Talk:International Cultic Studies Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut from article:

• To avoid internal political debates, AFF did not have a membership base.
• This resulted in the professionalism which Barney had intended from the start.

Generally, someone who only wants one point of view presented will retain complete control. "Avoiding ... debates" is an way of saying this without really saying this.

I see no evidence that ICSA had any professionalism. It was an anti-Moon group from the start, which denied that religious conversion to the Unification Church was even theoretically possible.

It's not "professional" to begin research with a priori notions. Objective sociologists seek to "find out what is so" rather than to "prove what we know". --Uncle Ed 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very interested in your notion that "it was an anti-Moon group from the start", do you have citations/evidence for this? Smeelgova 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Professional status

Cuts:

• It is based in the United States and is one of the largest professional organizations in this field^{[citation needed]} .
• It publishes the journal Cultic Studies Review.

I asked last month but got no response. So I'm asking again: is this an advocacy organization, or some kind of neutral scientific body, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It bill itself thusly:

The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) is an interdisciplinary network of academicians, professionals, former group members, and families who study and educate the public about social-psychological influence and control, authoritarianism, and zealotry in cultic groups, alternative movements, and other environments. Founded in 1979 as AFF (American Family Foundation), ICSA took on its current name in late 2004 to better reflect the organization's focus and increasingly international and scholarly dimensions.

ICSA, the leading professional organization concerned about cultic groups and psychological manipulation, is known for its professionalism and capacity to respond effectively to families, former and current group members, helping professionals, and scholars."Tanaats 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the reason for cutting "It publishes the journal Cultic Studies Review."?Tanaats 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One more cut:

• bills itself as an interdisciplinary research and education foundation devoted to the study of cultic phenomena.

If there is any indication that this group is "scientific" or "objective", we can add such information provided it is properly sourced.

I don't follow..."Bills itself" it objectively true."Tanaats 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Or if there is a dispute over whether their anti-cult POV is justified or not, then we should apply usual NPOV policy and explain both sides of that dispute fairly. For example:

• deprogrammers and "exit counselors" A, B, and C called ICSA an "objective, scholarly source of information on dangerous cults"; while,
• NRMs whose members were kidnapped by ICSA-referred deprogrammers condemned the organization as "shady and self-serving".

No problem here with introducing a counterpoint. Do you have references for the "deprogrammer" thing or is that a possible example? Tanaats 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You get the idea. --Uncle Ed 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Tanaats 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)