Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 76

Do the reliable secondary sources cover enough ground on Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ

Have you considered that taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard might be a more appropriate course of action? My first instinct is to close this with that recommendation but I'd like another volunteers opinion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue might be a little more complex as 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as an unreliable source but Yeakley's research as admissible because it was referred to in reliable secondary sources. Two editors are happy to use the secondary sources and one is insisting in keeping the 'Gospel Advocate' material in the article, his assessment is the reliable secondary sources "don't cover enough ground" hence the deadlock. Guidance would be appreciated.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, Nietzsche123, and JamesLappeman: Ok in 200 words or less, those stating the seconady sources don't cover enough ground: please explain your rational behind it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've read over the material again. It seems to me that Gospel Advocate is an unreliable primary source (something seemingly agreed upon) however the material has been cited by reliable secondary sources. In Wikipedia we much prefer secondary sources because they do the analysis for us. The policy on primary sources states: be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]. It looks like the Yeakley source contains some fairly big claims ("highly manipulative" sects) which are not covered in secondary sources. This is the primary source drawing conclusions from its own statements. Generally we prefer a secondary source to cover these and do the analysis of the data presented by the primary source. Would I be correct in saying that there is no secondary analysis that makes the same claims (e.g. the bit about the sects, unhealthy ways)? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that those claims shouldn't be included as their is no reliable source for those parts explicitly. Considering the weight of what is being said I would say not to cite the GA source and remove those statements. In the interest of fairness I'll wait and see what the remaining editors opinions on the matter are. I am open to having my opinion changed. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I agree that the strength and nature of the Gospel Advocate claims are not in line with RS and BLP policy. The secondary sources definitely cover the gist of Yeakley's research (although as you know from the talk page I still find the quality of these secondary sources questionable if they choose to see Gospel Advocate as reliable enough for their use). My opinion is that Yeakley is not relaible enough for the article since the primary data is so unreliable but, should it be kept by consensus, the secondary sources are preferable and adequate if used properly. I have been querying @Nietzsche's constant push to have such inflammatory (almost tabloid like) data included but other than continual reverts am still not sure why this is so. I would also like to propose that the title be changed to "Flavil Yeakley's 1985 Research on the Boston Church of Christ" as Yeakley's book is given a separate section (as opposed to being contained in the "history"). Since it was nearly 30 years ago and only in a single congregation of what is today around 430 congregations in 170 countries it is misleading to indirectly project these findings on the current entire ICOC. By qualifying it as much as possible in the title it would be better reflected. JamesLappeman (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct, TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources. This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly. I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39). JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm". My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier. Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either. The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult". I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like. These are serious charges that come from a reputable source. The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough? As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way. What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the point isn't it, where the reliable secondary sources reference or quote Yeakley, that material is preferred to using a primary source on Wikipedia, especially a low quality one. Since Cabe's request is for the editors who feel the secondary sources don't cover enough ground to fully explain their rationale, I wont interrupt again until that is complete.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources." No. As volunteers we speak only for ourselves and not the entire board. It isn't a ruling. It is simply the opinion of one volunteer and has no authority. Having said that, it might be advisable to put a good deal of weight on Transportationman's opinion as they do know what they are talking about. But, this is an informal process at DR/N.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark and Cabe6403 thanks again for your input. As you can see we have struggled to find consensus. I still find it strange that a source can be seen as unreliable according to WP guidelines but then legitimised because it is quoted in a few secondary sources. I guess I'm not convinced that because a few niche journals chose to include material from a family business publisher it means that it is of encyclopaedia quality. It is such a minute and debatable slice of research that seems to take up a large amount of space (more space than some other more significant and relevant sections). I think that Gospel Advocate is not a reliable source and should be removed BUT if we decide to keep it then a few short measured sentences from secondary sources would be the most balanced option. JamesLappeman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. Basically, the bits of GA that have received critical commentary can be cited in the article. My own feeling is that you are able to make claims in the article if they can be cited by the secondary sources. If a claim you wish to make is only covered by the primary source then it wouldn't be appropriate to cover it. The only time its appropriate to cite the primary source is when directly quoting it to clarify a claim made by a secondary source. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe & Mark Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I must confess that I'm a little confused. On June 14th (DRN archive 73) TransporterMan wrote that "with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". From this and more statements he wrote I gather that it is TransporterMan's opinion that (1) Yeakley is a reliable source, that (2) Yeakley may be directly referred to in the WP article, and that (3) secondary sources are preferable to directly citing Yeakley if they cover enough ground. I concur with this opinion. While The Gospel Advocate Company doesn't seem to be reliable source, the Yeakley material does seem to be a reliable source since it's referred to by multiple high quality sources. The secondary sources fail to cover the normative ground Yeakley does. This shouldn't be surprising: for various reasons academic presses in general tend to shy away from making normative claims, especially about religious groups. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding link to archived discussion related to this dispute: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73#International Churches of Christ for convenience.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nietzsche123, I feel we should show the full statement from the DR/N volunteer to better understand their intent. This in no way should be seen as agreement with any participant. This is just for convenience to understand the opinion of the volunteer from the past filing:

@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Wikipedia "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally I dislike trying to interpret another volunteers words, but it appears to me that what is being said here is that the Yeakley material can be used as a primary source when used with secondary sources that are confirmed to be reliable to Wikipedia standards. Multiple sources are required for BLP group articles as we are talking about living people. Thoughts?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I previously stated my take on TransporterMan's opinion, namely, that while 1) secondary sources (and the higher quality Norton sources in particular) are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, it's permissible to do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. The secondary sources fail to mention the normative claims Yeakley makes. It's not just several Cultic Studies Journal articles that refer to Yeakley; rather, at least two other high quality secondary sources do: 1) a Norton text edited by Michael Langone and 2) a Pastoral Psychology article by written Lewis Rambo. Yeakley's CV may be found here: http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf. He was a professor for over 17 years, earning awards for teaching at Harding University and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Award for Research in the year he published his work on the BCC. I'm not sure on what grounds JamesLappeman declares that Yeakley isn't a psychologist since he has a BA in psychology and a PhD in speech communication (and has published in a number of psychology journals). Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So Cabe & Mark we are back to the same place we started. @Nietzsche has a predetermined disposition to wanting to use the primary Gospel Advocate material, even though everyone agrees that the GA book of Yeakley's research is regarded as unreliable for Wikipedia (no professional journalists, no editorial board, no evidence of fact checking) yet because @Nietzsche choses to interpret TransporterMan's comments to legitimise the primary GA source, therefore for all practical purposes, anything found in the primary GA book that is not covered in the reliable secondary sources is fair game because the "secondary sources do not cover enough ground". Hence @Nietzsche can conclude above:

Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me ping the participants and see if I can sort this threw enough to further the discussion. JamieBrown2011, JamesLappeman and Nietzsche123, I would like to make a few observations.

The material in question is: "Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118". The issue; is this reliable enough for Wikipedia standards to use in any way to source content if there are secondary (third party) sources, that should suffice. One editor believes that the secondary mentions are not enough and wishes to source directly from the Yeakley, Gospel Advocate (YGA) source where the secondary sources fall short. A sort of broad interpretation of the dispute, so feel free to correct any mistakes I might make.

Some of this has been slightly misperceived I think on both sides and that is not a bad thing. But let me try this.

The strength of sources is determined by several factors and in the last DR we seem to have had enough consensus from editors that the YGA was at least good enough to be a primary source, specifically because it had mention in multiple references in third party sources. That in itself means that we are able to at least show the primary source as illustration along with the secondary source references. Now, if there is something that is being cited directly from the secondary source, such as Yeakley's opinion, a quote could perhaps be used from the primary source, if it expands on the secondary mentions, but not if we are interpreting the primary source ourselves independent of the secondary (third party) sources. Thoughts.--Mark 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so, here is where I think we had left off. On 07:50, 8 August 2013 , in a reply to JamesLappeman, Cabe6403 responded with clarification about secondary sources not necessarily "legitimizing" a primary source. I believe I have recapped much of what the DR volunteer stated about primary source use with the secondary sources. At 15:08, 8 August 2013, the editor that requested the DR/N stated that they were prepared to return to the talk page to continue discussion on the secondary sources-excluding the primary source being used, which was responded to by Nietzsche123 with concern that they felt Transportationman had indeed clarified that the YGA was a "reliable source" and therefore could be directly cited, "especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground".

Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA. I actually think we are still where we left off, when JamieBrown2011 suggested that this could be closed and taken back to the talk page to discuss. But we just do not need to exclude YGA entirely from the article, it's use just hinges on the secondary sources for any material used. Perhaps a quote from YGA that is covered by commentary in secondary sources? Just a suggestion, not a recommendation. In other words there must be a way to get a consensus for content no matter what it is, and the DR/N won't really tell you what you have to do hear.

We could continue to discuss the content dispute and hash out eactly what is used from YGA if editors even agree that something should be at all. Thoughts?--Mark 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept only quoting from YGA if a secondary source has already advanced the information and if the quotes don't go beyond what is advanced by the reliable secondary sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is Mark's and Cabe's opinion that YGA be cited directly only if high quality secondary sources cover the same ground, since YGA by itself is not necessarily a reliable source. But I also understand that it is TransporterMan's opinion that YGA may be cited directly, even if secondary sources don't cover the same ground, since YGA is a reliable source (since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources). TransporterMan, please correct me if I'm wrong. As I see it, we have two different "rulings" by the DRN board. If we may only cite YGA directly when the secondary sources cover the same ground, I'm in favor of something like the following summation of Yeakley's research.

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley citation). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).

What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me at least. I am stating what Transportationman has already helped establish, that the primary source (the YGA) could only be mentioned through secondary sources. Could you demonstrate how you are interpreting Transportationman to be saying what you claim?--Mark 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And I may also be misunderstanding this from TransporterMan: "[T]he Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". That sounds like we are defining YGA as a RS to be cited when the third party sources do not cover it. So we are saying that there are enough multiple references that YGA is not a primary source in itself and has enough notability to at least allow some use to reference content. Not sure how I feel about referencing any facts though.--Mark 05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche I am not sure where you are getting your information that Yeakley conducted his tests over an extended period of time, on pg 30 of Yeakley's book he says he conducted his research over 10 days and participants were asked 3 questions and asked to give answers how they perceived their personalities to be before conversion, currently and what they imagined they would be like in 5 years time. Here is the quote: "They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years." So stating that the majority of the members changed their personality types is factually incorrect. This was not a longitudinal study. So please word that part correctly. Not sure what @JamesLappeman thinks? Also, I am going to remove all the current GA material from the ICOC article until we reach consensus here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, if this is true then either it must be explicitly mentioned as Nietzsches current suggested wording is, therefore, factually incorrect or it mustn't be mentioned at all. I don't have access to the source currently, would you be able to quote the relevant sections directly for me here? Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe

Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.^[1]

"The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".^[2]

They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years.^[3]

I don't see where Yeakley discusses the duration of his research on page 30 of his work; rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days. On page 24 he goes on to say that the focus of his chapter (and our present discussion) is "a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation". Regardless, I cannot find where I got my "extended periods of time" from. In light of that, I'm comfortable dropping the phrase from the summation. What do you think?

Mark, I think the following quotes from TransporterMan are relevant.

"Since the material about Yeakley's work reflects upon living persons, it would appear to me that the policy set out in WP:BLPGROUP suggests that Wikipedia needs to be particularly careful when dealing with controversial material such as this so that any doubt about sourcing ought to be resolved against inclusion unless high-quality sources can be found. Though my opinion would be the same even without WP:BLPGROUP, that policy further convinces me that the source is inadequate. That does not necessarily mean that Yeakley's research cannot be referenced in the article, but it does mean that a third-party source which is Wikipedia-reliable and high-quality needs to be found for it. In the alternative, if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly"

"The Recovery from Cults book is published by W W Norton, a highly respected publisher. If what's said in there (and most or all of it can be viewed either through Google Books or through the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon) is sufficient to support the text that editors wish to introduce into the article I certainly would think that would be a reliable secondary source and would avoid directly using the Yeakley book as a source in the article at all [...] If however the secondary sources are sufficient to include the material without referring directly to Yeakley's work, that's a better choice under Wikipedia principles to begin with."

"so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory"

In my eyes, the first quote suggests that while GA is not a reliable source, Yeakley may be, so long as his work is referenced by high quality secondary sources. And as I read the last two quotes, they suggest that while high quality secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may cite Yeakley directly, especially where the secondary literature doesn't cover the territory Yeakley does. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche I think you are missing the point somewhat, the more important misrepresentation in your description of the Yeakley study is not so much in the 10 day timeline of the study but in your comment that "A majority of the members changed their personality types". The reliable secondary sources and Yeakley himself states that the forms were handed out to the 835 church members at a midweek church service and they were asked to answer the questions three times; 1) How they think they would have been before their conversion - or five years ago, 2) How they perceive themselves now (at the time of the study) and 3) How they think they will answer the questions in five years time... Your description is a significant distortion of the facts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, there is no distortion on my part. I ask that you be more careful with your use of language in the future. Again, you were wrong to assert that Yeakley's research was conducted over a 10-day period; contrary to what you wrote, Yeakley took 10 days to initially gather data, not to conduct his study of over 900 members. Both Yeakley and the Langone Norton source state that "a great majority" of members changed their personality types (see previous citations). So I'm not sure what your concern is. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, you say yourself: "rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days.". From my understanding of the source, the "initial data-gathering" is the questionaires/forms he handed out. Any analysis of the data produced from that may have taken longer, he may have continued to revisit the data and further analyse it for years but the surveys were conducted over a short period of time, this needs to be clear in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm." On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} and Mark are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If the claim being made can be defined as an extraordinary claim, or one that directly refers to living persons or BLPGROUPS, then it requires more than s single reference.--Mark 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In pages 23-24 of his text Yeakley clearly distinguishes the 10-day initial data-gathering stage of his research from the larger psychological study he conducted with over 900 BCC members. The data gathering consists of sitting in on leadership meetings, observing training classes, "Bible Talks", house church meetings, and Sunday worship services. So where's the distortion on my part? Again, I'm ready to drop the "over an extended period of time" bit. JamieBrown2011, as I repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, your quote from page 37 of Yeakley's text is a qualification he makes. Yeakley's discusses his method on page 24:

"Considering all the criticism that has been directed against the Boston Church of Christ, it is remarkable that they were as open as they were in allowing this study. Their openness is strong evidence that they believed that they had nothing to hide. They even permitted me to conduct two different psychological studies. One study involved the two newest converts in each of the 35 house churches that were meeting at that time. Results and implications of that study will be discussed in Chapter 3. The focus of the present chapter is on a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation. A central element in the criticism that has been directed against the Boston Church of Christ, other discipling churches, and the discipling movement generally has been the charge that these churches employ methods that produce unnatural and unhealthy personality changes. Critics charge that discipling churches tend to make the members over after the image of the group leader, the group norm, or the group ideal. Supporters of the discipling movement deny that any such personality changes are taking place. This, of course, is an empirical question that calls for an empirical answer. There are many mysteries associated with the conversion process that can never be explained scientifically. This question, however, about the presence or absence of personality changes can be answered by the appropriate use of a personality inventory."

The following is from pp. 20-21 of his text, where he states the conclusion of his research.

The next chapter presents the results of some research conducted in the Boston Church of Christ. A psychological test was administered to over 900 members of that congregation. Results of that study provide convincing evidence of an unhealthy pressure toward conformity in the Boston Church of Christ. It is changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways. Later in this book, you will find several follow-up studies done after the original research in Boston. Results of these studies provide compelling proof that the personality changes are being produced by the discipling methods employed by that church. Various comparison group studies show that these personality changes are not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations--but the very same pattern of personality change is observed in studies of various sects that are highly manipulative.

Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation). Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche Your arguments didn't make sense on the talk page and they make even less sense here.

• 1st, you are guilty of WP:CHERRYPICKING when you ignor the qualifying information from the same source. Yeakley clearly qualifies his research by stating it was not a longitudinal study and does not prove that anyone actually changed their personalities. By you trying to exclude that qualifying information from your summary it is wrong and misleading.
• 2nd, you are conducting WP:OR when you say on the talk page the reason Yeakley says his research doesn't prove anyone changed their personalities is because: "Prove" or "proof" are very strong words that (responsible) academics tend to shy away from because so little can actually be proved. You are now interpreting Yeakley's research for yourself which you are not permitted to do. Also, Yeakley himself states "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm." In the very next sentence he is not shying away from using terms "proof" and "prove". Your argument falls flat on both accounts.
• 3rd, none of the secondary sources make the claim that people changed their personalities. In fact, Giambalvo does quote Yeakley as saying:

  "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".^[4]

  The secondary sources reinforce the fact that this was not a longitudinal study on people's actual personality changes over time.
• 4th, you are edit warring over at the ICOC page. Wikipedia policies state that: poorly sourced and controversial material should be immediately removed. Yet you are trying to force large tracts of material from an unreliable primary source to stay in the article. That is called POV pushing.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone's guilty here of WP:CHERRYPICKING, it is you, JamieBrown2011: you ignore Yeakley's conclusion to his own research, one that is cited in the secondary literature, including the highest quality Norton source. My summation accurately states that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality types on Yeakley's tests. Langone in Norton (p 39) along with Gasde (p 58) repeat Yeakley's claim that over 900 BCC church members changed their personality type. It's as simple as that. You seem to be confused about WP:OR. Explaining to you that Yeakley's qualification is just qualification in no way violates WP:OR. While The Boston Movement does include the bit you mention, it includes the entire third chapter of The Discipling Movement, including Yeakley's conclusion. Concerning your accusation of edit-warring, we've left the disputed section of the WP ICOC article on Yeakley alone throughout this entire discussion. Yet you tried to unilaterally change it yesterday. The responsible thing to do is let consensus here determine how the bit is worded. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche, you seem a little confused. You are the one who has proposed the wording of the Yeakley summary (a few times now) and on each occasion it has been mentioned you are leaving out important qualifying information that is mentioned by both Yeakley and the reliable secondary sources. By deliberately and continuously leaving out those qualifying statements, it is misleading and you are guilty of CHERRYPICKING and POV pushing. Also on a more technical note, of the over 900 people who were surveyed only 835 people actually filled out the three forms asking them their perception of their past, current and future personality types. See page 31 & 32 of Yeakley's book. "The MBTI forms were passed out in Wednesday evening house church meetings. Some members were busy with retreats that weekend and did not have time to take part in the study. No pressure was put on anyone to take part. However, around two-thirds of the members did take part. There were 835 members who filled out all three forms. A few others filled out only one or two. Among the males, 378 filled out the past (p32) form, 402 filled out the present form, and 388 filled out the future form. Among the females, 471 filled out the past form, 478 filled out the present form, and 460 filled out the future form."JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep accusations at a minimum, this board is to discuss content not conduct. Nietzsche, you appear to be attempting to selectively decide what to include in the article. If you include survey it must be very clear how the data was obtained. Claiming that 'personality' and 'personality types' are completely different things may technically be true but it's not clear. Basing your defence on semantics is close to wikilawyering. Please propose a version of the text that makes it completely clear what is being discussed in the research. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The MBTI is a personality type measure. Suppose that it's given to a group of 1,000 individuals, all of which are the only members of some college club. Say that 900 of the 1,000 individuals change their personality type scores on the tests in the same way, that is, that the scores on the test converge to a single type, which happens to be the type of the group’s leader. While this change in personality type does not prove that there have been personality changes, it does provide evidence that there's an unhealthy element present in the group getting the individuals to converge to a single personality type, that which happens to belong to the group’s leader. TransporterMan's previous opinion leads me to believe that while secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Now we're being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only if the secondary sources cover the same ground. If that's what we must do, ok. But JamieBrown2011's bits are not cited by multiple secondary sources. Rather, one book, The Boston Movement, includes Yeakley's entire third chapter (since the chapter is on the BCC (the name 'The Boston Movement' was name given to the BCC)). The last thing I want to do is misrepresent Yeakley's research. My summation accurately depicts Yeakley's conclusion, which is repeated by multiple secondary sources: the highest quality Norton source and the Gasde source, neither of which just includes an entire chapter, as The Boston Movement does. My summation may be found immediately below. I changed it in attempt to more completely depict how the data were obtained. I've also included numerals for each statement. If someone disputes a portion of it, please state which numeral(s) you're disputing.

(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a psychological study of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests (Yeakley and Gasde citations). (3) The tests asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (5) A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37) -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is real progress. Thanks @Nietszche, this is a much more balanced description of the research. My suggested changes would be to keep the sourcing and wording closer to the secondary sources:

Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.^[5]

Hence:

(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)

Thoughts?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for your suggestion. But I'm afraid that we cannot use your summation, or at least your (2) and (5): it's plagiarism since you repeat word for word what a secondary source wrote without using quotation marks. Being that we already have a large quote in (6), I'm more in favor of a paraphrase, hence my (2) and (5). If there's something specific about either that you dispute (even if it's minor wording), that's fine; I'm of course open to changing them. But if there's nothing in it you dispute, I'm inclined to keeping it. Plus, while you repeat what Gasde writes, my summary better tracks both what the higher quality Norton source and Yeakley himself wrote. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be getting closer. Nietzsche123 Just confirming that you don't want to use your original heading: "Members Personality Changes" anymore? Are you thinking we go with the later option of "Yeakley's 1985 Research on the BCC" or maybe take the heading away and move it under another section? (I'm less inclined for it to be a free standing section rather than a paragraph possibly on the BCC). Any thoughts? As for the above discussion on (2) and (5) i'll take a look and get back to JamieBrown2011 & Nietzsche123 soon. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think my original heading was 'ICOC members' personality changes'. Regardless, it shouldn't be the title if we're only permitted to cite Yeakley when secondary sources refer to him. Yeakley's claim that the BCC changes the personalities of its members isn't repeated (as far as I'm aware) by secondary sources. But I'm also not a fan of 'Yeakley's 1985 research on the BCC'. For one thing, it's not descriptive enough. For another, Yeakley's research on the BCC consists of other things besides the psychological study we're discussing here: the psychological study in question represents one of his numerous chapters about his research on the BCC in his book. So I'm more in favor of something like 'Yeakley's 1985 psychological study on the BCC'. By the way, 'psychological study' isn't my own term: Yeakley uses it to describe this portion of his research starting with his table of contents and continues using the term throughout chapter two of his text. I'm also inclined to think that Yeakley's study should receive its own section. I would think that the BCC section should discuss the history of the Boston Church of Christ, not necessarily a psychological study completed by an academic and Church of Christ minister. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"psychological study" sounds a little too close to an accusation of brainwashing. MBTI is most common as a personality assessment to help people choose an appropriate career path. Maybe its safer to head it 'Flavil Yeakley's 1985 study on the BCC' (@Nietzsche's suggestion but without "psychological"). Then when people read the section it will explain. JamesLappeman (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have also been reading over Nietzsche123 and JamieBrown2011's versions. My take is that while it may be preferable to paraphrase, the sensitivity that we have all had to deal with over primary and secondary sources leads me to think that we should go with JamieBrown2011's as is. It is clear (as requested by Cabe6403), properly sourced as per the help from the DRN volunteers and because it is properly referenced the accusation of plagiarism is a bit overstated. Please read it again and maybe we can close the chapter:JamesLappeman (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)

I'm not sure I understand how the term 'psychological study' implies or even suggests brainwashing. Yeakley states that researchers have conducted psychological studies of other churches, many of which haven't been accused of brainwashing their members. Plus, it's Yeakley's own term for the research we're discussing here. I agree that we need to be sensitive when paraphrasing secondary sources. I contend that my paraphrase does just that. An electronic copy of the entire Gasde article may be found here: http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no2_98/cutexperiencetext.htm. The relevant portion occurs very early on in the article. You'll have to get the Norton source from a library; the relevant page is 39. Jaimie's summation plagiarizes I'm concerned with Jaime's summation since it repeats word-for-word what Gasde says about Yeakley's study. You have to use quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. You should always use quotation marks when repeating what another author writes. But being that we have a large quotation already in statement (6), I'm still in favor of paraphrasing. Plus, we were previously directed to use as much of the higher quality Norton source as possible. My paraphrase does just that. What specific points of my paraphrases (if any) do you think should be changed? Last thing: I don't think we should cite The Boston Movement: the book just repeats an entire chapter from Yeakley. The other sources cite Yeakley directly in their works, not repeat a chapter. Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have modified it:

(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) Yeakley asked the church members how they perceived their personalities to be before their conversion, a second time how they perceived themselves at the current time, and a third time how they perceived themselves answering in five years time. (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals actually completed all three forms. (5) The majority of those tested tended to change their MBTI scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction of those changes was towards the personality of the leader. (Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2) (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, book on page 219)

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jamie, while I think this makes some progress, I'm still concerned with it, since: 1) you still repeat word for word a sentence from the Gasde article, and 2) you seem to paraphrase the other two sentences by just changing a few words here and there. Generally, we should paraphrase by putting the author's words in our own. That's what I tried to do with my summation, which I include below.

(1) In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a psychological study of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2) In order to conduct his study Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests (Yeakley and Gasde citations). (3) The tests asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (4) While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (5) A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (6) After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37)

I think it has a number of advantages over your summation. First, it's shorter, but not so short that we lose something from the study. It also better tracks the higher quality Norton source. Also, my (2), (3), and (5) paraphrase instead of either repeating word for word or nearly repeating word for word. I know I've asked this several times now; but I'm curious. JamesLappeman, please feel free to chime in, too. What is it about my summation (or at least (2), (3), and (5)), particularly, that you find wrong? If it's just that you prefer to keep out Yeakley's term 'psychological study', I'm okay with that. But then we'd need to slightly change the rest. That is, I'm fine with the following:

(1)' In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2)' Yeakley passed out three different Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (3)' While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (4)' A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (5)' After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Yeakley citation p 37)

Notice that I cite Yeakley instead of The Boston Movement in (6). I explicated my rational above. Jamie also quotes Gasde twice in his (5). If this is unacceptable to JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011, I'm afraid we're at a stalemate and hence need Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} and Mark Miller to help us decide which to use. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As tedious as this is, we have made more progress in the last week here than we made in 3 months over at the talk page. I think we are very close to a version we all agree on. @Nietzsche your final version is much better with two issues. 1) You continue to cite 'Gospel Advocate' as a reference whenever you cite 'Yeakley' directly. GA is a primary source with no editorial board and no evidence of fact checking, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Since the reliable secondary sources cover the same ground being referenced here, I think it is better practice and preferable to stick with those sources and references. 2) Also, using terms like "A great majority" is also discouraged on Wikipedia as it is regarding as PEACOCKING or using peacock adjectives . Finally, since conciseness is important, I have made a few tweaks and replaced the two other mentions of the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator Test with (MBTI) and removed the (BCC) since that is not referred to again. So:

(1)' In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test to the Boston Church of Christ, the founding church of the ICOC. (2)' Yeakley passed out three different MBTI tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58). (3)' While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (4) The majority of those tested tended to change their MBTI scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the convergence of those changes was towards the personality of the leader. (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58). (5)' After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, page 219)

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, JamieBrown2011. I like your use of 'MBTI' over my continued use of the long name. But I must insist that we cite Yeakley directly. No one has ever said that we cannot cite Yeakley directly, period. Rather we are now being told that we may cite Yeakley directly only when he is cited by secondary sources. So we really must include the Yeakley citations (along with the secondary ones). I disagree about 'a great majority' violating peacock adjectives since both Yeakley himself and the high quality Norton source use the term 'a great majority'. Heck, Gasde herself uses 'nearly all respondents'. So I insist that we use something like what Yeakley and the secondary sources employ. The only other apparent disagreement we have is over (5)', where you cite The Boston Movement instead of Yeakley directly. While I don't think we should cite The Boston Movement here because it merely repeats an entire chapter from The Discipling Dilemma, I'd much prefer that we cite Yeakley directly here, too, rather than not citing him at all. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} and Mark Miller, care to weigh in? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole DRN has been about the use of secondary sources instead of Gospel Advocate. The volunteer moderators asked us to use the secondary sources (you can read the discussion again) and said that they would help us settle on wording. Nietzsche123 you keep on talking about using the "higher quality" Norton source but as soon as there is an attempt to write the article in a way that wont be confused with an strong accusatory claim then you jump onto the extremely "low quality" Gospel Advocate as a source to rewrite (claiming that we can use it when the others don't cover enough ground). "enough ground" means to have a clear overview of the research and a balanced explanation of the findings. This JamieBrown2011 has done. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, I'm confused by what you write. The volunteer moderators never told us to not cite Yeakley directly; rather, they've suggested that we only cite him directly when secondary sources cite him. I'm not the one who called Norton the highest quality of the secondary sources; I'm just repeating what Transporterman said. WW Norton is an esteemed publisher; so it makes sense that the articles it contains are of higher quality than the rest. You make several accusations in what you say immediately above, but I can't decipher what you specifically mean. Again, do you contest any of the statements in Jaime's or mine summations? If so, which statement? The only difference between his and my summation is (4)'. I've given at least two reasons for preferring mine to his. I also contend that we should cite Yeakley directly in the summation, in addition to the secondary sources. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See this from Mark: "Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA". So we should cite Yeakley in the summation, even if it's the last of the available citations. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account Jamie's most recent summation and my comments I arrive at the following summation.

(1)' In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test to the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. (2)' Yeakley passed out three different MBTI tests, which asked members to perceive their past, current, and future personality types (Norton p 39, Gasde p 58, and Yeakley citations). (3)' While over 900 members were tested, 835 individuals completed all three forms. (4)' A great majority of those respondents changed their personality type scores on the three different tests in convergence with a single type: that of the group's leader (Norton citation p 39, Gasde article citation p 58, and Yeakley p. 34). (5)' After completing the study, Yeakley observed that "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (The Boston Movement citation p 219 and Yeakley citation p 37)

What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks, I was pulled away with IRL stuff this past week. Appologies. Looks like you're doing a great job working together to come up with a version everyone agrees with Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe yes we have made much progress, which is very positive. @Nietzsche you say in your last post "taking into account Jamie's suggestions..." but looking more closely you barely changed anything at all. Also, from your previous post to be "Insisting" that your suggestions and references be adopted is inappropriate and not very Wikipedian. We will not make much further progress towards the conclusion of this matter if you stick to that position.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Jaime, our summations only differ by one statement now: (4)'. I've taken into account your suggestions at least three times now, compromising on what I think should be included as the summation. When have you compromised? Yes, I insist that we 1) cite Yeakley directly as a source when secondary sources cite him and 2) that when we paraphrase the secondary literature we do it right by using similar (but not identical) language as they use. If you think that insisting that we maintain good citation practices is preventing us from making further progress, then I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)