Talk:James Dobson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] AIDS and homosexuality

Through 2003, the CDC reports that of the 729,000 AIDS cases in adult males, over 400,000 of them were due to homosexual contact. [1] I don't think a clarification is necessary for this article: people either will agree with Dobson that homosexuals would not "choose" a life where AIDS is a large risk, or people will disagree with Dobson and insist that even if AIDS is a significant risk for homosexuals they can't choose it. The TB clarification is (perhaps) needed because it's entirely against the weight of the scientific evidence. For AIDS, it's not that way--at best, one may say it's debatable, but that doesn't mean the quotation needs clarification. Zz414 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promise Keepers

The Christian men's group is simply conservative, very conservative, in fact. Conservative social views fundamentally define the organization. Pointing out as much is not necessarily a criticism and therefore doesn't run into POV problems.

In theory, as I understand, the Promise Keepers is about accountability -- helping to keep each other from prostitution and gay sex. Obviously Haggard wasn't doing enough Promise Keepers :) :)

[edit] PFAW

Is a major national organization. Please do not simply delete material cited to their website simply because it is critical.--Cberlet 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Its "national" status has nothing to do with whether it's an appropriate source for citing material regarding Dobson. It has a particular agenda against Dobson and compiles quotations that it deems wrong. It would be just as inappropriate to cite a Web site such as, say, the National Family Council that compiles some of Dobson's more favorable quotations. If the material is cited to an original source, fine. If it's just referencing Wiki readers to an agenda-driven page, either for or against, then it shouldn't be cited. Also, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which both caution against (1) politically-partisan sites, (2) secondary sources without immediately attributable or correct footnotes, and (3) weight given to particularly partisan sources, either in support or in opposition. Zz414 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As a general principle, it's best to cite quotes to as close to the original source as possible. The PFAW cite sources, so we should use those instead. — Matt Crypto 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This looks to me like a lack of neutrality as a mere excuse to delete. This kind of dispute is exactly the reason to use the talk page. No one disputes claims and quotations as true and valid. The material I added is written in neutral language, even if it omits other PsOV. The Dobson article may need other points of view, but the article, with the PFAW material, is far from an irredemable piece of propaganda. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it. Whitewashing Dobson's record of plainly controversial statements is just not the answer. He's an outspoken leader of evangelical Christians, and his words shouldn't be secreted away just because one particular non-profit recorded them. That's especially the case for Dobson's comments on September 11 and his sometimes rocky relationship with the Republican party. NPOV should not be used as a shield against facts we don't like.Jny2cornell 19:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thought it's clear you have a vendetta against Dobson and want to prevent "whitewashing" of "plainly controversial statements," Wiki's source data requires certain standards, such as (1) politically-partisan sites, (2) secondary sources without immediately attributable or correct footnotes, and (3) weight given to particularly partisan sources, either in support or in opposition. Some of the quotations do not have independent links. Some of the quotations do not have citations. If you independently research and verify this data, then do it and post it. Otherwise, there's no "whitewashing" going on. Zz414 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(1)PFAW's just not the Democratic party. Like the Heritage Foundation on the right, PFAW conducts research that's nationally repsected. Its research is quoted in newspapers accross the country. Ruling out PFAW's research on the grounds that it's unacceptably politically partisan violates Wiki's spirit of engaging in all sides of a debate. (2) Because PFAW conducts its own original research, monitoring Dobson's radio programming and other communications, it is very often the source of quotations and other informaiton that is in fact as close as possible to the original source. (3) As long as it's part of larger debate, including factual PFAW material just isn't giving undue weight any source.Jny2cornell 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that either the Left or the Right should get weight while the other's on the sideline. But I think it's very suspect to find the only citation to this quotation from a political opponent, unverifiable in any other form. The PFAW site, for instance, cites a dead FOTF link for its 9/11 claim. It's not just something from its "radio monitoring." That page isn't a compilation of "radio monitoring"; it's a compilation of what it finds to be offensive content from Dobson. That's the part that violates POV. If PFAW had a page where it just compiled transcripts, or even "notable" quotations from transcripts, with some sort of attribution, that'd be one thing. But here, it's entirely unattributable, and enitrely devoid from any verifiable citations. That's what makes it a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zz414 (talk • contribs).
While PFAW does have political leanings, this does not disqualify them as a usable reference, so long as the source is made clear in our article. That's why we list sources: so that readers can decide for themselves to what degree they trust the veracity of claims that are made. Quotations and statements of fact by PFAW are, IMHO, trustworthy, even if PFAW is not aspiring to NPOV. That's our job, not theirs. JDoorjam Talk 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to protest one more time. I've found another site that attributes the Dobson quotation on 9/11 to post-Hurricane Katrina.[2] So which was it? I guess we'll have no idea, because we don't have a primary source citation to it. PFAW has a link that doesn't work, and no other context. I don't think that's legitimate, and I don't think it should be used. Qualifying that "critics assert" is a good compromise, but I don't think that 9/11 citation should be used when it's unattributable, and different sources conflict not only on the nature of the quote but also on the timing.

[edit] Removal of Foley scandal

All of the sources were from the Media Matters organization, which systematically attacks right-wing commentators. Dobson's official statement on the issue states, "What Congressman Foley did was inexcusable, reprehensible and morally depraved. Let there be no question about the position we have taken on this." [3] Whatever Media Matters said, and the subsequent scandal of finger-pointing, you said this, no I didn't it was out of context, yes you did, really isn't relevant to anything in this article and just stirs up POV controversy. We don't need the Foley scandal to prompt a Dobson v. Media Matters debate on what Dobson actually meant. His official online statement is pretty clear, and it doesn't seem to be notable beyond that. Zz414 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are claiming the quote Media Matters has an audio link to is false? Then is Dobson's comments on Media Matters' citation also false? Arbusto 06:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying it's false. Re-read my statement. I'm saying it's not notable. I'm saying it's POV fork to indicate that a right-wing organization makes a comment, a left-wing organization attacks the right-wing organization, the right-wing organization tries to respond with the context, etc. It's not a significant event. Dobson said X, Media Matters disagreed with the context, Dobson explained the context. Why should this be included? If you can explain why his tiff with MM is notable, then we cna discuss it. But I don't think it's notable and should not be included on this page. It takes a substantial amount of space for a single episode on a single statement and a fight with a Web site. This isn't a defining moment in Dobson's career, and therefore, as POV fork, it should be excluded. I noticed that you rv'ed without discussion, but I'm not getting into a rv war. We'll see what kind of discussion takes place, and then hopefully we can reach a conclusion. Zz414 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Im going to read up on the event, then I will give my opinion ;) slimp01 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China or Taiwan?

The opening paragraph mentions that Dobson's radio show is carried in the "Republic of China" on the state-owned radio stations. I realize the referring link does not give any more information either, but I really think this needs to be clarified. The misleading use of "Republic of China" implies that we are talking about the People's Republic of China or what most people would simply call China. However, the Republic of China is the name given by China to Taiwan, which claims to be independent from China and prefers the use of the name Taiwan. So which are we talking about here? --Gloriamarie 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for Haggard and opposition to moral accountability?

Isn't it notable that Dobson supported Haggard's adultery and subsequent deception, and that Dobson said the evil was not Haggard's adultery, drug use, prostitution use, or continuing deception about all three, but that the evil was the media which exposed it? I mean, the teaching platform that deception and sexual misconduct by church leaders should be concealed and condoned is a major teaching platform that many would argue flies in the face of the Bible -- and this controversy, of Dobson against what many would claim is Christianity's most basic teaching (moral accountability), is, some of us would argue, extremely significant. ~~

Haha, Dobson is now distancing himself from Haggard, after starting with full support. Who wants to bet that Dobson has something of his own to cover-up and is running scared? Think Dobson has been messing with drugs, hookers, or gay sex? ~~
So funny. Not really. I thought liberals didn't care about what someone did in bed (remember Bill and Monica?). Seriously, he probably believed Haggard's original statements of not doing any of said accusations, and then once Haggard repented and admitted to his sins (homosexuality, drug use, lying, adultery, prostitution) Dobson obviously didn't condone those actions. Liberals love to see people struggle with sin. Iamvery 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No they don't. It's the hypocrisy, mostly.
Last I remembered, Dobson said the exact opposite about the Haggard scandal. In fact, he had briefly considered being part of a team counseling him.

205.244.108.166 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad sources

I have to say that sourcing from the site "People for the American Way" for information on Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson is like sourcing from a terrorists website information about america. If wikipedia is going to have accurate information on what Dr. Dobson believes and promotes, they need to get it from THE source. I followed the link provided in the cite, and their information does not site any sources.

slimp01 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that heavily agenda-driven sources are not approprriate. CyberAnth 04:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
look, I think that this is an importaint issue because the information in question is highly controversial. I think that it is importaint for wikipedia to have accurate information so that it may be a legitimate encylcopedia source for any one looking for information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
Surely neutral or direct sources are available, rather than a POV site characterizing his statements or lacking context. While they may be "important" issues, that doesn't deny that they run afould of WP:NPOV, where biased sources should be avoided. Zz414 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Publicly forgave Mel Gibson"

The verb "forgive" would not be appropriate, as Gibson did not insult Dobson, his constituency, or his ideas. Please find a better verb. elpincha 14:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Dobson is pro-Israel. Hence, Dr. Dobson does not stand for anti-semitic terms and would be offended by such remarks. Iamvery 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twin Studies

"However, Dobson does not believe that homosexuality is genetic. In his June 2002 newsletter, he states: "There is further convincing evidence that homosexuality is not hereditary. For example, since identical twins share the same chromosomal pattern, or DNA, the genetic contributions are exactly the same within each of the pairs. Therefore, if one twin is 'born' homosexual, then the other should inevitably have that characteristic too. That is not the case. When one twin is homosexual, the probability is only 50 percent that the other will have the same condition. Something else must be operating."[4]"

Would it be POV to dispute this in the article, that is point out that he is being grossly unscientific? Mainstream scientists take twin studies as a very good indication that homosexuality has a genetic factor. Dobson plays down the 50%, but that number means identical twins are 10 times more likely than non-identical twins to share the same sexual orientation, which is profound, and that's using the commonly held percentage of gays in the population as being around 5%. When you take the conservatives' estimate, 1-3%, the likelihood that twins will share the same sexual orientation goes up even more. Additionally his understanding of genetics is flawed, since environmental factors have a role in determining which genes actually get activated and what order in sequence they end up being in. He also makes no distinction between traits caused by a single gene and traits that are emergent properties of multiple genes and environmental factors combined. Perhaps a link to an objective scientific source on the matter?

  • Theres no real need to dispute it here, a link to the subject matter might be appropriate though. That section is about his views, not how scientific they are. Just because we don't like them, doesn't mean he didn't say them. If we go into what everyone says, then well thats all most wikipedia bio articles would be. Besides that, it goes both way. It seems to prove both genetics and some other factor must be involved. 74.137.230.39 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources from family.org

Family.org seems to have rearranged its website and as a consequence, some of the footnotes in this article no longer work. Anyone care to fix them? The footnotes are also wrong in the German Wikipedia as a result.--Bhuck 10:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where loyalties lie

it's been my research lately that many prominent 'christian' leaders are, in fact, masons - which seems in diametrical opposition to Christianity. As I'm still trying to get a better picture of all the silly political games they play - I've noticed that Dobson seems to be the best truely Christian leader I've yet seen... small proof of that would be the insane level of opposition directly against him :P

Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Kennith Copeland, Robert Schuller, John Wimber, G.Gordan Liddy, Dr. Leon McBeth, George W. Truett, Norman Vincent Peale, Peter C. Marshall, Rev. Charles T. Aikens, Bishop James Freeman, Bishop William F. Anderson, Rev. James C. Baker, Rev. Hugh I. Evans, Rev. Lansing Burrows, William R. White, Dr. James P. Wesberry, Bishop Carl J. Sanders, The Reverend Louis R. Gant, LeRoy C. Brandt, John W. Dowdy, Bishop Don Hugh, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem, Baron Worley, Fr. Charles E. Maier O.C.R., Boaz Hiram Abiff, Fisher Geoffrey, Hamilton Frederick William, Hobbs Herschell Harold... and a huge list of others. These are merely a few of the leaders past and current. so.. watch tv - and pay attention to the 'g's on the screen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.12.15 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

-- sourced from http://honorablepassion.wiki.com/Steps/Church_Control

[edit] Relevance?

Dobson was an eyewitness to the death of basketball great Pete Maravich. Maravich was scheduled to appear on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show on January 5, 1988. That morning, Maravich collapsed during a pickup basketball game in which both he and Dobson were playing, and was declared dead on arrival from a heart attack resulting from an undiagnosed congenital defect.

Why on earth is this paragraph in the article? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I recall reading that in his biography. It's probably little more than "Trivia" if someone wanted to add that, but it's not particularly noteworthy for the body of the article. Zz414 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slagfest or Biography?

This article roundly fails not just NPOV but WP:BLP. In its overall effect, it is mostly a slagfest. Most of it is criticisms from a POV perspective; his views articulated by his critics; no real background; no history of accomplishments; no real biography.

From WP:BIO: "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." This fails that.

From WP:Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Let me suggest Template:Biography as a way to re-write this article. For gosh sake's this article does not even incorporate or cite Dobson's biography. This article needs to be one that both Dobson himself and his direst critics would agree was fair. At present, it seems written primarily by his critics and from that POV. It thus fails WP:BLP. CyberAnth 06:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Good eye, CyberAnth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Zz414 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with your assessment. The article is more of an advertisement to espouse (proselytize?) what the writers believe to be Dobson's beliefs rather than a Wikipedia biography. Please feel free to revise the article as you propose as supported by this growing consensus. On a separate note, I searched high and low for a meaning and uses of the term slagfest. Would you be so kind as to add a slagfest entry to wiktionary? Thank you. -- Jreferee 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Slagfest: A slag festival, a play on words with "slugfest". I use it to refer to the sort


of "biography" we find on WP that is little more than a litany of controversies told from the perspective of the subject's critics rather than a responsible biography.  :-) CyberAnth 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dobson on Marriage

I reverted a edit from "patriarchal" marriage to "tradition" marriage. The reason being that traditional is a subjective word and means different things to different people. It also doesn't sync with a clear worldview as this word means different things in different countries. Patriarchal (men ruling women) means the same thing in every culture. The whole paragraph was altered to show his views on women, feminism, and marriage in a slanted, positive light. Please prevent this paragraph from being altered in a similar fashion again. "Patriarchal" has become a pejorative. Since Dobson doesn't use the term himself (no source cited) neither should an article that purports to be objective209.150.56.99 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)This a major offense against NPOV. Nowhere in the reference I added does Dobson use such "loaded" terms as "divine right" This areticle needs to be marked as "Disputed"

Um, patriarchal means with the father in charge. That's exactly what has been described in the source. Traditional marriage is a vague term that has both POV issues and can mean different things in different contexts. I agree that "divine right" may not be an optimal term. Do you have a suggested replacement term? (Also, please sign your comments. You can do so by adding four tildes at the end ~~~~. JoshuaZ 04:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite comments, including the reminder about the tildes. People can refer to the controversy at the link to patriarchal if they are interested. I can see why you want that term in there.Witnessforpeace 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Note one needs to reference this link[4] Witnessforpeace 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) I replaced "divine right" with references to "God created both man and woman in his own image" in the new reference [1] from Dobson's website. Also, reference [3] towards the end makes it clear it's his recommendation rather than a core "belief", so I reflected that in my text.Witnessforpeace 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representative claims inaccuracies

I contacted Focus and asked if this article was accurate. The representative replied that with regard to Dr. Dobson's social views, it was largely inaccurate. 66.19.229.108 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. See no original research. If you can find a source that says this is somehow inaccurate and explains why it is inaccurate then we can include it. (The easiest way for that to occur would for Dobson to issue a statement on the Focus website clarifying his viewpoint. That would probably be enough). JoshuaZ 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denominational Affiliation and Origin

The bio section needs to list Dobson's original church ties and his current church affiliation, if any. What church did his parents attend? What churches has he attended? Who does he hear preach most often? These are important questions. Saying that he is evangelical or fundamentalist or Protestant doesn't really narrow things down that much. There are many undisputed facts missing from this bio.Josh a brewer 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that he's Evangelical does tell more than saying that he's Methodist or Presbyterian, or whatever, because there are ranges within the denominations. But he's from a Methodist/Holiness background. Pollinator 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
True . . . to some extent: denominational descriptors do not tell the entire story, and I agree that terms such as evangelical, fundamentalist, and orthodox can complete the picture. However, just to use your examples, there's a big difference between Methodist and Presbyterian theology (greater or lesser depending on which stripe of M & P we're talking about), especially in terms of free will. Arminian tendencies in Methodism could very well account for Dobson's resistance to accepting gays, because this theology resists biological determinism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh a brewer (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Abortion

Surely this article needs a section on his views on abortion. Harksaw 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography addiction

There is currently a dispute in Pornography addiction on whether James Dobson's views should be included in that article (see [5]). Personally I feel it would be more appropriate in this article. See Talk:Pornography addiction#Dobson.2C_.22opponents.22_out, thanks for any comments. Mdwh 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_Dobson_fd17.html"