Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Neutrality and Encyclopedic Quality

I think JamieBrown11 is a current member of the ICOC and his edits reflect this. In the past editors such as TransylvanianKarl (can't remember exact nick name) have placed information in the article that can not be verified. The Wikipedia article on the ICOC needs to be encyclopedic in quality with just the facts. It's hard to tell what is fact and what is not fact in many parts of the article. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem with the content of Dave Andersons under the belief section posted by Nietzsche123. The link provided as a source is hosted on Spiritwatch.org's website. Just a cursory glance at the websites contents in my opinion violates WP:SPS and is certainly not encyclopedic in quality. Can anyone else shed some light here? Psmidi 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How does posting David Anderson's critique of the First Principles Bible studies citing Spiritwatch.org violate WP:SPS or WP:BLP? The study isn't self-published in a personal book or even on a personal web page; nor is Spiritwatch.org a personal web page. Spiritwatch began as the "Tennessee Valley Bible Students Association" and renamed itself "Spiritwatch" in 2003. Furter, WP:BLP doesn't apply here since the article is about a group--the ICOC--not a person. And I think it's a stretch to think that BLP:GROUP applies in this instance since Anderson isn't calling the ICOC a cult or something like that; rather, he's criticizing the particular studies that the ICOC employs.-Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Andersons quote concerning the ICOC's First Principle Bible studies reads "[The First Principle study series]are a system of indoctrination that manipulates the commitment of individuals to serve the interests of the group".[68] Anderson asserts that these studies twist scripture in order to get potential members to believe that the ICOC has the correct interpretation of the Bible.[68] These are 'weighty' claims which require 'weighty' sources. Check out WP:SOURCES. And certainly infringe on WP:BLPGROUP as this could be read as a generic statement for all ICOC churches study series. Secondly spiritwatch.org doesn't have high journalistic standards and it's content is certainly NOT encyclopedic in quality violating WP: SPS. There is further no journalistic board that can vet 'fact from fiction' For example here is an invitation on their 'Who we are' page: 'Are you a mature Christian of good testimony with a concern and passion for helping counter the spread of false teaching and cultic movements in the Tennessee Valley, East Tennessee and beyond? We'd love to hear from you! Together, we can defend the faith by speaking the truth in love!' As noble as this sounds ANYONE can then submit information on their experiences without necessary fact checking etc. I've again removed the Dave Anderson section citing WP:SPS, WP:BLPGROUP and WP:SOURCES as reasons. The onus is on you Nietzsche123 to provide more weightier sources that are encyclopedic in quality for such claims. See WP:BURDEN. I'd like to kindly request that you do not insert Andersons stuff again until you find a more verifiable source to substantiate his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psmidi (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown continues to make unacceptable edits to long-standing sections of this article. There is a distinct difference between the ICMC (a specific conference sponsored by the ICOC)and criticisms of the ICOC's proselytizing on college campuses. Discuss on talk page before changing long-standing paragraphs for apparently no good reason. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

They may be "unacceptable" to Nietzsche123 but they follow the guidelines of Wikipedia editing. I quote:

Most problems with negative material can be avoided by adhering to standard WP policies, such as using good sources, balancing the content carefully, and writing in an unbiased way. When including negative material in an article, some things to check for include: • Ensure that the material is supported by reliable sources • Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it • Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance.

Nietzsche123 continues to isolate the criticisms of the ICOC on campus into one section. When I try to provide BALANCE to the section you revert the edits and "will not allow" the positive viewpoints to be included alongside the negative. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, Jamie. Although I think it's wise to hash this all out on the talk page before editing on the article's main page, in the end, I think you were right. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How does anyone outside the ICOC know what the ICOC believes? The ICOC is a fairly secretive organization. Even when I was a member in it from 1993-1997 members weren't even aware of what was going on in the top levels of leadership. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was a member and leader in the ICOC from 1993 - 1997. The article on the ICOC needs to be encyclopedic AND true. Yes the article needs to be neutral, but it also needs to be true. Qewr4231 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Non ICOC Sources?

Does this article have any sources other than websites owned and operated by the ICOC itself? Qewr4231 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are 32 non-Icoc owned or operated books, journals and websites referenced in this article, you seem a little confused? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just have a hard time finding the non-ICOC links because the amount of ICOC links is so great. Qewr4231 (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: do remarks by university chaplains and professors found in MIT's the Tech university newspaper pass WP:SPS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

^[1] Do remarks by university chaplains and professors found in MIT's the Tech university newspaper pass WP:SPS? The newspaper is well-respected, and the remarks in question, as I said, are from university chaplains and professors. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• What specific content from what part of what paper? If it is in broad terms analysis about the history or general beliefs of the Church, its place / impact in modern protestantism etc, if the quotes are from MIT Religious professors or otherwise experts on the area, then those direct quotes probably would be OK. However, Controversial claims involving actions of living people (claims of brainwashing or abuse or corruption etc) require the highest level of reliability; and student newspapers, even MIT, do not reach that high bar. see also WP:BLPGROUP. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

On September 2, 1993, the Tech published a letter that MIT's chaplain sent to MIT students, entitled "Christian Student Association Has Cult Ties" (http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N38/draper.38o.html). In it she says that the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), a member of the ICOC is "an extremely aggressive sect" that was "banned [from] Boston University as well as Northeastern University". The tech went on to publish a four-part series on the ICOC. One of the articles of the series, "ICC Meet Two Criteria for Cult Status", states that, as the title suggests, the ICOC meets two criteria for cult status (http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N41/johnson.41o.html). The two criteria concern: whether "its teachings are deviant from historical orthodox teachings and foundational doctrinal beliefs", or whether "the group practices subtle (or sometimes blatant) psychological manipulation of its members and potential members". I would like to include both those claims. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not support using MIT student paper for that. Calling someone a cult/cult leader is a serious BLP issue and requires the highest bar of sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You think that both claims should not be presented, or just the latter calling the ICOC a 'cult'? The former claim comes directly from MIT's chaplain. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am wrong, neither Ed Wood nor Betsy Draper have been independently published in the area of "cults" and therefore neither meets the criteria for WP:SPS and given the WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP concerns, neither portion is appropriately sourced for inclusion in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this article describing the ICOC comes from sources that are not independently published; rather, much of it comes from the ICOC itself. This seems to violate WP:SPS, no? Should that information be modified, replaced, with information that comes from independently published sources? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The ICOC is only suitable for non controversial content about themselves -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is very little about the ICOC that is "non-controversial". I have been watching with some dismay as this article is systematically whitewashed, when its subject is (or at least was in the 1990s) exceedingly controversial. Unfortunately, I simply do not have time to fully leap into this fray. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The article would probably be a whole lot better if we nuked it down to nothing and then rebuilt it based on reliable third party sources. [2] just the first page there gives at least 4 good sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll check to see if my university library has any of these texts. Perhaps I can work something in while writing the prospectus to my dissertation ;-) If not, there's always winter break. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think RedPen's idea is a good one, if there are editors with the time and energy to carry it out. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Energy I might have, time is unfortunately a different matter. One of the best things I can think of to do with an article like this is to find the extant reference sources which discuss the topic, like Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions and any others, basically make sure all the major points covered by them are included, and then, maybe, develop material related to recent developments later. Give me a couple of days and I can see what I can do, but I can't really say anything right now about what I might be likely to come up with, nor really how recent the sources might be, and the latter point might be particularly important regarding any recent "cult" accusations or the like. But, at least, we could be more or less sure that the material which is included would probably qualify as meeting WEIGHT requirements, if it is included in generally shorter articles on the subject to be found in other reference works. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Student newspaper is insufficient for such claims. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Reason I Was Having A Hard Time Understanding About The Plan For United Co-operation

A lot of the reference links in the ICOC Wikipedia article are dead. For example reference #33 says: "^ Plan for United Cooperation document" and the reference is listed as http://www.disciplestoday.org/Headlines/images/20060311.APlanForUnitedCooperation.pdf

The reference goes to a dead link:

"To Inspire, Inform, Unify and Grow the International Churches of Christ 404 - Article not found"

Qewr4231 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have found the correct link for the "Plan for United Cooperation Document" and will attempt to fix the erroneous link. I am very much a novice at editing actual entries so I am doing my best. Qewr4231 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference #33 has been fixed and goes to the actual ICOC Plan for United Co-operation. Woo hoo!! Finally learned how to fix a broken link. Qewr4231 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The ICOC Has Been Disbanded

The ICOC has been disbanded. All of the ICOC congregations worldwide are now independent entities. The ICOC congregations are welcomed by Kip Mckean into his new cult the International Christian Churches if they want to join. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again you seem very confused. The ICOC has not been disbanded. They fired McKean and reformed to avoid the extremes of the now ICC. Go and read www.icocco-op.org JamieBrown2011 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was told by members of the San Francisco ICOC that the ICOC has been disbanded. The San Francisco ICOC said they are now an independent congregation and their own church. I'm not sure about the "Plan For United Cooperation." I will have to read it. Qewr4231 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the plan for united co-operation and it's hard to really understand if there is anything new in the ICOC. Major portions of the document talk about (1) repentance; (2) leadership authority; (3) obedience; (4) discipling; (5) evangelism and (6) money. Doesn't look like anything has changed at all. Looks like leaders who are at the top are trying to do what Kip Mckean did without Kip Mckean. How does the Wikipedia article reflect this correctly?

Let me also apologize. I was wrong. The ICOC still exists; however, the San Francisco ICOC has chosen to become independent. Qewr4231 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Members' Personality Changes

JamieBrown2011 inserted the following into the Members' Personality Changes section of this article: "Since Yeakley's research, done over 24 years ago, developments in psychology have resulted in findings that show there are over 270 causes that can result in personality changes and many known cases of mis-diagnosis". His source for this statement is the "Right Diagnosis" Web site (http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/symptoms/personality_change/misdiagnosis.htm). Now, although I'm skeptical of the credentials of this site, I don't think his statement should be removed for this reason. Rather, I think JamieBrown2011's statement should be removed because it has nothing to do with the ICOC or their members' alleged personality changes. It seems indicative of original research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Original_research). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom please explain why you have deleted the whole addition made on 12 May, 2013 (Undid revision 554775080 by JamesLappeman (talk) WP:COATRACK). Your explanation is not sufficiently explained.JamesLappeman (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The content is referenced to sources that are not discussing the subject of this article and being used to advance a position which is not explicitly made by the reliable sources.

if you wish, you can try to use those sources here or at the reliable source notice board to make an argument that Yeakly is not a reliable source and we must be alter the way we cover his material, but you cannot do that in the article content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, its a little complicated for me still. so who do I need to convince? don't want to break any rules just hoping to provide some balance. did you read the revision carefully? any advice? JamesLappeman (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus of those who choose to participate. Because so many of the people paying attention to this article have an extremely strong bias for or against the subject, the best place to gain an real consensus would be at the reliable source notice board. WP:RSN. The best practice there is to frame the issue "Is Xsource a reliable source for Ycontent in Zarticle? These other sources (Rsource) (Ssource) (Tsource) say W" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Since the whole issue of "Personality changes" is highly contested in modern Psychology with 270 known causes of mis-diagnosis and court rulings that show these type of accusations lacking in "scientific validity" as referenced by JamesLappeman (talk) I propose one of two things:

• Either we present both sides of the "Personality change" argument OR
• Take down Yeakley's stuff until the RSN board rules on the reliability

What do you think?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the info in the post by JamesLappeman (talk)

"'the primary exponents of the brainwashing hypothesis were rejected. The court also ruled against the scientific credentials of the idea. Subsequently, when challenged, courts have regularly rejected such testimony 1990 case: U.S. vs. Fishman.

A part of the problem that some researchers faced was psychological “reductionism” in which they tended to reduce complex social phenomena to a single cause . Attempts to revive the brainwashing theory in the late 1990s by several sociologists have found little positive response from the majority of scholars who study new religions .

The research by Yeakley is part of a contested body of work done by professionals who supported the brainwashing theory popular during the 1970s and 1980s. Known as a cult apologist they would successively launch personal attacks against major new religions creating public perception that “evil cults” were proliferating in the land, brainwashing impressionable young people and turning them into subservient lackeys, amassing huge assets, and threatening American peace and tranquility . This led to a flurry of research that consumed the study of new religious movements until the 1990s by which most researchers found that NRM’s are not more virtuous or more pathological than other American religions . They were also accused of influencing peoples right top freedom of religion .

J. Gordon Melton the founding director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion and currently a research specialist in New Religious Movements presented a paper to the Centre For Studies On New Religions CESNUR stating the following:

“we should note that by the mid 1980s we had rejected the idea of brainwashing, a fact documented in a set of documents issued by several of the academic associations most concerned with the debate, and it was subsequently rejected by the courts.”

He said that:

“The hypothesis offered a full and complete understanding of New Religions that was neither built upon empirical research nor offered any direction for further study. That is, it appeared to be a "scientific" hypothesis, but failed to deliver. As was true twenty years ago when it was rejected, the few remaining proponents of the brainwashing hypothesis have failed to bring forth any empirical data for its occurrence”'

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom please explain how you come to the conclusion that citing reliable sources questioning the reliability of Meyers-Briggs, which is what Yeakley used in his research is OR or COATRACK? Yeakley is coming to a conclusion based on Meyers-Briggs testing. If the testing is questionable then it is VERY pertinent to this whole section.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

it is quite clear that you are using content to come to specific conclusions about Yeakley that the sources did not. Without specific sources that actually address Yeakley and his ICOC work, you cannot just go out and find some sources that talk about something similar and say :see this applies here too. I urge you to read the policy at: WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I get it now, this makes sense. Thanks for the patient instruction.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

thanksJamieBrown2011 and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, this is very helpful. I'm in favour of either of your two suggestions as they seem reasonable but I want to put forward a case that it be removed until further discussion. One of the problems with finding specific scholarly work refuting Yeakly is that scholars tend to debate other known scholars on larger debatable issues. The brainwashing debate (of which Yeaklys falls into) is well researched (New Religious Movement Scholars spent most of their effort for almost 20 years trying to prove/disprove this). The fact that Yeakly himself was not referenced should not disregard all other research on the topic and is possibly a sign that his research wasn't cited by major scholars. This may be due to the fact that his writing was published by a publisher called "Gospel Advocate" as opposed to the larger more recognized scholarly publishers. I've been reading the source reliability page and it states that: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim". This claim of "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and "highly manipulative sects, not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations" and "These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult" are not minor claims. I would however contest that there is at least some reasonable doubt as to the use of Yeakly alone to make this claim. Eliade who is one of the fathers of the study of religion said that: "reductionism" is the cardinal sin in the study of religion. If the article is to deal with facts then this claim should be contested. 196.215.177.142 JamesLappeman (talk 06:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also if you actually read yeakley's work, you will also see that it relates to a single congregation. If this Article is about that specific congregation then it would be more relevant but its neutrality and reliability are questionable in accounting for 600 congregations in 160 countries over 3 decades. It just doesn't seem fit in an article reporting on the ICOC as an entire movement and possibly is a Coatrack itself. So even if we find Yakleys work to be reliable for the 1980's maybe it should go in an article relating to "personality changes in religions the 80's" to coincide with the anti Coatracking premise "Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." JamesLappeman

There is no Wikipedia precedent for the idea that JamieBrown2011 proposed, which is identical to the idea JamesLappeman supports. Note that JamieBrown2011's first proposal that we "Either we present both sides of the "Personality change" argument" is misleading since it has yet to be shown that there are "two sides" to members' alleged personality changes. The information that JamieBrown2011 and JamesLappeman kept posting doesn't even mention the ICOC, let alone Yeakley; so it doesn't qualify as a "side" to the debate. But back to the subject at hand: as far as I know, there's no Wikipedia precedent for removing the Yeakley research. If you think that his research is not a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN, as TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom suggested. The larger debate about brainwashing that JamesLappeman contends the Yeakley research falls into is already discussed on Wikipedia under terms like 'cult' and 'new religious movement'. The larger debate doesn't belong in an article on a single church. I disagree with JamesLappeman when he suggests Yeakley is a lightweight source. While his book's publisher is not a university press or a larger more scholarly publisher, it is a reliable third-party publication, and hence does not violate WP:RS. Moreover, Yeakley's work is regarded as authoritative in the area of the ICOC. Larger, more scholarly, publishers tend to shy away from publishing books on normative and controversial topics like to what extent a particular church benefits or hurts its members. And while Yeakley's work is about the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the church was the first ICOC church; the movement grew from it; that's why the ICOC was earlier referred to as the "Boston Movement". Besides, if you read the "Members Personality Changes" section within this article carefully, you'll note that the research has already been flagged with regard to the BCC. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

hello TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom do you have any thoughts on the above. i still think there is a case that a whole paragraph devoted to Yeakley's work is more debatable than the current article suggests. There is very little scholarly work done on the ICOC which makes sourcing a sensitive issue. Its hard to find scholarly work that refutes it but equally hard to find scholarly work that agrees.Yeakleys work was published by Gospel Advocate which is a publisher for the Churches of Christ who was strongly opposed to the ICOC at the time. Its neutrality and third party status must be questioned as there appears to be a lack of peer review and stands as an isolated source from an opposing in house publisher. JamesLappeman 12:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you go to the WP:RSN the reliable source notice board and provide evidence there to determine if more recent scholarship has placed Yeakleys work in question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom That suggestion will address the issue of Reliable Source, but JamesLappeman made a good point about Yeakley's research being used as a WP:COATRACK. The ICOC was only formalised in the early 1990's. Yeakley's research was done in one church in 1988. WP:CHERRY also seems to apply.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Using Yeakley's research isn't an instance of a "coatracking". What WP:COATRACK proscribes are JamieBrown2011 and JamesLappeman's insertions of extraneous material. See WP:COATRACK, in particular: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject". Questions in regards to the MBTI and the brainwashing controversy in general without any references to the ICOC or Yeakley's research are "cover[s] for a tangentially related biased subject". Despite what JamieBrown2011 implies, including Yeakley's work doesn't violate WP:CHERRY. In fact, the opposite is the case: to not include Yeakley's research would be to violate WP:CHERRY; not including his work would be to cherry-pick facts. While the name 'The International Churches of Christ' may have only been created in the early 1990's, the name was merely applied to an existing body of churches then called 'The Boston Movement', founded by the BCC. The article already mentions this in its history section. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 Talk about being guilty of CHERRY picking; you state that "Gospel Advocate" is a reliable third party publisher, on what basis? They predominantly publish Sunday School Curriculums, (for all ages) 'exclusively' for the Church of Christ. It is entirely run by a husband and his wife. Since when does that make you reliable or qualified for publishing Psychological research? Also, you may have noticed Yeakley only has a bachelors degree in Psychology, (which I also have, and it in no way qualifies me as to write authoritatively on the complex nature of Personality Change). Also, He spent 25 years as a preacher for the Church of Christ, and his advanced degrees are in communications... I know you were the one who put Yeakley's research into this ICOC page but unless I am missing something, why are you advocating so strongly for him?JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, how does stating that Gospel Advocate is a reliable third party publisher mean that I'm guilty of WP:CHERRY? The policy applies to WP articles, not claims as to the reliability of a publisher. While Yeakley does have a BA in psychology, he also has an MA and a PhD (in the area of speech communication). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking your facts to create a wrong impression is what I am getting at. You claim that 'Gospel Advocate' is a reliable third party publisher, but you have yet to explain how you came to that conclusion. When one researches 'Gospel Advocate' we see a publisher run by a husband and his wife without any evidence even of an editorial board. Again, let us know how you came to your conclusion? Or how having a BA in Psychology qualifies Yeakley to write authoritatively on the issue of Personality Change? Isn't speech communication a different field of study? So I am not sure how that improves the situation, Please explain? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Yeakley as a source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom talkNietzsche123 I may be new to Wikipedia but am surprised that this hasn't been successfully contested before. Here are the reasons why Yeakley’s book “The Discipling Dilemma” should be removed as a Wikipedia source to reference the ICOC.JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, JamesLappeman. It's clear that you've spent some time researching Yeakley and the ICOC. However, much of what you write is false, or at least misleading. I'll explicate why after each of your sub-sections. In doing so, I show that you have not established a strong enough argument for removing the Yeakley research from this article. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Background to Yeakley as an authority on the ICOC

During the early 1980s there was much tension between the Boston Movement and the Churches of Christ. Major leaders and even whole congregations within the Churches of Christ were aligning themselves with the Boston movement and tension was high. The Churches of Christ were among the first to begin calling the Boston Movement a "cult". Recently a number of Church of Christ leaders actually apologized for these accusations and the churches have been establishing a better relationship .

The leaders of the COC never apologized for their claims about the ICOC. Rather, some of the current leaders of the COC now claim that the ICOC has made much progress. This implies that at least some aspects of the ICOC have improved in the eyes of the COC. From the way you make it sound it's as if the COC is saying that their original complaints against the ICOC were never valid, which is not the case. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 (talk) Unfortunately it is not JamesLappeman (talk) who presents misleading information but rather yourself. Yes they did apologise for calling the ICOC a cult. Direct from the Churches of Christ Newspaper:

"Representatives of mainline churches apologized for using the word 'cult' as a careless label in referring to the ICOC and for years of mistrust between the two groups."

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, while you did quote directly from the article you referred to, if you actually look at the source of the supposed quotation, you'll see that nowhere in the article from The Christian Chronicle called "ICOC and Mainline Forum: A Meeting of the Minds" by Lindy Adams is the term 'cult' used. So it's unclear where the article you cited got that quote. Regardless, even if the quote is accurate, it does nothing to support JamesLappeman's claim that the COC apologized for its past claims against the ICOC. That is, even if it's true that some leaders of the COC now regret using the term 'cult' to label the ICOC, this does nothing to establish that COC leaders now think that their original criticisms of the ICOC are somehow invalid. According to the two articles from The Christian Chronicle the ICOC is now making amends for its previous "haughtiness" and "errors". In the eyes of the COC, the ICOC is making much progress. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 Seriously? You are doing mental gymnastics here. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I don't follow what you say. Again, it's unclear whether anyone from the COC ever apologized for once labeling the ICOC a 'cult'. But even it was clear, this still wouldn't support the claim that the COC apologized for its previous criticisms of the ICOC: all it implies is that leaders of the COC apologized for calling the ICOC a 'cult'. If the articles from The Christian Chronicle already mentioned are read in their entirety, not cherry-picked for anomalous quotes, it's clear that in the eyes of the COC the ICOC is making progress. That is, while in the eyes of the COC the ICOC once was guilty of numerous errors, it's no longer guilty. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It was during this critical time that in 1985 Yeakley was actually invited by the ICOC to do research in defense of some damaging claims that they were an evil cult . He was a representative of the Church of Christ Growth Institute and not an independent researcher. The main purpose of his invitation was to help relations between the Boston Church and the rest of the Churches of Christ. Instead of clearing the ICOC he wrote a book that was published through a local mainline Church of Christ publisher (one of the ICOCs fiercest critics at the time) that accused the Boston Church of Christ of affecting personality change among its members (a sample of roughly 900 people). He used his research to claim that the ICOC was an evil cult mysteriously changing the personalities of its converts according to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator analysis.JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

While Yeakley was hired by the ICOC to conduct research that would help clear its name, the ICOC refused to publish his work when it didn't seem to clear its name. When the publishing arm of the COC agreed to publish his research, Yeakley of course accepted. Point being: Yeakley conducted his research on behalf of the ICOC, with the explicit intent of clearing its name. He didn't "use" his research to claim that the ICOC was an evil cult mysteriously changing the personalities". The fact that the ICOC asked Yeakley to conduct the research seems reason enough by itself to mention his work in this article. Moreover, he never accuses the ICOC of being a destructive cult. Rather, along with the MBTI testing, Yeakley mentions many positives of the ICOC. Amongst other things, Yeakley praises the zeal of ICOC members and ICOC "Bible Talks". Indeed, Yeakley even asserts that the COC have many things to learn from the ICOC. See this quote, for example:

One of the most impressive things about the Boston Church of Christ is what they are doing with their Bible Talk groups. Writers in the church growth field have suggested for many years that conversion requires a point of contact and a pathway. The point of contact is a way of meeting non-members. The pathway is the orderly sequence of events that can be expected to bring some of these non-members to the point of conversion. Churches of Christ that are not identified with the discipling movement used evangelistic meetings and evangelistic preaching in other church services as the point of contact a few generations ago. That worked with some people in previous generations. It does not work with most people today. These congregations did a lot of personal evangelism in small groups-a family or two of members studying with a family of non- members. These "cottage meetings," as they were called, proved to be effective in teaching many people. Sometimes people taught in this way had to be motivated from the pulpit before they made the decision to obey the gospel. The home Bible studies and evangelistic preaching brought many people to Christ a few years ago. In recent years, however, these methods have been less effective. The secret of the Bible Talk approach is that it is a non-threatening way for a non-member to be introduced to the study of the Bible. Bible Talk lessons are simple, practical, applied studies that do not focus on controversial doctrinal issues. They provide an opportunity to get people into the Scriptures and to show them that the Bible is relevant to their lives and that Christ has answers to their problems. These occasions also provide an opportunity for several Christians to build relationships with the non-member visitors. Once the non-members get interested, they are receptive to the evangelistic study that follows.

This is already included in the article, by the way. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 You state that the ICOC refused to publish Yeakley's findings...where do you get that from? As far as I know the ICOC's publishing arm was only established in the 1990's some years after Yeakley's book was published. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, I thought I got this from the first pages of Yeakley's book itself. After re-reading it, I realize that I was mistaken: nowhere does he claim that the ICOC offered to publish his work. Thanks for keeping me honest. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 remember the reason for this page is the issue of reliability WP:RS WP:SELFSOURCE The background info is merely to show that Yeakley was a Church of Christ academic publishing his findings with a Church of Christ publisher. His intentions are not in question. JamesLappeman (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, you make at least three claims in this section. One, that Yeakley accused the ICOC of being "an evil cult [that] mysteriously chang[es] the personalities of its converts according to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator analysis". Two, that Yeakley published his work under the publishing wing of the COC, which at the time was critical of the ICOC. And, three, that points one and two show that including Yeakley's research violates both WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE. I have showed that your first point is mistaken. While your second point is true, it fails to support your conclusion that WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE have been violated. The latter doesn't apply in this case since it's not a self-published work we're concerned about. And I fail to see how the former is violated. The mere fact that the COC published Yeakley's work doesn't seem sufficient to warrants excluding it from WP. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Argument for its removal

There are a few noteworthy concerns with “The Discipling Dilemma” being cited in a source to describe the ICOC under the following Wikipedia guidelines:

“Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” (Main pages: WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES)

Wikipedia is also very sensitive to material that defames people WP:BLP "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

As the ICOC is not a living person, WP:BLP doesn't apply here. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think WP:BLPGROUP does, which also calls for high quality sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

While WP:BLP requires high quality sources, WP:BLPGROUP doesn't necessarily. See: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis". This is what we're doing right now. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At least we are all in agreement on the quality of the source JamesLappeman (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Below are four reasons why Yeakley’s research violates a number of Wikipedia's guidelines: JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Writer and Publishing Questionability (WP:SPS)

Wikipedia states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[8] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

The publisher of Yeakley’s book is of questionable neutrality as it is a Church of Christ associated publisher.

The book is published by “Gospel Advocate Co” who are describes on their website as a family owned business. This cannot be considered reliable.

Their website describes them as follows:

“About Gospel Advocate Company

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE was founded in July 1855 by Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb. They dedicated their efforts to “the maintenance of the doctrine of salvation through the gospel of the grace of God.” This remains our mission today.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE has been a family-owned business for more than 155 years ¿ the Fannings, the Lipscombs, the McQuiddys, and since 1990 our family, the Andersons. Seventeen years is a drop in the bucket compared to our 157-year history, but to paraphrase Psalm 16:6, ¿We have a goodly heritage.¿ We intend to honor that heritage to the best of our ability and pass it on to the next generation. Our goal is to serve God and His people and to further the growth of the church.

We also invite you to visit with us in person at our offices. We are located at:

1006 Elm Hill Pike, Nashville, TN 37210

Neil Anderson, Publisher

Kerry Anderson, President”

One of the biggest opponents to the ICOC during its early years was the mainline Church of Christ from where the ICOC was a schism. The ICOC attracted many members from the mainline Church of Christ and there were disagreements over many issues. Much of that tension has now died down.

For The Discipling Dilemma to make such incriminatory claims as:

“…changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways”

“…highly manipulative sects, not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations”

“These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult”

It appears wrong to use a source from the church that was one of the ICOCs greatest critics during the 1970s and 1980s.

Again, Yeakley was asked by the ICOC to conduct his research. It's misleading to state that he was a critic of the ICOC while he conducted his research. Plus, as already mentioned above, Yeakley's work contains many discussions about what he sees are positive aspects of the church. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The main topic here is the publisher reliability, not Yeakley's feelings towards his subjects JamesLappeman (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Yeakley didn't self-publish "The Discipling Dilemma"; so his research doesn't violate WP:SPS. While the publisher of Yeakley's text may not be a high quality academic publishing house, you can't leave out the fact the ICOC had Yeakley conduct the personality research of its members. And, JamesLappeman, you do question Yeakley's intentions when you accuse him of making "incriminatory claims". -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The source reliability page of Wikipedia states that:

“Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim”.

The fact that “Gospel Advocate” alone published his book (as opposed to a recognized publisher of religious or psychological books) must stand contrary to the weight of the claims he makes. JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Inconclusiveness of his method as an accurate tool to make claims about the ICOC WP:QS

Yeakley based his entire conclusion that the ICOC is guilty of affecting personality change and hence a “dangerous cult” on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tool which is highly contestable as a method to promote such conclusions.

Note that Yeakley never called the ICOC a 'dangerous cult', or anything like that. In his text's appendix, added a few years after the text's first edition, Yeakley reports that counselors in the Boston area refer to the ICOC as a 'dangerous cult'. Yeakley is careful only to contend that the ICOC changes the personalities of its members. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To assess proposed “personality changes” in members of the Boston Church of Christ; Yeakley used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool.

Since the 1980s, then there has been much debate as to its reliability as a method for personality profiling as quoted below:

“In spite of the popularity of the MBTI, there are many problems with its use. There is a large body of research that suggests that the claims made about the MBTI cannot be supported. In other words, although the MBTI appears to measure something, many psychologists are not convinced that any significant conclusions can be based on the test.”

“There are a number of psychometric limitations pertaining to the reliability and validity of the MBTI, which raise concerns about its use by practitioners. In view of these serious limitations, routine use of the MBTI is not recommended, and psychologists should be cautious as to its likely misuse in various rganizational and occupational settings.”

In previous research Boyle wrote:

As well, there are problems in using MBTI preference scores to predict behavioural or occupational outcomes. In addition, test-retest estimates raise doubts about the stability of MBTI-type scores. Some investigators (e.g. Anastasi, 1990) have suggested that all personality questionnaires have dubious psychometric standing. Certainly, the problems associated with item transparency, and concomitant response distortion ranging all the way from lack of self-insight to deliberate faking, as well as the effects of response sets in general, apply universally to self- report questionnaires.

Other researchers have also argued that:

“…the MBTI did not adequately represent the Jungian theory on which it was presumably based(Comrey, 1983; McCrae & Costa, 1989). The forced-choice response format and false assumptions that all people can be divided into groups have also been criticized (Girelli & Stake, 1993; Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 1999). Another criticism concerns gender weighting. Specifically, different weights are applied for men and women on the “Thinking-Feeling” scale based on socialization effects (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), leading to difficulty in comparing men and women on this scale (Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 1999).”

In his paper, the questions Pittenger raised relate to all areas of the test as quoted in summary below:

STATISTICAL STRUCTURE: “The data indicate that there is no evidence of bimodal distributions for the MBTI.6 Instead, most people score between the two extremes. This means that although one person may score as an E, his or her test results may be very similar to those of another person’s, who scores as an I.”

RELIABILITY: “In summary, the differences between the two-letter categories are not as sharp and clear cut as it would appear. Because the MBTI uses an absolute classification scheme for people, it is possible for people with relatively similar scores to labeled with much different personalities.”

VALIDITY: “In summary, it appears that the MBTI does not conform to many of the basic standards expected of psychological tests. Many very specific predictions about the MBTI have not been confirmed or have been proved wrong. There is no obvious evidence that there are 16 unique categories in which all people can be placed. There is no evidence that scores generated by the MBTI reflect the stable and unchanging personality traits that are claimed to be measured. Finally, there is no evidence that the MBTI measures anything of value.”

In fact in one review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrument should not even be used for career planning counseling. This amount of contention and the fact that Yeakley’s strongest conclusions are based exclusively on his MBTI findings must render the source of questionable reliability. JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, do you know of any articles that contest the methodology or results of Yeakley's particular research? I'm not familiar with literature surrounding the validity of the MBTI; but I'm confident that if I were to do a bit of research I could find scholars attesting to the validity of the test. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the above was to show the contestability of using MBTI. It is a tool used today in personality profiling, It's just not a good one for making conclusive claims and here we are talking about WP:RS JamesLappeman (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Oxford's A Dictionary of Psychology, the MBTI is "one of the most popular personality questionnaires" (entry is found under 'Myers-Briggs Type Indicator'). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions reports that the MBTI "has been widely used in church and other circles in order to enable a dispassionate awareness of one's preferences to be developed" (entry is found under 'Carl Jung'). While there appears to be scholarly debate as to the effectiveness of the MBTI of measuring personality change, the MBTI is still the most popular tool available. Moreover, a number of scholars seem to argue that criticisms regarding the MBTI mostly come down to questions regarding the validity of its origins, not questions regarding the validity of the MBTI's usefulness (see "Time for a critical empirical investigation of the MBTI: Case and Phillipson are right to highlight the pre-scientific roots of the MBTI, but they fail to separate the issue of the validity or usefulness of the MBTI from the issue of the validity of its origins.(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)"). Let us suppose that many of the above criticisms (cited by JamesLappeman are true). This still wouldn't invalidate Yeakley's particular use of the MBTI: an explanation is still required for the change in MBTI scores of over 900 members of the BCC had over the course of their involvement with the church. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 It may well be a popular test to show personality type but studies have found that between 39% and 76% of people tested with MBTI have different personality types upon retesting some weeks or years later. A few highlights of the criticisms from the Wikipedia page on MBTI:

• Unlike some personality measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses.
• The statistical validity of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has also been the subject of much criticism. It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the MBTI has been produced by the "Center for the Application of Psychological Type" (which co-incidentally provides training in the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited by Myers-Briggs advocates).
• The terminology of the MBTI has also been criticized as being very "vague and general" as to allow any kind of behavior to fit any personality type, which may result in the Forer effect, where individuals give a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies specifically to them.

...Food for thought! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, thank you for mentioning the WP page on MBTI. I'm not sure why I didn't check it out sooner. While you're correct to note that a study completed in 1979 by Howes and Carskadon suggests that "as many as 50 percent of the people will be classified into a different type" after retaking an MBTI test, research by Robert and Margaret Capraro in 2002 suggests that "[t]he administrations of the MBTI examined in the present study indicated that the MBTI, on average, tends to yield scores with acceptable reliability across studies. But like all measures, the MBTI yields scores that are depend- ent on sample characteristics and testing conditions" (C&C's article is called "MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR SCORE RELIABILITY ACROSS STUDIES: A META-ANALYTIC RELIABILITY GENERALIZATION STUDY"; quote is from p. 599). The Capraro's article rebuts many of the criticisms mentioned above regarding the MBTI; and it also cited other recent research that appear to vindicate the MBTI. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 But all this does is say MBTI can be a reliable measure of personality type. It doesn't in any way indicate that it is a reliable measure of Personality Change.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Academic Bias (WP:QS and WP:USEBYOTHERS)

Wikipedia states: “Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others”

It also says: “How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source’s reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.”

The whole body of “anti-cult” work that Yeakley’s book falls under has been refuted by mainstream academia since his writings.

This evil cult label was popular of new religious movements in the 1970’s and 1980s following the massive media coverage that followed the demise of The Peoples Temple in the 1978 Jonestown Massacre. The reality of the Jonestown deaths, and the introduction of the brainwashing hypothesis into the conversations about new churches stimulated activism against new religious movements . This would dominate new religion studies for the next decade although by the mid 1980’s a consensus had been reached in the major relevant academic associations that brainwashing, as articulated primarily in court by Margaret Singer, had no basis in fact. That position was argued by the likes of Psychologists Dick Anthony and Newton Maloney, sociologist Eileen Barker, Tom Robbins, and James T. Richardson .

Nearly everything said in the above paragraph is false or at least misleading. There is some controversy surrounding the phenomenon of brainwashing. Some sociologists, sometimes referred to as 'sociologists of religion', seem to deny that brainwashing exists. But JamesLappeman has provided no evidence that Academia denies the existence of brainwashing. Many psychologists, including the former head of the APA, Philip Zimbardo, argue that brainwashing exists. As do many psychiatrists, perhaps most notably, Robert Lifton. Social psychology (see Robert Cialdini) and neuroscience (see [Kathleen Taylor) also accept the existence of brainwashing. Despite what JamesLappeman implies, neither the APA (American Psychological Association) nor the ASA (American Sociological Association) have ever denied the existence of brainwashing. While the APA did reject an amicus brief concerning brainwashing, the APA ruled that the brief failed to convince the panel that brainwashing was a serious and popular enough phenomenon for the APA to concern itself; the APA made it clear that it was not ruling on the existence of brainwashing all together. Moreover, I fail to see how any of this is relevant for whether WP should include Yeakley's research. None of the above deals with either the ICOC or Yeakley. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 Remember we are not discussing whether there is a brainwashing theory, just whether there is enough evidence that Yeakley's work is a reliable enough source to make the claims he does about the ICOC. In your statement, you mention "many" people proposing like Robert Lifton and Philip Zimbardo but their work is based on POW camps and State prisons, this is a discussion about a church. The forum here is not to redebate the brainwashing theorem but just to provide accuracy to the article through reliable sources. You stated that the section above was false or at least misleading. The information was almost word for word taken directly from the Encyclopaedia of Religion. The Encyclopaedia states that it is the minority of academics that still campaign the "brainwashing theorem" in religion. JamesLappeman (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, you contend that a minority of scholars accept the brainwashing theory. And you attempt to argue that this justifies, at least in part, the removal of Yeakley as a source. While both Lifton and Zimbardo first came into contact with apparent brainwashing at POW camps and state prisons, both apply their theories of brainwashing to phenomena outside such institutions, like churches and other religious groups. Who wrote the encyclopedia entry you referred to? If you represented it accurately, then yes, I do contest it: see Zablocki 1997 as an example of someone who contends that academics by and large accept that brainwashing exists. I have provided evidence that a number of notable scholars from all disciplines argue that brainwashing exists. I admit that a number of sociologists, sometimes called 'sociologists of religion', appear to deny that brainwashing exists. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 I think we are both getting a bit off track here (although I'm enjoying the discussion). The contestability of these theorems is exactly why a source more reliable than a Church of Christ family owned business should be required. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

JamesLappeman, above you seem to argue that the publishing house of the COC is a questionable source (thus in violation of WP:QS) because it published Yeakley's work, which presumes that the brainwashing theory is true. Two points. One, I'm not sure Yeakley's work relies on the existence of brainwashing. He argues that the best explanation for why over 900 members of the BCC he tested changed scores on the MBTI is that the BCC changes the personalities of its members. Two, you haven't successfully shown that most scholars are skeptical of the brainwashing hypothesis. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The brainwashing issue would lead to the establishment of a task force within the American Psychological Association to prepare a statement concerning brainwashing. That task force’s 1987 report was unanimously rejected by the reviewers. The publicizing of the rejection letter largely ended the debate over brainwashing in academia and several years later, with supportive documents by Dick Anthony and Rutgers psychiatrist Perry London, the idea and its exponents failed to make their case convincingly before the court . In the 1990 case, U.S. vs. Fishman, the primary exponents of the brainwashing hypothesis, Margaret T. Singer and Richard Ofshe, were not even allowed to speak on the subject as the court ruled against the scientific credentials of the idea. Subsequently, when challenged, courts have regularly rejected such testimony . All this is to show that the research by Yeakley is part of a body of work done by professionals at the time called “cult apologists” who supported the controversial but now outdated brainwashing theory. He appears to have aligned with cult apologists who would “successively launch personal attacks against major new religions” creating public perception that “evil cults” were proliferating in the land, brainwashing impressionable young people and turning them into subservient lackeys, amassing huge assets, and threatening American peace and tranquility . By the 1990s, most researchers found that NRM’s are not more virtuous or more pathological than other American religions . J. Gordon Melton the founding director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion and currently a research specialist in New Religious Movements presented a paper to the Centre For Studies On New Religions stating the following:

“we should note that by the mid 1980s we had rejected the idea of brainwashing, a fact documented in a set of documents issued by several of the academic associations most concerned with the debate, and it was subsequently rejected by the courts.”

He said that:

“The hypothesis offered a full and complete understanding of New Religions that was neither built upon empirical research nor offered any direction for further study. That is, it appeared to be a “scientific” hypothesis, but failed to deliver. As was true twenty years ago when it was rejected, the few remaining proponents of the brainwashing hypothesis have failed to bring forth any empirical data for its occurrence”.

With a majority of scholars eventually coalescing around what might be called a “freedom of religion” position, an agreement was made that there was no basis for the sweeping condemnation of “cults” as a category but rather that a principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply to NRM’s . Academia even decided to change the name from “Cult” to “New Religious Movement” as a result of the findings .

Attempts to revive the brainwashing theory in the late 1990s by several sociologists have found little positive response from the majority of scholars who study new religions

although some proponents still appear in the media from time to time.

Yeakley surely must be seen as a questionable source as Wikipedia states:

“How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS)

There appears to be little to no “high-quality reliable sources” in the study of religion or psychology that cite Yeakley’s work. Some cult apologists like the ICSA have quoted his book but as stated, this whole body of work has been brought into question and found inadequate. JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

4. Reductive conclusions

It is poor investigation to draw conclusions on complex phenomena from single sources.

Since this is an article about a religious institution, I would like to quote Eliade, one of the fathers of the study of comparative religion, who said that: "reductionism is the cardinal sin in the study of religion" .

I'm not even sure what this means, to be honest. What "conclusions" does Yeakley draw from "complex phenomena"? Merely quoting Eliade doesnt' suffice. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

He concludes that the Boston Church of Christ is changing personalities (complex phenomena) based on the MBTI (single source) JamesLappeman (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While Yeakley concludes that the BCC does change the personalities of its members, it's only after administering the MBTI to over 900 members. It's also only after he compares the results of his studies with the results of other researches who used the MBTI to measure the extent to which members of other religious groups change the personalities of their members. I should add here that research like Yeakley's isn't at all unique: other psychologists have researched the extent to which other churches change the personalities of their members using the MBTI. And lastly, Yeakley spends an entire chapter examining other explanations for why BCC members' MBTI scores changed so much. So while Yeakley does draw a conclusion about the BCC, it's only after considering alternative explanations and ruling them out. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A part of the problem with the cult apologists was this psychological “reductionism” in which they could reduce complex social phenomena to a single cause. .

I think you mean the "anti-cult movement". A cult apologist is someone who is seen as defending, not criticizing, cults. See Zablocki as an example of someone who refutes Baker's claim here. Properly understood, brainwashing isn't a "single cause". Rather, as psychologists, psychiatrists, social psychologists, and neuroscientists have always said, the term 'brainwashing' refers to a family of techniques intended to coerce someone into doing whatever you would like them to do. It's not some sert of mystical process by which anyone can turn someone else no matter the circumstances into her slave. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley bases huge claims about the church on a set of questionable personality profiles. Myers himself recommended the following in 1962:

Regarding predictive validity, recommended that the MBTI is best viewed "as affording hypotheses for further testing and verification rather than infallible expectations of all behaviors" Myers (1962, p. 77).

Where does Yeakley violate this claim? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

He makes a strong claim about the ICOC using the MBTI as his primary source. Remember we are discussing the reliability of Yeakley as a WP source and not the details of the brainwashing debate. He makes an accusation of personality change based on unreliable methods. The source is questionable. See below JamesLappeman (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeakley spends much of his first chapter discussing his methodology for using the MBTI. He treats it as a hypothesis, not as infallible verification mechanism. JamesLappeman, have you read Yeakley's book in question here? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the book. It is a useful commentary on many issues facing the Boston movement in the 1980's, Its just not a strong enough source for the major claim of changing personalities in an encyclopaedia WP:RS. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Expanding on this Boyle stated:

Since the MBTI types are not "source traits" verified factor analytically (i.e., "causal" psychological dimensions), predictions based on these "surface traits" (discontinuous types) are inevitably less powerful and remain somewhat speculative. On a different note, there are no scales built into the MBTI to detect the effects of random responding, response sets such as social desirability, or either conscious or unconscious response distortion. Social desirability response set appears to influence scores on the EI and JP scales (McCaulley,1981, p. 339). Also, there is no control for the mood of the respondent, which may greatly affect responses (Howes & Carskadon, 1979). Consequently, the issue of motivational distortion in the MBTI responses needs to be addressed.

The following should also be noted of his conclusions:

• There appear to be no subsequent studies from notable scholars of religion to verify his claim that the ICOC is guilty of affecting personality change.
• It appears strange that if his conclusions were true, the ICOC would not be more famous in the study of new religions as a group changing personalities. As mentioned earlier, if there are any personality changes they are no different from that which is found in mainstream religion. And if it was different, MBTI would not be a reliable way of proving it.

JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

For the reasons of:

• Publishing Bias
• Questionable methodology
• Academic Bias
• Reductive conclusion making

I propose that Flavil Yeakley’s book The Discipling Dilemma be removed as a reliable Wikipedia source to reference the ICOC.JamesLappeman (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

When talking over multiple sections, you will need to sign each section. (and make sure that you are signed in under the account you wish to edit from) and in general: tl;dr-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have requested assistance from the experts at WP:RSN-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

noted TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom - thanks for the assistance JamesLappeman (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

next steps

Per a request from my talk page, if the discussion here has led to a situation where no general consensus can be determined, the next step could be to take the issue to the dispute resolution notice board, where third parties who are familiar with Wikipedia policies can help guide users toward a resolution within policies. See WP:DRN. You will want to boil down the disagreement to a one -two paragraph summary or limit the focus of the discussion to a single point at a time. Giant walls of text are generally seen as attempts to WP:WIKILAWYER or WP:PUSH.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.