber.
therefore, it has been listed due to the fact that it is rare to see in an academic context any sort of confutation of the socalled "Copernican Revolution" (made by Immanuel Kant). And in this case the distinction between appearence and substance (the phaenomenon and the noumenon) is completely rejected, because, as Descartes told in the last of the six Meditations, nobody is capable to priduce neithr his own thought nor the external worl in an unconscious way. To deny the identity of what any person perceives to be and what anyone rally is, would be to affirm the consciousness substance is caused by itself like God, or by an external and unknown substance. and tha twould be widely irrational.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.138.45 (talk • contribs) 
:For any use of an unpublished source like this, we'd need significant evidence of impact.  I don't see it.  In particular, it appears to have been minimally cited, etc.  It also doesn't appear to be appropriate for further reading in this article -- I'd expect to see something that is directly about the association. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading