Talk:International Cultic Studies Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Potentially Controversial[edit]

This article fails to include a presentation of the position that this organization's methodological approach is fundamentally unsound, a perspective that is shared by many mainstream social scientists. Until this information is included in the article in a properly referenced fashion, it is my opinion that this article's content is intrinsically non-neutral. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It basically reads like an ad since it is sourced from the organization only. I've also added the advertisement tag.PelleSmith (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


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)

List of employees?[edit]

It seemed a little strange to me that so many employees are listed, most of them not notable (or at least not having articles yet.) I could imagine that this might cause problems for some of them in their lives or careers. I've also posted a note on the BLP board. Wolfview (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been corrected by non-notable names taken off. Thanks. Wolfview (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

POV and Advert templates[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done Hearing no dissent Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources tag[edit]

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)