This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Additional secondary source. The University of Virginia Magazine (2007). Removing "primary source"-tag. --Hawol (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
