Talk:James Dobson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV

The corporal punishment section definitely needs some work before it can be considered neutral (see Matt's comments below). I suggest that someone who has actually read Dobson's works (which is not me) please work on this section. The quotes provided are fine - but they must be balanced with another point of view (it looks as though someone just pulled them from anti-Dobson sites). A simple reading of the Focus on the Family webpage shows that the quotes by themselves are NOT indicative of Dobson's overall stance on corporal punishment. Remember that neutrality involves trying to understand and correctly delineate another's POV, even if you a priori disagree with it. PublicServant 22:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, the corporal punishment section looks much better now (See NPOV Part 2 below). PublicServant 16:26, 01 July 2005 (UTC)
I changed right-wing to conservative in a couple places to make it NPOV.JumpingGerbil 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)JumpingGerbil.


I know this doesn't go here.. but someone SOMEONE put together an article on DEFCON smearing Dobson... that's a HUGE article.

Not Really (see Dobson/Abramoff connection? below)

  • -yes really - (see below that)

someone should explain that defcon/liberal agenda crap

unscruptulous liberal, largely homosexual groups that have tried so.. soo hard to slander this guy. the history of the posts on here is FULL of good examples. what reason do people have? who wants to waste their time to make up lies? who would PAY a quarter - half a mill to do so?!?! satan has a big club - i'm researching the masons at the moment.. looking at possible connections to News Corp (did you see the lifestyles tab on myspace?) - they also own Fox news

Corporal punishment section

Eeg...I have two problems with the "views on corporal punishment and authority" section. First, I disagree with Eloquence: I don't think the current quotes are very representative of Dobson's overall position on corporal punishment; "Project Nospank" quotes a similar set when advocating against corporal punishment: [1]). I think they're a little selective, at least. Other quotes from Dobson:

  • "discipline must not be harsh and destructive to the child's spirit"
  • "Corporal punishment should be a rather infrequent occurrence."
  • "I think it is very important after punishment to embrace the child in love."
  • " Corporal punishment is not effective at the junior and senior high school levels, and I do not recommend its application."
  • "Anyone who secretly enjoys the administration of corporal punishment should not be the one to implement it."
  • "Anyone who has a violent temper that at times becomes unmanageable should not use that approach [corporal punishment]"
  • "When, then, should [Toddlers] be subjected to mild discipline? When they openly defy their parents' very clear commands!...Even in these situations, however, severe punishment is unwarranted. A firm rap on the fingers or a few minutes sitting on a chair will usually convey the same message as convincingly. Spankings should be reserved for a child's moments of greatest antagonism, usually occurring after the second, third, or fourth birthdays."
  • "Question: You have described two extremes that are both harmful to kids, being too permissive and being too harsh... Answer:... The way to raise healthy children is to find the safety of the middle ground between disciplinary extremes."

— (all found in various linked pages from [2], can't be bothered to list them right now) My second problem is that this part is veering towards being a Wikiquote article; I think one or two quotes are OK, but the entire section? We should work to produce an NPOV narrative both of what Dobson says, and what criticism is levelled against him. — Matt 01:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quotes are important whenever a statement is likely to be controversial. However, I agree that some of the above should be added, at least in paraphrased form. Right now the section would be more appropriately titled "Controversial views on ..", but we should try to make it a representative summary of his point of view, with a brief rebuttal from the other side. However, looking through the website, I see no evidence that these are actually Dobson's words and and not somebody else's - where are they attributed to him?--Eloquence*
I think quotes can be useful, but I don't think they should drive the text, but rather illustrate it. Surely it's cumbersome and unnecessary to have a three-paragraph direct quote in the text? We should be able to agree on a summary and provide external links for the full text. As to the veracity of the above quotes, I rediscovered most of them today (potentially all, I haven't yet had a chance to look thoroughly) in print in Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions (1988), ISBN 0842305807. The website attribution isn't obvious, you're right; it does attribute them to him, albeit indirectly e.g. [3] says, "Dr. James Dobson answers related questions about spanking in the Spanking Hot Topic collection.", and that hot topic collection contains the questions and answers. — Matt 14:26, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've summarized the man vs. dog section; please do add more about Dobson's views on spanking. I believe that if/when Dobson contradicts himself, we should not try to resolve these contradictions on our own.--Eloquence* 22:41, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
I believe the quotes in the article do seem a little one-sided, and very selective. I listen to FotF frequently, and I know that the Dr. would never 'beat children into submission', nor ever perform spanking in anger. I feel his views are slightly misrepresented.
— SimonEast 06:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At one time, based upon a very limited knowledge of Dobson and my own tender age, I thought Dobson to be pretty good. However, I got a taste of his ire in the late '70s when I tried to suggest that he look into the concept of a religious parent who was the survivor of parental abuse and the possibility that they should not resort to spanking or hitting their own children. He would not even consider this possibility but soundly thrashed me, verbally, for having such an un-Dobson-like thought. Thinking that perhaps he had misunderstood, I tried to explain in a return letter, but his response was to send me a free book and tape on the subject taught his way without considering my point. Neither addressed abuse survivors and their children. Raina 06:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quotes were, and still are a bit one-sided. I've changed a few of the surrounding comments to make them less so. Anonymous 27 Feb 2005

you overly liberal 'people' amuse me. if promoting morality and family values gets you so freaked out... you should really, really take a step back and think about things. i mean.. an aethist wouldn't be as outspoken & slanderously biased. Is the homosexual agenda that big a deal that you have to stoop to character assasination? It's something that legaly hasn't changed in thousands of years, and basically throughout time has been looked down on. Arguing, having a voice is fine for things you believe in - but when you believe in lying, and attempting to ruin a person's character who has done nothing but promote love... jbk :D Romans 2:13-15


Dobson's Child-Rearing Advice

Removed the following from the article (begin quote):

In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson compares child rearing with dog rearing. He describes a situation in which Sigmund, the family dog, refuses to leave his resting place, the "furry lid of the toilet seat":
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The only way to make Siggie [the family dog] obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud.
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!

Removed the following from the article (begin quote):

In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson draws a strong analogy between child rearing and dog rearing. He tells a story in which the family dog refuses to leave his resting place on the lid of the toilet seat. According to Dobson, a "vicious fight" between him and the dog resulted in which he "fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt [sic]." . . . And don't forget that this dog was a dachshund! After the youngest of my children and stepchildren were teens, and I was a grandmother to my first, I found that my grandson was very much a strong-willed child. I was advised by some well-meaning folk to read Dobson for advice. I bought and borrowed every child-rearing book that he had and spent part of a vacation-week reading them. The man advises some very shocking parental behavior.
The part about Dobson's dachshund was not just about comparing children to dogs, which is bad enough; it was also about using a belt -- treating a child as Dobson does his dog. It needs to stay in the article. It is a good, representative quotation of his views on child rearing.

I removed it because it has nothing to do with spanking. The point of the story seems to be to point out that children, like dogs, will defy authority. In fact he says that's the point. (It's hardly a point that parents are likely to disagree with) The quote says nothing about how you deal with them, or about spanking. So the comment following it is irrelevant. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Whether parents agree with him is not the point; the point is that this is a good, representative quotation of his views on child rearing, and in terms of NPOV, it is important to note that anti-spanking groups have criticized these views as simplistic. I have therefore restored the quotation.--Eloquence*

He also advocates a particularly devious and cruel act of a parent upon a child who is misbehaving in public. The parent can stand there, looking quite innocent, quite as though s/he were carressing the misbehaving child, while all the time, s/he is squeezing the child's trapezius muscle until the child buckles in pain.

This is unfortunately needed. Some people do not hesitate to confuse discipline with abuse. Even though a spanking might be appropriate, the parent does not wish to risk needing to fight an expensive legal battle. Such battles commonly cost in excess of 15 thousand dollars, and can easily be a great deal more expensive. The end result is generally determined by financial resources. For example, the Massachusetts department of socialist servitude (eh, the DSS they call it) lost a battle in the Massachusetts supreme court against a man who spanked his child with a belt. That man is very lucky to have been able to pay his lawyers; most families do not have tens of thousands of dollars (and time!) to waste on frivolous court battles touched off by people who can't mind their own business. AlbertCahalan 23:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the good doctor! Raina 05:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Dobson Vulcan nerve pinch? — Matt 16:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

200 Million hear the show?

What's the source on the "more than 200 million people hear his show"? That number seems extraordinary (note that I scrupulously avoided "frightening"). Meelar 19:00, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dunno. However, by going to [4] you can see there's more than 3000 places on the radio dial that transmit his radio program in 12 languages in over 95 countries. A more probable source for the number of listeners is listener contact (by email, regular mail, and telephone) with Focus. Those numbers are probably in Focus' private domain. If "more than 200 million people hear his show" that probably would reflect a worldwide figure. Focus is an international organization, after all - just check out the website a bit. And please, Meelar, don't be frightened. (smile) 209.221.222.206 06:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

SpongeBob SquarePants and the We Are Family Foundation

Dr Dobson's press office's (?) response to allegations that he criticised the character for being too gay. Apparently he was attacking the We Are Family Foundation (Dobson's capitalisation) for promoting "unity", "tolerance" and "diversity".

While words like "diversity" and "unity" sound harmless — even noble — enough, the reality is they are often used by gay activists as cover for teaching children that homosexuality is the moral and biological equivalent to heterosexuality. And there is ample evidence that the We Are Family Foundation shares — and promotes — that view.

Oddly, he then goes on to commend someone else's condemnation of the cartoon series (though not the character). See here (scroll to the end).

Attention! After the above letter was written, U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, sent a very strong letter of rebuke to the Public Broadcasting System, denouncing the use of federal funds to produce and distribute materials for children wherein cartoon characters were used to promote homosexual ideas and purposes. She wrote, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode." Thank you, Mrs. Secretary!
That is precisely the concern that led to my comments in January. At its heart, the issue before us is the "sexual re-orientation" and brainwashing of children by homosexual advocacy groups. It is going on in many schools today, both public and private. Make absolutely sure your child is not being targeted for this purpose. If it happens in his or her classroom, take an army of like-minded parents with you to the next board meeting, and let your voices be heard to the rooftops!

BTW, This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family. Copyright © 2005 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. (Of course I'm making fair use of it).

Mr. Jones 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Dr. Dobson contends that underneath the guise of tolerance and respect, the We Are Family Foundation has a hidden agenda of promoting the normalization of homosexuality to schoolchildren." This sentence in particular, and the paragraphs surrounding it, are troublesome. They imply that Dosbon supports "tolerance" and "respect" or similar values, but that We Are Family had gone "over the line" somehow. Firstly, he is a bigot to the core and advocates no such values in any form. Secondly, what is this line? Is he saying that it's okay to "tolerate" homosexuals (in the sense that one tolerates a cold, I suppose) - but only to a certain extent? I didn't want to change it because I tend to lose my calm when dealing with the religious right. The haziness here reflects the haziness of their propaganda, which in that case is intentional - we should try to be clearer here. --Tothebarricades.tk 18:54, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think the original version was fine, but I changed it at your request. "tolerance and diversity" are now "buzzwords" for promoting homosexuality or whatever. Dave (talk) 20:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Part 2

Am I correct that if the corporal punishment section were redone, everyone would be happy with the article in terms of bias? (I'm also planning on adding stuff on him politically). Let me know and I'll get to work on this. Dave 22:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

That would be good. Another concern I have is the size of the "Spongebob Squarepants" section; a couple of sentences would be appropriate, but I'm not sure an entire three-paragraph section is warranted on this minor (albeit amusing) episode. — Matt Crypto 01:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I shortened it a bit. I don't think it can get much shorter without losing content. I think it would be better to beef up the otehr sections than remove content from this one. But I can't do any more tonight. Dave 01:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
after a bit of research, I decided that I don't trust whoever compiled the quotes in the article (not necessarily a Wikipedian) to keep relevant context. For example, the italicized words and phrases were simply omitted from the following quote without elipses:
As long as the tears represent a genuine release of emotion, they should be permitted to fall. But crying quickly changes from inner sobbing to an expression of protest aimed at punishing the enemy. Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears. In younger children, crying can easily be stopped by getting them interested in something else.
I'm going to remove all quotes that I can't verify and seem fishy to me. Dave 20:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Taking down the sign

I think the corporal punishment section is now balanced. I strongly recommend that someone check the quotes from his books for context. I'll probably get around to adding more to the politics section at some point, but others should feel free to take it first. Dave 20:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, it looks sufficiently balanced to me. — Matt Crypto 20:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I'm new here, but taking down those signs is sort of a hobby. I'm 3 for 3 so far:-) Dave 01:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I highly disagree with the section that says "he does not advocate harsh spanking." That is NOT NPOV. The definition of what's "harsh" is very different depending on who you ask (i.e. Dobson, pro-corporal punishment folks, anti-spanking groups). I would feel a lot more comfortable if it said that he does not advocate what HE considers to be harsh spanking. It's subjective and it shouldn't be stated as if it can be easily defined. [Er, I'm not sure how to get a username, but if not signing it means something bad, my email is fluffyemu@gmail.com]

Spongebob again

This comment was added to the article text. I moved it here:

The website at the reference just above contains some comments which are skeptical as to the necessity for such a correction. Eg the following: 'I really fail to see the nontriviality here. The distinction between saying that a cartoon sponge who lives in the sea “promotes the homosexual agenda” and that a cartoon video in which said sea-dwelling sponge appears “promotes the homosexual agenda” positively embodies triviality. Absolutely equivalent levels of wingnuttery/moonbattery involved in formulating the “logic” behind both statements. Let’s flip it around: suppose Sandals J. Longhair of the National Association of Godless Commies came out with a press release decrying Claymation Christmas as a “transparent propaganda device intended to indoctrinate children into rigid Judaeo-Christian morality,” and the Washington Times responded with an editorial mocking Mr. Longhair for “calling Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer a propagandist.” Is there any substantive difference between the original statement and the hypothetical Times editorial? I would submit that no, there is not. I also somehow doubt that many righties would have their panties quite so indignantly bunched in the second situation. Comment by Mike C — 2/10/2005 @ 9:38 pm'

LGBT rights opposition

There is an important distinction between James Dobson and Fred Phelps, both of whom are now marked for this subjective category.

Phelps, unfortunately, blatantly disobeys the Great Commandment of the faith he claims to follow, and is heartlessly hateful of homosexuals, doubting they can at all be redeemed. Dobson believes they can be redeemed, and indeed ought to be redeemed.

Dobson still loves homosexuals as people made by God in His image, Phelps writes them off as garbage. If Dobson can be equated with Phelps for a category, then the application of the category is suspect. As a comparison, smoking and alcohol consumption can be unhealthy; homosexual behaviour has also been medically demonstrated as unhealthy, and people who oppose its promotion or "normalization" are acting in concern for those who could be harmed by such behaviour if "LGBT" rights are promoted.

For the record, the American Psychiatric Association did not willingly remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. They gave in to threats from a militant group of homosexuals, who threatened physical violence at the early 1970s meeting if the APA did not comply. A majority of APA members still regard homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Since there is also medical evidence and documentation of the harm to assorted parts of the human body from male homosexual activity, and since people who have been cured of their homosexual urges have also recovered from clinical depression, opposition to "LGBT" rights can also be expressed by people who want to spare individuals of physical or mental injury and death, injuries and death to which they may unwittingly submit themselves if they are unaware of the hazards or are hoodwinked into believing that such behaviours are normal and "healthy". Smokers are able to find a warning on cigarette cases about the hazards of smoking; why should those who might take up homosexuality not be able to find information so they can make an informed decision on whether to give into urges or invitations to behave homosexuality?

There also is strong evidence that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, and not a shred of evidence that it is genetic, particularly since homosexual individuals repeatedly originate from heterosexual biological unions!

Dobson is obeying the Great Commandment, seeking the redemption of everyone, and not writing anyone off.

GBC 00:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget this is not meant to be a discussion forum; what does this have to do with the associated encyclopedia article? — Matt Crypto 00:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to include info relating to this sick man's connection to Abramoff and the Casino scandals. I'm amazed it has not already been done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.58.232 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2006.

Nicolosi quote

Regarding the quote on fathers and sons showering together by Nicolosi under the "Dobson and homosexuality" heading, this is a somewhat misleading quote. It's clearly taken out of context, and gives the impression that Dobson is suggesting that fathers showering with their sons helps to "prevent homosexuality." The article in question, which is quite lengthy, deals more with gender identity. I'd suggest removing the mention, but would like input from other editors before doing anything. Deadsalmon 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, the headline of the article in which Nicolosi is quoted is titled "Can Homosexuality be Treated and Prevented?" Seems that Dr. Dobson is indicating that encouraging 'normal' gender identity will prevent homosexuality. In that light please explain how this is out of context. I say the quote stays. SamSock Wed. 2/08/06

Your own summary should serve as a good example of why it is misleading and out of context — the content in question doesn't even mention gender identity, it only tries to give the impression that Dobson thinks that homosexuality is prevented by father-son showers. It's obviously there for shock value. Tijuana Brass 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point, Tijuana. I agree. Pollinator 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point! I agree. I will rewrite the section to show that Dr. Dobson doesn't have an understanding of the creation of gender identity and is only working from stereotypes of what it means to be a male or female. SamuellusSoccus 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That would work well. My intention wasn't to remove any reference to the Nicolosi article whatsoever; I was just concerned about context. A revision would be an even better option. Thanks to the editors backing me up on it. Tijuana Brass 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote is out of context because it suggests molestation. A fair reading of the cited source leads to the inescapable conclusion that the quote is out of context.

I edited it to try to provide a better idea of what the source says. If anything that I put in there is out of line with the source, please feel free to change it, or if you just want to sacrifice truth for politics, go ahead and change it as well. -Dinosaurdarrell 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good improvement. I added one last part to clarify that the shower idea wasn't necessarily the end point of a step-by-step methodology proposed, but rather one suggestion among many (albeit the most bizarre). Take a look. Tijuana Brass 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dobson/Abramoff Connection?

I looked through DEFCON's website, and it's pretty mild. There is a petition[5] to send to various religious right leaders about not taking gambling money. It points out that Dobson took money to make some ads against a proposed indian casino in Louisiana. That money came from Jack Abramoff who was at the same time lobbying to have a different indian casino built. Dobson recieved the money via Ralph Reed who was a long time business buddy of Abramoff. Emails concerning the funneling of money from Abramoff to Dobson are recorded as part of the investigation of the Jack Abramoff Scandal. It is possible that Dobson didn't know where the money came from, and that could be the end of his involvement with Abramoff. I think the point DEFCON is trying to make is that it was at best, unwise of Dobson to take the money, and at worst hypocritical. There doesn't seem to be much meat in this subject for an entire article. If Dobson is more deeply involved with Abramoff it might merit mention in this article. If Dobson has no more involvement it doesn't seem worth a mention. SamuellusSoccus 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

--

DOBSON/Abramoff Connection IS REFUTED

"There is no proof against Dobson" "There is no record of correspondence between Abramoff and Dobson, and no evidence of any payments by Abramoff to Dobson." -http://www.factcheck.org/article379.html

"There is no connection. Dr. Dobson has never met Mr. Abramoff and, in fact, has never even spoken to him." -http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039768.cfm

There are many, like sam here who seem to have some motive for making Dr. Dobson look bad - to further a liberal agenda one would conclude, by less than honorable means.

 DefCon describes itself as promoting separation of Church and State. 
 Its website banners the motto: "Because the Religious Right is Wrong."  
 The group's mission statement, as it appears on their website, 
 says that its members are dedicated to “combating the growing power of the religious right.” -http://ga3.org/campaign/abramoff and their website CONTINUES to slander.

The group's advisory board includes the executive director of the national Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a former ACLU director and the former president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49220 http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/chuckcolson/2006/03/10/189390.html

http://spaces.msn.com/rhysrabbit/blog/cns!64E1169A7D6A886A!1536.entry

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=22848

there are MANY other examples. i urge you to seek the truth in all things. -jbk

--JBK: I moved your citations from the article to the talk page for the following reasons: 1) Your citations were in the "critics of Dobson" section when what they are are a defense of Dobson. 2) They were not connected to the rest of the article. There is no mention of the possible connection to Abramoff (i.e. "SLANDER") in the article, and citations should deal with what is talked about in the article. 3) Eventually someone would have come along and removed the links completely because of their lack of relevance to the article. This way your links are preserved so others can follow them. SamuellusSoccus 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC) As for the ACLU click here for a suprise[6]

Shower controversy

I fail to see the "controversy" in the Shower controversy section, perhaps someone could expand on that? Besides that, this is the most balanced article on a controversial person that I have ever seen on wikipedia, besides maybe someone on the left (as of 20 june 2006). I am regaining hope that wikipedia is not incurably left-leaning in it's articles, and is actually straddling the fence 68.3.18.67 01:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

External links - appropriate or inappropriate

Are external links to satires appropriate for an encyclopedia? (I grouped the satires together for clarity.) Also, there's a link to Amazon.com for a book about Dr. Dodson by a former employee. Is an external link to a commercial vendor appropriate? Seems like I recall, but can't find the Wikipedia rule on this, that it isn't. Wouldn't the ISBN be better? --Tregonsee 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Would such links be appropriate for, say, an atheist leader, or an Islamic leader? That should answer the question. And yes, the link to a commercial vendor is linkspam.Pollinator 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The general rules for external links are at Wikipedia:External links. For satire sites, links to one or two well-done ones may be appropriate, depending on the subject in question —for a figure like Dobson, I think it'd be permissible. Links to books about the subject generally are done by ISBN, as you said, rather than an external link; you could modify the "Authorship" category to something more general that would include books written about Dobson. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Removed unsourced paragraph in corporal punishment section

the following sentences aren't much good until they are sourced by specific groups. these sentences also imply that there are groups that exist solely to discourage or promote spanking, and i highly doubt that.

Anti-spanking groups disagree with Dobson's views, suggesting they are too simplistic and even dangerous for children.
Some insist that Dobson's views are based more on his personal theology, cultural biases, and political views than on any serious clinical research or real Biblical scholarship.
weasel words!
Pro-spanking groups disagree, pointing out that a philosophy of "no spanking, ever" is certainly more simplistic than Dobson's situational and limited approach.

--Bantosh 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Removed Stephanopoulos interview

this was placed under the "Marriage Under Fire" subheading. I would move it but i don't know where it would go; it may be correct but it seems to be more or less a random tidbit

The following exchange took place Nov 7, 2004 between George Stephanopoulos and James Dobson on ABC's "This Week":
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Dr. Dobson, ...in the Daily Oklahoman, [you were] quoted saying, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people." Now, Dr. Dobson, that doesn't sound like a particularly Christian thing to say. Do you think you owe Senator Leahy an apology?
DR JAMES DOBSON: George, you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about? You know, I think -I think I'll stand by the things I have said. Patrick Leahy has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe. He is the one that took the reference to God out of the oath.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But Dr. Dobson, excuse me for a second. You use the word hate. You said that he's a "God's people hater." How do you back that up?
DR JAMES DOBSON: Well, there's been an awful lot of hate expressed in this election. And most of it has been aimed at those who hold to conservative Christian views. He is certainly not the only one to take a position like that. But I think that that is -that's where he's coming from. He has certainly opposed most of the things that conservative Christians stand for.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apology?
DR JAMES DOBSON: No apology. --Bantosh 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_Dobson_Archive_1_8107.html"