Talk:James Dobson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Erroneously Sourced paragraph removed

On January 1, 2005, The Washington Times reported that Dobson promised six Democratic senators "a battle of enormous proportions" if they filibustered conservative appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. "He singled out six Democrats up for re-election [in 2006]: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Bill Nelson of Florida." According to a 2005 Washington Times article, in 2004 Dobson played an important role in the defeat of then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.[1] Five of the six senators went on to win reelection and the sixth, Dayton, was succeeded in office by another Democrat.

Problem with the above quote is that 1) the link is bad, and 2) I looked at the Times website and Google and I still can't find any corresponding article. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find it right now. If you can source it properly, please verify and reinsert it. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Dobson's Family Research Council is identified as an dominionist organization by TheocracyWatch, which says that the Congressional scorecard of the Family Research Council illustrates its success and the strength of dominionists in Congress.

Problem with this is that of the three TheocracyWatch citations, not one of them support what the text says. It's clear that theocracy watch doesn't like Dobson, but this paragraph cannot be supported from the references cited. Again, if you can source this properly, please repair the citations and reinsert. Jclemens (talk)

Organizing the Controversies

While I'm still heavily involved in cite checking, I'm beginning to believe the positions/controversies sections are poorly organized. I'm thinking that rather than a section for Dobson's views and a consolidated "criticism" section, each group of controversies should have its own rebuttal section, because the same groups and people are not critiquing his views.

• Parenting
• Education
• Pornography
• Homosexuality

• Same-sex marriage
• Parenting
• Tolerance and Diversity education

• Dominionism/civics/"Christian Nation"
• Environmentalism

Still, I'm seeing overlaps. Where, in this hierarchy, does school prayer fit: christian nation, or education? It may be more helpful to address the topics chronologically--Dare to Discipline being his first book, parenting would likely be a good one to start with, even though it's certainly not the most major or current controversy. Anyone else care to provide input? Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC

---

It should be noted that the speech Obama gave that Dobson is claiming he distorted the bible was from June 28, 2006. It was not a recent speech as the author claims.

Good catch, thanks for fixing that. I overlooked that in my rush to insert it in this morning. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Audience number seems exaggerated, need independent cites

The claim of 200,000,000 daily listeners seems exaggerated and both cites ultimately point back to the Focus on the Family website for verification. Is there independant research or a cite indicating this size of an audience? If not should we not change the wording to "Focus on the Family claims 220 million listeners daily although this has not been independantly verified" ? I dont know of any single daily radio program that has reached and maintained 200,000,000 daily listeners but if there are 2 billion regular radio listeners world wide, that would account for 10% of them. 1 in ten human beings on earth who listen to the radio listen to focus on the family every day? 1 in 30 human beings listens to focus on the family on the radio every day? Seems unlikely does it not? mrrealtime (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There are whole programs, and then there are short format presentations, litle more than long commercials. I'm sure the number must be counting the latter, and indeed they do extensive translation into non-English languages. Regardless, without independent confirmation the "claims" verbiage is appropriate. I think the "this has not been independently verified" bit goes a bit too far--just because we don't have a cite for it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the People for the American Way reference seems to parrot the numbers uncritically. If a group's detractors don't see fit to challenge dubious assertions, should we? I'm of two minds on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The show is translated into Chinese, and broadcast on government radio stations there. That alone could easily account for the numbers. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its reasonable to say that both Focus on the Family and its detractors have sufficient motive to hold to the number, largely because for F0F, it helps underpin their influence and necessitates their presence in the news (where the number is again quoted often), and their detractors can use it to help underpin their concentrated attacks on the group as a formidable influence that warrants serious concern. An independant group that is unbiased and does regular audience numbers for shows such as Nielson(radio equivalent) should be cited or the line should be changed to "FOF claims an audience of 200,000,000 but this has not been independently verified" also I might add, its interesting that James Dobson is not mentioned on this page at all:Talk_radio and I also doubt that a religious broadcast that is highly politicized like Dobson's would be even allowed to broadcast in China, much less be officially sanctioned by the government. List_of_Chinese_language_radio_stations for example doesnt appear to cite anything that would necessarily broadcast Dobson's show. Again, just looking for a bona fide cite for an influential and exorbitant claim. Mrrealtime (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Ghost Writing count?

I seriously doubt Dobson wrote all the books in the "sole author" section because 1 he has plenty to do besides write several books a year 2 books will sell better with his name on the byline 3 it's perfectly legal and morally acepted to have a ghost writer so why not? and 4 Mel White said he ghost wrote books for Dobson. I don't think having his sole name on the byline means WP should credit him with all those books. --Ephilei (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a 30+ year career of writing, and a bunch of those books are retreads, so it doesn't seem too implausible. Still, if you have a WP:RS that documents White's claims, let's include it. At the very least "sole author" means "sole credited author" so we may want to make that change if the ghost writer bit is sourced. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV (starting July, 2008)

This is a new section. I've answered all the objections posted above, save one. I'm going to be bold and remove the NPOV tag from this article. If anyone objects to that removal, please place specific objections here, whether or not you decide to readd the tag. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting 6 November, 2008 I am re-adding the tag. There is not a single criticism listed in the entire article of Dobson, which seems a bit hard to believe considering when you type his name in google or youtube you get thousands of negative responses and of particular notability, angered psychologists who claim that Dobson is using their research out of context to give evidence to support his controversial views. It would seem that as soon as something criticizing him appears in the article it is taken out again immediately and extremely conservative wikipedians keep reverting my edits whenever I changed something like "homosexual activists" to "gay rights activists" (because there's no such thing as a "homosexual activist" - you do not get activists of sexual orientation, you get activists advocating equal rights of sexual orientation). Serious revision is required in this article, every single line in it is in support of Dobson which I find ridiculous and at the same time amusing --Jkaharper (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article again more carefully and reassess your statement. Criticisms are most definitely present and inline. I didn't revert your edits, and I don't believe the editor who did is a regular contributor to the article. Looks to me like you got caught by an aggressive recent changes patroller, which can happen to anyone. If you have specific, RS criticisms of Dobson that you'd like to add to specific areas, please feel free to do so while citing them appropriately. Right now, your NPOV tag is not actionable--there's no specific action or actions that you've articulated as necessary to restore balance, and your statement contains factual inaccuracies which hinder my understanding of what you're looking for. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Note also that you appear to have made your edits while logged out. As a recent changes patroller myself, I can attest that 95+% of the times an IP uses "gay" in an edit, it's vandalism. Obviously not the case here, but that seems to explain why someone might have seen and erroneously reverted your edit just based on your IP editor status at the time. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag has been readded, but we don't have actionable issues to fix. I'm going to leave it for a few days--it's not exactly hurting anything--and then remove it without prejudice, in the hopes that the next person who feels compelled to readd it gives a concrete and actionable list of items to fix. Actually, what I'd really like is someone who hates Dobson but it willing to work collaboratively with me to make sure this article accurately and fairly represents all points of view. To date, no one has stepped forward to do that. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week since my last plea, yet no further comments have arrived. I'm removing the POV tag again. Feel free to readd it, but please do so with actionable comments that will help other editors improve the POVishness. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Jacket photo?

Image:Focus on the Family Dobson Christmas Jacket by David Shankbone.jpg
Dobson's "Christmas Jacket" on display at Focus on the Family's headquarters in Colorado Springs

What is this jacket? Why is it on display in the Focus on the Family HQ? Is there a story behind it? Does anyone have the text of the brass plaque underneath it? (Huge size of the photo still wasn't quite enough to read the plaque, except for the title "---- Dobson's Christmas Coat".)

Is there a reason it was placed in the "background" section of the article? Did it have some significance in Dobson's early life or ministry? I like the photo, and am not asking for its removal, but I think we need some clarification either in the caption or the article to help explain its significance.

Only Google search reference I found was an extremely critical article "James and the Giant Jihad" that mentions it in passing: http://www.5280.com/issues/2006/0608/feature.php?pageID=499

"At the rear of the visitor’s center is a shrine-like room devoted to Dobson’s father, James Dobson Sr. Preserved behind glass in one corner is the red Christmas coat that the elder Dobson wore during the holidays."

Can anyone verify if this is, in fact, his father's coat? If that is true, then I can understand its significance, and its placement in the Background section.

BradC (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. It was here when I started taking an interest in the article, and I don't recall seeing it discussed or altered in the last few months. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Why is "from which he has never drawn a salary, but which has promoted his related books and publications, yielding him royalties only for sales through other venues" in the very first sentence? Srnec (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Because someone who wanted to discredit Dobson put something even more egregious in there? The lead needs to be completely rewritten--That needs to move, as does the Bundy interview. I haven't gotten around to doing it yet. Want to help? Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I could, but I don't know if I'm qualified. I think the lead ought to tell us that Dobson is a trained psychologist, an influential Evangelical leader in the US, the founder of Focus on the Family, and a proponent of various political causes (noting his support for the Republicans, his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, and his role in elevating "family values"). Some of Dobson's writings, including his continued involvement in the FotF magazine, probably ought to be highlighted, since it is as a writer that he probable has the greatest reach. His radio programme needs mention and perhaps some mention of public opinion of him (generally good, but with strong opposition to his work/ministry coming from some quarters, notably the gay &c. community). Does this sound right? Am I missing anything? Do we need to include any "criticism" of him in the lead? I have no idea about WP guidelines for living biographies. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about what I'd put in the lead. I'd go ahead and highlight that he holds controversial views and is loved by some and hated by others. That's pretty clear from the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Have showed" is correct English

I removed the "[sic]" from this quotation: "there have been more than ten thousand studies that have showed [sic] that children do best when they are raised with a mother and a father who are committed to each other," Stacey replied that "[a]ll of those studies that Dobson is referring to are studies that did not include gay or lesbian parents as part of the research base."

While "have shown" is the preferred past participle, "have showed" is an accepted alternative. See Dictionary.com for the American Heritage Dictionary entry, or see Merriam-Webster.com. (jimstoic, 12.105.42.2 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Accepted, yes. Archaic, as well, as any search of contemporary usage will have shown by now. Rprpsych (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks odd..

"which detractors reduce to and miserpresent as Conversion therapy"

First of all, there is no such thing as "Conversion therapy". Various psychologists, with and without religious agendas, have attempted to design "reparative therapies" for "patients suffering from homosexuality" (the quotes indicate that these are their views, not my own.) A famous example from one of my own hobbies would be the great chess master Reuben Fine. You can argue back and forth on this till Kingdom Come, but the reference is to an article critical of Dr. Dobson and sits ill with this awkward sentence. I can only assume that someone who agreed with him was offended by reference 28 and modified this sentence accordingly. However, this only works if you can actually demonstrate that his "detractors" are "miserpresenting" (I'm sure that's not in Merriam-Webster, but then I'm a bloody Anglophile) this therapy. Ideas that homosexuality are due to "complex developmental processes" (to quote the article) date back to this bloke, and discussing them intelligently requires a knowledge of psychology and psychiatry. Can some one either clean this up, modify the reference, or give a more reasoned explanation of why Dr. Dobson is being misrepresented? Rprpsych (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lede

"He has never drawn a salary from the organization, but has used it to promote his related books and publications, yielding him royalties only for sales through other venues.[1]"

The above should be moved to a below section.

The lede generally needs expanding. It should be a stand alone article. -- Banjeboi 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonky wording

"In fact, he says he gave his life to Jesus at the age of three," is wonky, I suggest "he converted to Christianity at the age of three, " -- Banjeboi 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The current wording reflects a common way in which Christians express their faith, but is no doubt confusing to non-Christian readers who aren't familiar with such phrasing (and sounds a little as if he died at age three). 66.157.150.172 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead Citation

The cited videos of the Bundy interview have been taken off of YouTube because of some asshole's copy vio complaint. If other copies cannot be found, the citation shall need to be removed. 66.157.150.172 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

marriage as defined by God?

“ Dobson believes that any sexual activity outside of marriage, including homosexuality, deviates from marriage as defined by God, which he describes as the central stabilizing institution of society. ”

The main issue here is the clunkiness of the wording which leaves us with the magic phrase "deviates from marriage as defined by God". Really? Do we have a something by God which states what marriage is define as? Because I think it's fair to say the Bible would Dobson's fallback position and marriage in the Bible is waaay more fluid than Dobson seems to suggest. I think we'd be better off either clarifying what is Dobson's interpretation is or just leaving that out. -- Banjeboi 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I think it should say: Dobson believes God defines marriage as between one man and one woman only. Dobson believes that sexual activity should be confined to such a marriage only. Dobson believes that there can be no homosexual sex which is approved by God. That's my own OR interpretation of the facts, so I'm not proposing this specific wording. I agree, what's there is clunky. Part of what I think needs to be brought out is how Dobson differs from folks like Fred Phelps, who believe God has a special aversion to homosexuality. Dobson seems to fall in line with most conservative evangelical leaders, who don't emphasize homosexuality as particularly more "sinful" than heterosexual fornication or adultery. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be closer - Dobson believes that God defines marriage as between one man and one woman only and describes this as the central stabilizing institution of society. He believes that any sexual activity outside of such a union - including homosexuality - cannot be approved by God. Is still a bit wobbly but in the right direction. I'm not convinced though that "most conservative evangelical leaders" don't see homosexuality as more sinful but that can be solved some other day. -- Banjeboi 18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your wording. I think it captures the essence without being too unwieldy. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Coolio. I'm going for the change. -- Banjeboi 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article anyone?

Has anyone given any consideration to trying to get this up to good article or featured article status. It is almost a given that any conservative figure with a Wikipedia article is going to be burdened down with huge controversy and criticism sections written by editors with an agenda. (to be fair, it works the other way around as well.) This, however, is a remarkably well written and NPOV article that should deserve recognition for that fact. Trusilver 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--I've expended a bit of effort to make it so. I'd really like to get a Wikiproject LGBT editor to collaborate on it, as Dobson is at least as important to those who fear/despise him as those who follow him. Dobson's not going to live forever, and I think it'd be neat to have an FA on him by the time he dies. We're closer than we were last year, but there's still a LOT of work to be done. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Siggie

(Inappropriate BLP question removed a second time)? --Silvestris (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: A Goecities site is not a reliable source. If sourcing can be found that he did something illigal or otherwise, than perhaps it should be added. Otherwise, a RS is needed. TheAE talk/sign 17:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The site used quotes from his book "The Strong-Willed Child." Numerous sites ([2],[3]) mention the same piece of writing. Unless you're trying to suggest that those quotes aren't really from the book, and everyone made it up?

Also, I think it would be relevant to the "Views on discipline within the family" section. --Silvestris (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Then cite his own book, or reliable sources talking about it. Contentious BLP material--good, bad, or indifferent--must be sourced to independent, reliable sources. Those two additional sites you mention don't cut it, either. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So if I cited his own book, I can add the Siggie material?

Furthermore, I wasn't aware that "Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy" applied to talk pages, where people discussed making changes to the article. Do you have a link where it states that the policy applies to talk pages? --Silvestris (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to talk pages. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely incorrect. Please read WP:BLP. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Language

User Jclemens asked me take a look at this article. I'm going to restrict my comments to a couple of points about the way it's written.

I think the frequent use of "opined" in this article is irritating, and should be replaced by more straightforward language (stated, suggested, or whatever). "Opined" comes across as smartsy and doesn't quite convey the formal tone desirable in an encyclopedia article. Also, I think the following sentence, 'On October 23, 2008, Dobson published a "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America" that proposed that an Obama presidency would lead to mandated homosexual teachings across all schools, the banning of firearms in entire states, the end of the Boy Scouts, home schooling, Christian school groups, Christian adoption agencies, and talk radio, pornography on prime-time and daytime television, mandatory bonuses for gay soldiers, terrorist attacks across America, the nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv, the conquering of most of eastern Europe by Russia, the end of health care for Americans over 80, out-of-control gasoline prices, and complete economic disaster in the United States, among other catastrophes', is worded in such a way as to be disparaging to Dobson. Granted that it's done in a rather subtle way, that sentence (with the use of "catastrophes") still manages to adopt a slightly snickering tone. Born Gay (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have another couple of comments. From the article, 'In fact, he says he gave his life to Jesus at the age of three, in response to an altar call by his father.' Does anyone agree with me that this sentence has a 'Gee whiz' feel to it that might not be appropriate? Another sentence: 'To this day, he remains a member of the evangelical Church of the Nazarene, the largest denomination to come out of the 19th century Holiness Movement'; the first three words don't seem to serve any purpose except to make readers think, 'Oh, wow', and could be removed. And I'm not sure why the mention of Ted Bundy should be there in the lead; it doesn't seem crucial to understanding Dobson. Born Gay (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it and the comments. I agree with most of them, and will see what I can do to improve the article. The Bundy reference sticks out as odd because it's only in the lead and not in the body, but is probably a notable event that should be recorded somewhere, so I haven't taken it out of the lead until I can research it and do justicce to it. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Plan of Improvement

Dobson's a controversial guy--people love him, follow him, fear him, hate him. He's also a rather notable public figure with a ton of sources referring to him. Is there ANY reason this cannot or should not be a featured article? I think not. Here's how I propose proceeding to that point:

1. Clean up the crap. There were a lot of poorly sourced statements, and citations that didn't match up at all with what was being asserted. I'm going through and reading the citations to make sure each of them says what's alleged. You can help, too!
2. Formatting! In the process of doing #1, I'm also modifying things, primarily references and the bibliography, to a standard, MoS friendly format. Again, not rocket science--anyone else can help.
3. Criticism. Let's get some good, solid, well-sourced critiques of Dobson's views. To date, much of what I've taken out as poorly sourced has been critical of Dobson. That's per BLP, but nothing has been so heinous that it wasn't suitable to be placed on this talk page for rework. Please--rework it! Right now we've got about two named critics, although the Foxman quote should probably be worked back in, too.
4. Copyediting. Once we've got all the right elements, let's make the article feel like a unified whole, rather than an assortment of mostly disjoint facts.

Beyond that, let's start the march by getting GA.

Agreed, whoever wrote this was writing from a one-sided bias. The article should show both sides. Also, I noticed that many of the quotes seem out of place, as if they were taken from the middle of a sentence and woven into the article to support the author's view rather than presenting the entire issue being discussed. 16:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.165.118 (talk)

Social Views Section Has Weak Citations

In the Social Views section under the heading "Views on homosexuality", consider the following statement:

"Dobson's Focus on the Family ministry sponsors the monthly conference Love Won Out, where participants hear "powerful stories of ex-gay men and women."[27] However, several gays and lesbians who formerly participated in the Love Won Out conference have since spoken out against it, decrying both its methodology and supposed success.[45]"

When I visit the reference at http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/orlando-sentinel-gay-activists-to-protest-orlando-event-notion-that-homosexuality-is-curable/ there is nowhere in the article that states there were several gays and lesbians who formerly participated in Love Won Out as speaking out against it. It appears to be a news article in Orlando about various people silently protesting the Love Won Out conference. There is a blurb that refers to critism of an ex-gay inititive by Exodus International as not being effective, but I don't see how it ties in with Love Won Out and the claim that is being made here.

I feel this citation is unjust to the article and needs to be removed. --Mtallman (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it or otherwise tag it in the article. There's got to be better, more specific sourcing for criticisms of Dobson on those lines... although, really, Love Won Out has its own article, and most criticism of that organization should go there. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mel White

I'm not familiar with the subject and wonder what he makes him a notable source. This isn't meant as hostile, I've just never heard of him. Soxwon (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bundy section, goes somewhere other than lead

On January 24, 1989, he interviewed American serial killer Ted Bundy right before Bundy's execution.

I don't see this as really notable to Dobson. Perhaps to Bundy, but not the other way around. Soxwon (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That whole episode is pretty unsourced in the article, but Bundy's blaming pornography for his errant ways was notable, and Dobson's response led his detractors to call him James "Pornography made Ted Bundy do it" Dobson, on at least one occasion that I recall. I've not had time to research the rest of the events around this, hence it being left in a rather unfinished form. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However, this appears to be an isolated, and not really noteworthy event. Soxwon (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

... Which is why I'm not contesting it's removal for the present. If you're going to take out the "hook", it remains here until adequately sourced. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dobson sold the interview for profit, making millions of dollars. That alone makes it noteworthy I'll never understand the people who go around deleting true things from wiki. Its such an odd thing to do 24.207.226.108 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinions by Others

I'll generally be the first person to pile on the complaints about Dobson, but it seems that, for a Wikipedia article, there is quite a bit here that seems out of place. For example, under the subject heading "Political and Social Influence", we find the following text:

"In a Salon interview, author Chris Hedges opined that he believed Dobson wanted to impose a totalitarian system, and referred to Dobson as a "really dark figure."[59]"

While this is in fact a quote from a journalist and the citation does support this quote, this appears to be nothing more than the editorial opinion of one particular journalist. Not only is the quote an opinion, it's an admittedly speculative opinion. When viewed objectively, this sentence simply states that "some guy thinks that Dobson thinks that blah blah blah." I'm not criticizing Hedges or his views or anything like that. I'm simply saying that this sort of thing doesn't really belong in this article. Perhaps all these negative opinions and speculation from random journalists could be combined into a new section. "Public Views on Dobson" perhaps?74.228.64.159 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that. That should not be in a WP:BLP. Thank you Soxwon (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for my twinkle summary that called that unexplained removal. Still, the BLP argument does not apply. Chris Hedges is a notable investigative journalist, and his opinion is reliably sourced and quoted as precisely that: his opinion. I have no problem with putting his commentary elsewhere, but the article needs appropriate criticism, per YESPOV, to be NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We have much better criticism from other, more notable criticisms. The two I missed really could be replaced with something more worthy of an encyclopedic. Soxwon (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What should Jim Dobson be?

Jim Dobson was a redirect to this page, but Jim Dobson (disambiguation) has recently been moved to that spot. Should that move stand?

• Neither other "Jim Dobson", Jim Dobson (ice hockey) or Jim Dobson (baseball) has anything more than a stub article.
• James Dobson's page (the previous target of the redirect) already referenced the disambiguation page.

People searching for "Jim Dobson" in Wikipedia are almost entirely looking for this page: November 2009 stats for...

Jim Dobson (the former disambiguation page) =66

James Dobson =14,000

Jim Dobson (ice hockey) =62

Jim Dobson (baseball) =51

Thus, the disambiguation page's traffic is insignificantly higher than either of the other two stubs. Sticking people who search for "Jim Dobson" into a disambiguation page that also points to two barely notable individuals does no one any great service. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(As the person who moved the dab page.) It seems that virtually nobody is looking for Jim Dobson. And it doesn't seem that anyone looking for Jim Dobson is actually looking for James Dobson. The fact that 1000s of people are successfully reaching the James Dobson page without going via Jim Dobson suggests that he is not well known as Jim Dobson. As the conditions for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are not met, a disambiguation page is the better option. Tassedethe (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that that's how the stats work. You see, the "Jim Dobson" page is now gone, and the "Jim Dobson (disambiguation)" page has been moved into its place. I suspect that the stats I posted are reflecting the paltry usage of the disambiguation page, rather than the redirect page.

But at any rate, here's a few ghit comparisons:

• "jim dobson" focus on the family = 3070 ghits
• "jim dobson" baseball = 1010, the top two of which are Wikipedia.
• "jim dobson" hockey = 951, with #3 and 4 being Wikipedia.

Perhaps more tellingly, there's plenty of other searches that demonstrate the use of Jim Dobson as a valid alternate name for Dr. James Dobson: "jim dobson" pornography = 6550, "jim dobson" homosexuality = 5340, "jim dobson" spanking = 1390, "jim dobson" meese = 623, "jim dobson" bundy = 544, and so on. Really, despite limited experience of other editors, James Dobson gets 100x the monthly hits of both other "Jim Dobsons" combined; the redirect has an unambiguous topic, in that neither of the other Jim Dobsons are remotely as famous. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While ghits might help they don't address what people on Wikipedia are searching for. From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:"much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer. The statistics on pageviews for Jim Dobson show that people looking for Jim Dobson (and there are very few) are unlikely to be looking for James Dobson. There is one set of statistics missing from the above list:

Jim Dobson (disambiguation) = 98

If 66 people went to James Dobson because they were redirected via Jim Dobson then the vast majority (if not 100%) then had to go to Jim Dobson (disambiguation) (as 98 > 66). There is zero evidence (on Wikipedia) to conclude that James Dobson is the primary meaning of Jim Dobson. Also as James Dobson has a strong Internet presence (both due to campaigning and his views on web content etc. ) then it is obvious that ghits would be biased toward him rather than other notable people. Tassedethe (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't address the possibility that your move has altered those statistics. Mind if I undo the move for the purposes of re-checking the stats? If it proves to be irrelevant, I'll revert. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The statistics presented are for the whole month of November and are not 'live' so can't be altered by moving the pages. Tassedethe (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Church

Does anyone know what church this guy attends? Does he attend any? Carlo (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying we should include that in the article? If you're just asking for informational purposes, you might be better off calling Focus on the Family directly. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers exaggerated

I mentioned this before and someone deleted my comment from the talk page. 220 million seems grossly exaggerated. Oprah Winfrey doesn't even get numbers like that, not even close. Is there a cite that is not from "focus on the family" which is obviously motivated to exaggerate the numbers to artificially inflate the influence of this person IE neilson ratings etc.? Mrrealtime (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed in that "Oprah" is aired in the US exclusively while Focus on the Family is international. That would make that number a possibility. However, an outside source would be nice. Soxwon (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Without entering into the merits of either argument, Oprah is (re)broadcast internationally.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

I see no need to change the article content. It clearly indicates that the figures are those claimed by the organization itself, and that they are international figures. Consequently, the statement is accurate (even if the claims are not).(smjwalsh (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

so posting inaccurate information without any independently verifiable information for reference is encyclopedic? Having this statement in this context implies the numbers are not in dispute, by anyone. I vote to delete the statement as vanity/marketing until an independently verifiable number from a reliable source is available (such as a syndicate ratings grade) Mrrealtime (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The only grounds for deletion of a WP:SPS would be if it were "unduly self serving" which might be debatable in this case. In general, an organization is always an acceptable source for information about themselves, but it's included with qualifiers that it's a self-asserted number. Likewise, RS'ed criticism of that number is appropriate to include. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How could stating they have 220 million DAILY listeners possibly NOT be self-serving? That information would directly impact their ability to sell advertising and gain influence with those in positions of power. I dont see how someone could credibly argue that statement does not serve the interests of FOF.Mrrealtime (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The croterion is "unduly" self serving. Exactly how do you suggest that that number's presence in Wikipedia further's focus' interests, given that it's presented as a self-reported number, rather than an objectively verified or audited number? I don't think any politician takes such numbers at face value, because it's simply not credible to believe that number reflects a U.S. population. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dobson has a global audience, not just a US one. FOF programs are broadcast (or re-broadcast) throughout the world, so 220 million is NOT to be seen as US phenomenon.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

California Psychological Association

What is the California Psychological Association? Is it a bonafide, scientific organization held in high regard by most psychologists, or is it just a conservative "Christian" front group? I am racking my brain trying to figure out how a real psychology interest group could possibly give a humanitarian award to someone who advocates beating children and administering the death penalty (and not just for murderers either, but for anything the bible might be interpreted to say warrants it, including homosexuality, "perversion", fornication, adultery, blasphemy, disbelief, polytheism, disobedience to God/Bible/State/parents/authority, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.12.9 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The CPA appears to be a bonafide organisation. See http://www.cpapsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=2. As it was formed in 1948, it may be that the award is reflective of the changes in psychology's beliefs and practices since 1948.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Isn't there a more flattering photo?

Did someone chose that photo to show disdain? Isn't there one more flattering, less off centered and with his mouth closed and not at that strange angle?--DCX (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That photo is from Focus on the Family, with OTRS permission. If you've got a better photo or can talk one out of them, feel free to improve it. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the image they want to present...I guess it's not a problem....--DCX (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Views on Homosexuality

Ok, in case you haven't read, this article is on James Dobson. All we really need is that Dobson's views aren't mainstream. Soxwon (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. This article is neither Homosexuality and Christianity nor Homosexuality and psychology. WP:COATRACKing should be avoided. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight: The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. --Destinero (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we understand, you love quoting that particular part of WP:UNDUE. However, you seem to be missing something. It is talking about due weight with regards to the SUBJECT of the article. Everything you have listed has nothing to do with the subject of the article, but rather Homosexuality itself. You are turning it into a WP:COATRACK. Soxwon (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet, when sources were offered showing this, you reverted to a version with a "citation needed" tag. Feel free to trim the section to suit what you believe is due coverage of the facts at hand, but don't just remove facts and leave behind a maintenance template that calls the claims into question. That's heavy-handed and unnecessary, and an overreaction to WP:COATRACK. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the cite needed templates were tacky and what prompted this whole mess. Look, Dobson's a controversial guy. We're not here to excoriate him or beatify him, just to write a good, NPOV article. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've listened your point about focusing on the person and this is a reason why I decided only to rewrite the sentence, because Dobson views are not only different from mainstream mental health community, but also from other health professions and behavioral and social sciences based on research. But why Ckatz still reverts one-sentence-long factual statement of majority viewpoint sources by highly reliable source? He is not permitted to remove sources statement just because he doesn't like the facts. --Destinero (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:COATRACK. Not every true and sourced statement belongs in every article, and UNDUE is not a lever with which a detailed exposition of the majority viewpoint can be crammed into the article of every person or group which disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight: "The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Current revision of article frame Dobson's views shortly and correctly. Effort to reduce his different opinion only to mental health community where much more professions and sciences are connected is POV. --Destinero (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that this article is not about homosexuality. The topic of the article governs its content. If it's a topic on a fringe theory, then undue comes into play. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, your assertion that I supposedly "[don't] like the facts" is nonsense, and serves only to distract from the real issue. Simply put, my concern (as I've already told you) lies in the fact that you have been adding chunks of standardized text to multiple articles, in a manner that often does not actually benefit the articles. Instead, it appears that you are trying to make these articles reflect your own personal POV on the matter. This is not the first instance of this problem, as you've done the same thing repeatedly in past months on these and other related articles. You are also repeatedly reverting to your preferred version, often without discussion. Personally, I've no problem with anything that gets changed with consensus support; if you can garner support for your text, then I'll defend it just as vigorously. All you need to do is establish that such support exists. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you Ckatz, this behaviour is typical for Destinero not only here, but on Czech version of Wikipedia as well. Very same sentences and sources are copy-pasted by Destinero to multiple articles and not always reflecting context of the text before and after. I suppose to delete such copy-pastes until they are re-formulated to reflect the context of the article.--DeeMusil (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If "chunks of standardized text" aren't WP:COATRACKs, what is? Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many things in this article that need to be tightened up. Like, Dobson supports "traditional marriage". What does this mean? Beating her over the head with a club and dragging her back to the cave? The Wiki editors are obviously supporting/repeating Dobson's own ideology here by repeating his frames. In many cultures (including our own Greek & Roman heritage), homosexuality is traditional. In some cultures, traditional means underage marriage, marriage by force or coercion, etc. Wording here is loose & sloppy.99.74.99.206 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)MadMax

5280 Article

I'm finding it difficult to understand why this piece warrants an External Link. Is there a rationale that makes it appropriate? 128.206.170.124 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Pardon. I was not logged in. Thistledowne (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty extensive piece. If it's already included as a ref, there's no reason for it to remain an EL. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Separation from "focus on the family"

There needs to be an update to include his recent separation from the focus on the family organization, and the new activities he's involved with. I don't know what they are only that they exsist. BLP sourcing considerations apply strongly (as I recall there being some controversy in the news). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica

Has he ever explained what he meant by "the bedrock of culture in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even Antarctica"? The first ref doesn't mention the quote and the second isn't online. It's a rather odd statement and I note appears to be sourced to The Stranger (newspaper). Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken link needs fixing

The reference number 79 "^ Gorski, Eric (2008-06-24). "Dobson accuses Obama of `distorting' Bible". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-06-24." leads to a "Page not available". Please would someone fix this ? Darkman101 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Rostz (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant rebuttal

Belchfire, this is your big chance to justify your edit[4]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hilariously, he never did see fit to respond. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanking and NPOV

There's an ongoing attempt to remove a statement about the option of experts regarding spanking. I've yet to see any explanation for this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to save some time, before anyone claims WP:OR, here's a source that contrasts Dobson's views on spanking with the view among secular experts.[5] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's your explanation: it doesn't belong in the article. The article is about James Dobson, not somebody's opinion of his beliefs. Your sources are unimportant, because the content is irrelevant.

And by the way, it needs to be pointed out that your SOLE interest in this article is to stalk and harass me. Knock it off. Belchfire-TALK 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Same old WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. I got here from Chick-fil-a, remember?

Anyhow, here's a great example of juxtaposition between Dobson's spanking views and those of experts.[6] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Dobson, which is why we say what his views are, and then follow WP:NPOV by pointing out whenever they disagree strongly with the consensus of experts. So, for example, when a notable person endorses Creationism, it is WP:NPOV to cite the fact that Creationism is rejected by science. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Juxtapose it somewhere else, it's not relevant here. If you want to pretend to be neutral, try a little harder by bringing in other experts who agree with him. Didn't think of that, did ya? Why not? Belchfire-TALK 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How kind of you to tell me what I thought of. Perhaps your crystal ball can read my response. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is counterproductive, not to mention boring, so I dropped a note on Talk:Spanking, calling for editors to come here and help out. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here via that note. Unfortunately, I cannot say if the passage is appropriate to add.

While the majority opinion among experts is that spanking is harmful, and Dobson is more or less stands all alone with his opinions save for 2-3 other fringe experts, and is something of a laughing stock among psychologists for his opinions on child discipline, that does not per se mean that it is necessary or proper to point this out to the reader. Readers who are interested in the facts about it can click through to spanking, whereas readers simply wanted to know Dobson's opinion would read here. But again, that is just my take based on what I know about this topic.Legitimus (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My thinking is that the fact his view is fringe is itself notable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just come here via that note, also. What passage are we talking about? It is not clear what is being discussed here. At a quick glance, I can't see anything wrong with the article as it now stands, from a WP point of view. The man is an obvious charlatan, but we have to represent his views neutrally. -- Alarics (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Alarics, we're talking about the passage just deleted.[7] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I agree with Belchfire. That passage is not about Dobson specifically, and therefore does not belong in this article. -- Alarics (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. How do you feel about including something else that does reference Dobson and puts his spanking views in context? For example, this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of "it isn't about Dobson" are you having trouble with? Belchfire-TALK 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the source. It's about Dobson. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. The proper place to discuss the scientific consensus on any view is in the article on that view itself, not in the articles of various adherents. Including such statements is not NPOV, but people with unpopular views and/or a substantial number of detractors tend to attract such attention--Dobson's far from unique in that respect. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Dobson was a minister, I think I'd agree. My concern is that he's a psychiatrist, so if we state his psychiatric views without context, we'd be misleading people into thinking they're something other than fringe. This also applies to the more recent deletion of a passage that contrasts his views about homosexuality with that of the psychiatric mainstream. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a new argument, but not a convincing one, either. Readers aren't stupid, and yes, they do get sufficient context by us wikilinking to the article where the subject is discussed in detail. It is not NPOV to use Wikipedia's voice for a preemptive debunking of a particular person's views in their biographical article. That sort of piecemeal discussion of topics leads to numerous tugs-of-war over the wording of contentious statements, rather than focusing efforts on a centralized, topical article where all can be given appropriate weight, the best scholarship can be applied, and RfC's lead to a centralized resolution of disputed matters. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're mistaken about this, as shown by Rupert Sheldrake. Here we have another case of someone who speaks as a professional but does not follow professional standards, so there's an ample section discussing the contrast between his views and those of the mainstream.

In general, we are to avoid WP:FRINGE views, but in cases such as Dobson's and Sheldrake's, we must report them because they are biographically relevant. We compensate by not reporting them in a vacuum; we cite sources that identify the beliefs as fringe. We do not do it in Wikipedia's voice, but rather that of the mainstream sources we use. Another good example is this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is how we handle descriptions of the views themselves. A view on spanking in Dobson's article is simply descriptive; to either support or debunk it is POV and inappropriate COATRACK for this article. A discussion of the merits, objections, scientific debate, etc. belongs in the article on the subject proper, not on tangentially related articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Ben_Stein#Opposition_to_the_theory_of_evolution or Michael_Behe#Irreducible_complexity_and_intelligent_design, you can see that the bios of these two Creationists make it clear that their views are scientifically fringe, just as with Sheldrake. This is true even when there are articles dedicated to discussing these views in detail; we just summarize and link. So, for example, I wouldn't expect this article to go on at length regarding the contrast between Dobson's psychiatric view on homosexuality and the mainstream view, but we should mention the conflict and link to something like Homosexuality and psychology. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that no one agrees with you. I haven't looked closely at this particular issue, but, generally, when no one agrees with you, the material you propose should not be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As that's not a response to the issues I raised, I don't see why you're sharing it. No, wait, I do, but it's not a good reason. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No one agrees with you that there is an actual issue. That is a response. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's a conclusion. A response might go into why Behe and Sheldrake are somehow different from Dobson and deserve different treatment.

I'm on record saying that WP:DRN is broken because it tends to turn into a vote instead of trying to resolve the content dispute. Your behavior here makes the same error. You are essentially trying to intimidate me instead of persuade me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sensing a more personal dispute at work here rather than rational decision making. So let me be the first outsider to say that, in light of the examples of Sheldrake and Behe, I think mentioning criticism of his views is warranted. However, I did take note that such material in the aforementioned examples are from sources speaking directly about the person who is the subject of the article, not merely sources that contradict the view itself. If there is a reliable source wherein Dobson is specifically called out as wrong by other psychologists, I think that can used.Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's stick to the content discussion. Dobson was the mouthpiece of Focus on the Family for some time, so some of the citations in Focus_on_the_Family#Misrepresentation_of_research specifically mention him by name as misrepresenting scientific papers. I think those citations would be adequate for a brief mention here of how Dobson's views differ from the psychiatric mainstream. What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think if the article were to include such criticism, the criticism itself would need to be notable. Something buried deep in the literature, while it may have scholarly credibility, shouldn't be unearthed and used to distract from the topic of this article. Criticism from a mainstream source that has been in the public eye would be another matter. Obviously, this would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Belchfire-TALK 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, though Sheldrake and Dobson are both obvious charlatans, they are not really comparable in one important sense, viz. Sheldrake has constructed his own unique personal theory about how the world works. The only reasonable place for WP to discuss this is in the article about Sheldrake. Dobson has merely opined that spanking can be useful in certain circumstances, a view which, however incorrect most "experts" might think it to be, is widely held in the society and by no means peculiar to Dobson. In other words, Dobson is not "fringe" to anything like the same degree as Sheldrake. Dobson's views may be controversial but they are quite commonplace, and so the article about him is not the place to go into the arguments on that particular issue, which are already extensively discussed in articles on that topic. -- Alarics (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he's wrong, it's that he's lying. He has certain conclusions that he wants to support on the basis of his politics, and he's been caught lying about the contents of academic papers and studies so as to distort them in his favor. That's not discussed in Spanking. It has to be discussed here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source that called Dobson out for his distortions on the topic of spanking?Legitimus (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some.[8][9][10][11] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Lessee, what do we have here... (1) a blog post by some person calling himself "dogemperor"; (2) a broken link to a dead domain that doesn't even ping; (3) a refutation of spanking from "Steph" (no credentials) that is based 100% on Biblical grounds (strange indeed that you would try to use this, given your attitude about such things); (4) and a random mention of Dobson plopped into the middle of an article that doesn't address his views directly or make any real attempt to refute them.

In short, what you have here is a bunch of piffle. Belchfire-TALK 05:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The findingDulcinea article explicitly contrasts Dobson with the mainstream, which is exactly what we need to avoid WP:OR. NoSpank, Talk2Action and WhyNotTrainAChild are gold mines of relevant quotes and citations. I guess "piffle" must mean WP:IDONTLIKE. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Piffle" means that "dogemperor" and "Steph" (no last name or professional credentials) are not reliable sources, and that the remaining link (the one that actually works) doesn't approach the issue. Come back when you have something meaningful. Belchfire-TALK 07:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The phrase "come back" almost makes it sound as if you can send me away. Surprisingly, you are not the arbiter here. It's not BelchfirePedia. When it is, I'll let you know.

Anyhow, your incivility aside, you're wrong on all the facts. As I said, the findingDulcinea article is precisely what we need to show that Dobson's views on spanking conflict with mainstream psychology without any original research or synthesis. The other articles, as I explained, are useful resources because of what they point to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources are anywhere near "reliable". If added to support a statement in the article, they should be promptly removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They haven't been used in the article, and they aren't likely to be. I'll recap for you, since I don't blame you a bit for not unwinding the discussion. Some off-topic content was removed, and now Still is arguing to put it back in. But he's having a little trouble backing it up with sources, as you can see. Belchfire-TALK 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite so, and I and others have already explained why we don't "need to show that Dobson's views on spanking conflict with mainstream psychology". This is an article about Dobson, not an article about spanking. Time to stop POV-pushing. -- Alarics (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found two sources that may be useful, but require further investigation due to being scholarly papers: Divergent Models of Childrearing in Popular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the Mainstream Experts Bartkowski & Ellison, Society and Religion, 1995 and Neopatriarchy and the Antihomosexual Agenda Snyder, 2003.

I will not add anything until I have obtained full copies and read them.Legitimus (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to concur with Alarics on this. Not only should the sources single out Dobson specifically, but there should also be some notability attached to them. Dobson himself is highly notable, which sets him up as a target. Therefore we shouldn't give undue weight to an opposing view simply because Dobson was a target of convenience for some no-name researcher whose work never achieved any currency. Belchfire-TALK 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, findingDulcinea is used as a reliable source by many Wikipedia articles, so you're mistaken in this matter. Alarics, you put forth an argument, yes, and I refuted it with examples such as Behe. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you should go fix the problems with those articles, instead of re-introducing them here. Belchfire-TALK 18:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The false premise here is that there's something wrong with those articles, But, hey, if you really believe that, feel free to go edit them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources I selected specifically call out Dobson due to books he wrote (per a specialized library search I did). But I need more details before I can elaborate.Legitimus (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we're not going anywhere so take your time. In the end, whatever you find, Belchfire will object to including it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"findingDulcinea" is a tertiary source, per their FAQ. Even if it is reliable, we should use the secondary sources they point to. We might use them as an indication of notability, if their FAQ is to be believed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Not relevant"

Belchfire just edit-warred[12] to keep out a paragraph contrasting Dobston's view of homosexuality as a psychiatrist with the mainstream psychological view. The stated reason was "not relevant". I would politely suggest that the relevance of this is obvious so the edit comment is false. I encourage Belchfire to expand upon his reasoning and perhaps build a consensus in his support, instead of further edit-warring. 06:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You claimed I removed the material without explanation. But now you are crying to me about false edit summaries? LOL.

My reasoning is pretty simple: this is Dobson's biography; it's not your coatrack to push your agenda. As I already explained, if you want the material in the article, you have the burden to establish why it should be included. Saying "it's obvious" doesn't cut it. Belchfire-TALK 06:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, "crying". I'm sure that was the most civil word that came to mind.

As I explained above, we state Dobson's views and then put them in context by contrasting them with the mainstream. This is required by WP:UNDUE; we can't give undue weight to minority and fringe beliefs, which means we need to point out when a belief qualifies as one of these.

If you cannot explain your objection on a basis supported by policy and sources, it carries no weight, per WP:CLOSE. So, "not relevant" turns out not to be an explanation. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Not relevant" isn't an "explanation", it's a fact. Unless one of those reliable sources as to the mainstream belief specifically comments on Dobson, and is WP:BLP reliable.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean a secondary source such as http://web.archive.org/web/20080321081822/http://www.sovo.com/2005/6-3/news/national/anti-gay.cfm, which Belchfire deleted? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're proving Arthur's point. If all you've got is a partisan gay media source that isn't even in business any more, it isn't reliable enough for BLP purposes and wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion even if it was reliable. Thanks for the help. Belchfire-TALK 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyway to make him stop the civil POV pushing and work collaboratively? The damage he is causing is diverting far too much time from article improvement.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What's civil about it? He's making blatantly false statements, e.g. "Removed without explanation." It's not an isolated occurrence, either. It's clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS, and it's been going on for weeks. Belchfire-TALK 07:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely a way. It's time for the RFC/U that you've been planning. Go for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, the best place to cover a specific discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of Dobson's personal views is probably either Homosexuality and psychology or at Homosexuality and Christianity, and perhaps both. The views aren't unique to him, even though he may have been a very identifiable proponent, and deserve to be covered in a detailed, expansive, and NPOV way that would constitute a WP:COATRACK if shoehorned into this biography. Covering the topic once (or twice) centrally and linking to those discussion from articles like Dobson's allows for far more in depth and quality coverage than piecemeal treatment in many articles. "Debunking" is not NPOV, and FRINGE is not a license to put POV in articles that should dispassionately describe facts. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, if the passage were shoehorning generic criticism of anti-gay psychologists then you might have a point. Instead, it's reporting on criticism specifically directed at Dobson. It therefore would not belong in Homosexuality and psychology or at Homosexuality and Christianity. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, there certainly needs to be some balancing regarding the material about his views on homosexuality. I am seeing a dearth of material criticizing his views, even though such criticism unquestionably exists and material about it could easily be supported with reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree. If you can take a moment to find some relevant sources, I'll be glad to help get them written up and in the article. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If the sources specifically contrast the mainstream view with that of Dobson, then it should be in the article. Objections based on WP:COATRACK can only go so far. It's gone much too far at the moment. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Coat-racking takes it name from coats literally covering up the rack underneath, i.e. criticism overwhelming the article so that they outnumber normal non-critical content. A single paragraph is far from doing that, and is frankly a lot less than many other articles about people who are considered cranks. Legitimus (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If a (reliable) source specifically names Dobson, it might be usable for that. If it focuses on Dobson, it would be. However, it appears the sources so far suggested contrast what appear to be Dobson's views to the mainstream, without naming Dobson explicitly. Those sources would not be acceptable for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the reinserted statements is that they do not clearly follow from the sources cited--or, at the very least, I cannot find the assertions simply in either the SPLC or Larry King refs. While Dobson may indeed be near the end of his life, this is still a BLP, and such statements must be accurate. Removal of inaccurate statements in BLP is 3RR exempt, and editors edit warring to insert content which has already been called out as inappropriate may be blocked by any admin regardless of involvement. I would hope that won't ever be necessary, since it should be pretty straightforward to modify either the assertions to match the references, or find references which clearly support the statements as worded. Still, better to remind everyone of the importance of getting it right proactively, rather than springing BLP enforcement sanctions on anyone else without a proximate and specific warning. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, we need better sources. Let's talk about criteria:

1. It has address Dobson specifically, else it's synthesis.
2. It has to be written by a psychiatrist or psychologist, else it's not authoritative.
3. It has to directly address Dobson's claims, else it's synthesis.
4. It has to refute them with quotes from mainstream mental health organizations, else it doesn't support the sentence.

Given these parameters, I was able to find an extremely good fit: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/false_focus.pdf I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some decent book sources on the issue: [13] [14]. One of them quotes the American Psychological Association on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. With sources, more is better. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) And, as Dobson appears still to be living, it has to be published by a reliable source, so a self-published work by an individual doesn't count, even if said person is an expert.

The books seem promising, but the "google books" extracts make it difficult to determine whether the books are in the imprint's scinece lines (allowable) or political lines (possibly not allowable, as being the personal opinion of the author). Still needs some more work. Also, you need to be sure what we (Wikipedia) say is actually what is in the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if they weren't reliable for establishing a factual claim about Dobson's views, they would be plenty reliable for establishing a factual claim about criticism of Dobson's views. If we really struggle to find a strong scientific source that mentions Dobson in this context, we could always say something to the effect of "These views have been criticized as being outside of the scientific mainstream" without there being any real problem with sourcing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the latest attempt has been reverted[15] so we're back at the old game of "what's your problem with this?". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, that reversion was a week ago, and has my explanatory note above to accompany it. Is there a specific question about my objections--the sources don't actually support what was specifically said in the text--which wasn't explained above? Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have provided sources that do support the statement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance and sourcing

Belchfire just reverted another edit without following BRD by coming here to discuss it.[16] I've evaluated the stated reason -- "sourcing does not equal relevance" -- and concluded that it does not seem plausible, so I'm going to revert it back now. If he wants to discuss it at some point, I encourage him to do so here and perhaps gain some consensus before reverting again. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert, but: is Sociology of Religion a reliable source in general, is the paper a scholarly paper or an opinion piece, and is the statement sufficiently relevant to belong in this article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Do these tags serve a purpose other than to impugn the source on an indefinite basis? Likewise, when do we change descriptions of attributed statements to "claims"?

Unless you have a good answer to both of these questions, I suggest that you revert yourself immediately. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a real question. There are a lot of weird journals in sociology. As I don't recognize "Sociology of Religion", and a URL wasn't supplied, I'd like to know more about it. And, even if it might be reliable, is it sufficiently important to belong in this article. We're not saying his views are non-mainstream; we're saying that Bartkowski and Ellison say that his views are non-mainstream. Who are Bartkowshi and Ellison, and why should we care? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The journal has a reputable publisher, but their "about" page also says "we also welcome agenda setting essays". It does not say they review those essays. I'd have to see the paper to see if this is intended as a scholarly paper or an essay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason these two are saying it is because it's entirely true. We don't need to attribute it to them explicitly, just cite them as reliable sources. This is a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal associated with a world-class school, [17] which makes it a higher-quality source than most of the ones we use without reservations. If you wish to claim it's merely agenda-setting, then it's up to you to dig up the full text and prove this.

Arthur, the real problem here is that you are once again raising the bar artificially high when presented with a source whose views you dislike. This was discussed on WP:3RRN and bounced to another forum, but it's not going to stop until you stop it or they stop you. I strongly suggest the former. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did your work for you. Based on reading the start of the paper[18], I feel more than comfortable dismissing your objections. We're done here unless you have something more substantive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're right. We need to put it in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the authors. I'll take care of it, if you haven't done so already. I'm not entirely sure of the importance to someone who wants to know about Dobson, but the sourcing is good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The paper is explicitly about Dobson and the contrast between his authoritarian child-rearing practices and the mainstream. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also important for the reader to be informed that his views are considered fringe. While people have offered examples of other BLP articles who hold fringe views, many of them are obviously fringe. Whereas it is less obvious with Dobson because it sounds credible on its face. This is due to both popular ignorance of the subject and Dobson's own implied misrepresentation of his views as being based on psychology (which he holds a degree in) when in fact they are just his personal opinion stemming from his religion. Besides, it's just one little sentence at the end, not a huge smear job dominating the majority of the section, much less the article.Legitimus (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP:UNDUE requires us not to report fringe beliefs as if they're not fringe. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Traditional marriage

I just want to say that I agree with Belchfire's edit here, contra the IP-hopping anonymous editor. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's been a POV edit here, it's the change to "heterosexual-only". As I stated briefly in my edit summary, Dobson's views on marriage have a much broader scope than simply the gender of the parties. Everybody understands that "traditional" means male-female, but Dobson also thinks that marriage is for life; that marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation; and that marriage should be conducted according to Biblical principals. All of this is encapsulated in the word "traditional", which is found in the sources, but it's lost entirely by changing to "heterosexual-only". Belchfire-TALK 01:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That, and the assumption that opposite sex == heterosexual. Dobson/FotF-related ministries have encouraged those previously identifying as homosexual to seek out marriages as part of what they have advocated as a reparative process. So, one might say that they're advocates of gay marriage, but not same-sex marriage. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Everybody understands that "traditional" means male-female" where the citaion for this, no consenus or factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.39.22 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC

B a RFC arguing that the term "traditional marriage", as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization, has been logged on the Traditional marriage Talk page...

the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term -- when it is used by persons such as dobson, it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman, permenantly, until death. globally, however, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage"... therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what dobson means when he uses the phrase "traditional marriage" to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement for all...

the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" when used by those such as dobson are only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals a very specific understanding of "christianity"... if this article -- and any other article that refers to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:

• traditional Christian definition of marriage
• orthodox Christian definition of marriage

personally, i prefer the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...

the wikipedia entry for "traditonal marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification... oedipus (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Views on Tolerance and Diversity

The section is really his views on the "we are family" foundation and has nothing to do with "tolerance and diversity". It's almost like someone is thinking of all the underhanded, dishonest ways they can slur against this man.Scatach (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Older publications?

I have in my hand a hardbound book, titled "Hide or Seek", author James C. Dobson, copyright 1974 by Flemming H. Revell Company. It cites Library of Congress data {BF723.S3D6, 649'.1'019, 73-23033, ISBN 0-8007-0653-6}. Is there any reason it should not be included in the Publications section?jimswen (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on James Dobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713225454/http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=131 to http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=131
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120729170636/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/17/gay_rights_group_dobson_manipulated_data/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/17/gay_rights_group_dobson_manipulated_data/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)