Talk:James Dobson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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. [7] 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)

The quote from "Bringing up Boys" at the end of the subsection "views on homosexuality" is taken out of context and misleading. I have attempted repeatedly to simply add the subsequent sentence from the book, which makes it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Dobson does not believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (Rather, he argues that it is a hormonal/behavioral disorder). Why does this simple, accurate edit keep getting reverted?

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 :) :)

The statement "...Promise Keepers is about accountability -- helping to keep each other from prostitution and gay sex," is not correct. There is an element of accountability about Promise Keepers, but even at that to narrowly define this accountability as stated in this quotation distorts it and seems to imply that PK is a witch-hunting organization. PK is a group of men who collectively worship Jesus Christ, and use the Christian bible as a guide. That is the focus. The accountability is about encouraging and helping one another to live up to the bible, not as a book of law, but as a life guide, where the striving to live a moral life shares equal time with loving and forgiving people, as exemplified by Jesus.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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.[8] 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.

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." [9] 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)

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)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.12.15 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how Masonry would be in direct contrast with Christianity.... in order to be a Mason, you have to say that you believe in God.--76.182.88.254 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Masonry isn't in opposition to Christianity. Actually, one of the founding principles of Masonry is the belief in a higher being, though this isn't necessarily the Christian god. They encourage their members to be devotees of their respective religions. No Christian who actually understands their own religion would consider this an insult to the Christian faith (one of the commandments is "thou shalt not covet... anything that belongs to thy neighbor", which certainly applies to any want for conversion of your neighbor). You can find this information on any freemason website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egroll (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is specific evidence of any Masonic connection with Dobson, this section should be deleted. A search on the Focus on the Family site for "masonic" brings back no results, and a search for "mason" brings back a handful of incidental references to Masonic mentions in reviews of pop culture. A Google search shows that several blogs and commentators allege a Masonic connection, but I don't see a reason to consider any of those sources to be reliable, peer-reviewed, professionally edited, etc.
In addition, this page for improving the article about Dobson is an inappropriate venue for a debate about the religious connotations of Freemasonry. VisitorTalk 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
I had actually read that the first time I read this article a long time ago, and I thought it was very interesting. It should be included somewhere-- this article is too short anyway.--76.182.88.254 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
Agreed. The biography section needs to include at least one paragraph about the history of "Focus on the Family" and how Dobson got to his current role as a leader in the evangelical movement. VisitorTalk 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dobson on Marriage

I reverted an 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.239.61 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Patriarchal" has become a pejorative. Since Dobson doesn't use the term himself (no source cited) neither should an article that purports to be objective. 209.150.56.99 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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witnessforpeace (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
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 [10] 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)

"At one particular seminar" paragraph is very poorly written. Which seminar? When and where was it held? Who is McDonald? Did the "conferring" result in a joint statement which is notable? VisitorTalk 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
JoshuaZ, would you accept "About us: Welcome" (linked from the Focus home page)? http://www.focusonthefamily.com/aboutus/A000000410.cfm This page indicates that the main topics addressed by Focus on the Family are:
  • Parenting, including health, schooling, and discipline
  • Relationships and marriage
  • Life challenges, including emotional health and life transition
  • Christian faith
  • Entertainment reviews with an emphasis on whether media are family-appropriate
  • Social issue commentaries "designed to educate and energize concerned citizens within religious, political, educational, and activist spheres" from an evangelical perspective
I believe this is an accurate summary of the main topics of Dobson's career, and would be appropriate headings to use in the Wikipedia article - unless a reliable source indicated that these are not the main topics of Dobson's career. But I think even his most ardent detractors would agree that these are indeed his and his organization's main topics.
As for Focus's "guiding principles," the Focus web site provides a convenient summary at http://www.focusonthefamily.com/aboutus/A000000408.cfm; for its take on social issues, follow the link "Focus on Social Issues" to reach the web portal "Focus on Social Issues" at http://www.citizenlink.org/fosi/, which provides links to Focus's position papers on the social issues about which it advocates a position.
Is this "probably enough" for you? I wonder if you even tried to find this information on the Focus site before making your comment. VisitorTalk 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the page cited for the proposition that Mr. Dobson advocates that fathers take their sons into the shower and show them their penises. While the quoted language appears on that page, it is incorrect to say or imply that Dobson said those words--in the article, he is quoting a manuscript by Joseph Nicolosi. While it might be accurate to say that Dobson supports that position, it is incorrect to say that he said or wrote those specific words. I think that the reference should be corrected so that it is not misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsmaelTapiaII (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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).
Dobson's family history with the Nazarene denomination, and his own ongoing participation with it, is no secret. However, it is more significant that he is in the evangelical movement, which spans denominations. The Focus FAQ section on Dobson includes these remarks about his theology:
"Dr. Dobson is often asked to respond in detail to biblical or theological inquiries, however, he has had no formal training as a pastor or theologian and freely acknowledges his limitations in these areas. Over the years, Dr. Dobson has made a deliberate decision to direct the attention of our ministry away from in-depth biblical interpretation and theology, choosing instead to concentrate our efforts on our primary purpose -- introducing individuals to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and thereby strengthening the family. As an alternative, you may wish to contact Christian ministries that routinely discuss theological topics. Dr. Dobson has great respect for the theological views and biblical integrity of Billy Graham and Chuck Swindoll."
VisitorTalk 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion

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

Agreed. I recommend going through the topics list from Focus and making sure that there is a concise mention of each of Dobson's key points. VisitorTalk 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pornography addiction

There is currently a dispute in Pornography addiction on whether James Dobson's views should be included in that article (see [11]). 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)

It would be appropriate to include a mention of his views in this article. VisitorTalk 07:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

If it is to be argued that my qualifications about "Dominionism" are POV editorializing, then I would argue that the whole section which attributes this label to Dobson should be removed, because it simply quotes from editorials that editorialize... while I simply point out the fact that the lable comes from Dominion theology, which is Calvinistic, and which is a theological perspective total foreign to Dobson, who has been a life long member of the Church of the Nazarene, and as such, is a Wesleyan Arminian. If you know anything about the origins of Arminianism, you know that it was a reaction to Calvinism. Frjohnwhiteford 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject is listed on Template:Dominionism as an advocate of Dominionism, so I have added the template. Tom Harrison Talk 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed him from that template, since he is not infact such an advocate. Frjohnwhiteford 00:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says otherwise. 72.198.121.115 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says some agnostic reporters, who don't know theology from astronomy, attribute such views to him. That is a far cry from him being an advocate of such a position. For him to be truthfully called an advocate of such a position, one would have to find documented examples in which he had actually advocated such a position. Frjohnwhiteford 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To illustrate my point here: Hal Lindsey is listed as a critic of Dominionism. Can anyone tell me why he is not a Domionists, while Dobson is? Frjohnwhiteford 10:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, please see WP:V - the standard for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Including material because you know it to be "true", but which you cannot support with reliable sources is a violation of policy. 72.198.121.115 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is verifiable that some people have said he is a dominionist. Is it verifiable that he is an advocate of dominionism, as the template says? It takes more than a couple of political opponents crying 'atheist!' to meet the threshold of including Tony Blair under the heading 'Advocates of Atheism'. While it may be useful to report what people's critics have to say about them (subject to due weight and neutral presentation), I do not think we can say Dobson is an advocate of dominionism based only on that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A collection of quotes from those who wish to demonize him, does not establish what his viewpoint are. And rhetoric - particularly political rhetoric does not make quotes of acceptable quality for inclusion in Wikipedia. Indeed, as the topic now stands -without rebuttal, it is an excellent example of extreme undue weight. In order to comprehend the bias here, think of a group on the opposite pole say the ACLU, for example. If a section collecting all the critics, written claiming to represent the ACLUs viewpoint - how long would it last. The article badly needs cleanup; it is greatly weighted in favor of the demonizers It also focuses too heavily on the political aspect, and makes only the briefest mention of the rest of Dobson's activities over the years. Pollinator 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki Article on Dominionism points out that the term is used by those antagonistic to conservative Christians. It also speaks about it's Calvinistic Theological basis. Dobson is not a Calvinist or a Dominionist... and I have provided documentation to prove that, although that is a point beyond dispute. Therefore the claim that he is a Dominionist is contrary to fact. Unless someone can explain how Hal Lindsey is NOT a Dominionist, and Dobson is, the charge is baseless, and pointing that fact out is not editorializing. Frjohnwhiteford 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If Dobson is a Dominionist (or better Christian Reconstructionist), it should have reasonably easy to assert this using an academic cite. But I cannot find any, so this seems to be more like a conspiracy against Dobson to link him with groups he doesn't himself approve of. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence is not there. --LC 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalConservative (talk • contribs)
"agnostic reporters?" "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" We're accusing him of preaching a policy, not of founding it. Do not give someone an undue burden of proof. Mbelrose 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not an undue burden of proof. Dobson is a prominent evangelist, so it should not be hard to find a peer-reviewed article describing his views as "Dominionist" or Christian Reconstructionist. I checked, but could not find any. And using Theocracy Watch as source is kind of begging the question. Anyone can start a website, but not everyone can get published in an academic journal. --LC 23:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalConservative (talk • contribs)
You have put out a very narrow, arbitrary definition of dominionism, and then demanded an unreasonably high standard for any evidence to contradict it. Is it your contention that anything not published in a peer-reviewed academic article should be deleted from wikipedia, or is this article some sort of special case? It's entirely possible there are no peer-reviewed articles about Dobson's dominionist views, this is a current event on a fairly narrow topic. Does this mean all discussion on the matter should be avoided? Theory cannot be created without hypothesis, and it is the very nature of Wikipedia to gather as much information is available. Mbelrose 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I can find academic reference on Christian Reconstructionism and its movement, but they hardly make mention of Dobson, and certainly do not put him in the "supporter of theonomy" category. And no, it is not a current event, these references go back almost 20 years. --LC 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalConservative (talk • contribs)
There is a well written, cited, researched source from Theocracy Watch explaining the connection and specifically mentioning FRC and dominionism, and I have yet to see it refuted or even discussed. There are 30 cites on this page, what is so special about the dominionism one that it needs to be peer reviewed? I've long since passed the point of due diligence here. Mbelrose 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
When Theocracy Watch makes reference to articles like "The Despoiling of America" at Yurica Report, an article which boldly states that "Dominionism gained control of the Republican Party, then took over Congress, then took over the White House, and now is sealing the conversion of America to a theocracy by taking over the American Judiciary," then who am I to argue that one needs academic sources. If you change Dominionism here to communism, and theocracy to proletarian state, you have the basic story line of a John Birch Society article. --LC 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalConservative (talk • contribs)

Salon reference

The Salon article, The holy blitz rolls on, is an interview with Chris Hedges. In it there are two references to Dobson, one only in passing. In the other, Hedges says Dobson is consciously working to impose a totalitarian system in the US. It would support a statement like, "Chris Hedges says Dobson wants to impose a theocracy in America," or "Chris Hedges really dislikes the Christian Right," or maybe even "most on the far left hate and fear Dobson." I don't see how we could use it to support "Dobson's teachings include many tenets of the Dominionist movement." Tom Harrison Talk 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why single out Hedges? Why do you ignore all the others? Don't you mean Hedges, and Steve Thorngate of Sojourners magazine, and Frederick Clarkson of the Christian Science Monitor, and Abraham H. Foxman of the ADL, and Michelle Goldberg, and Max Blumenthal, and Ezra Klein, and Mel Seesholz, and Steve Gilliard, and Katherine Yurica, and... 72.198.121.115 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Salon as a source is fine, there is no reason not to use it. Odd nature 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Salon as a source. But the source cited does not support the statement that "Dobson's teachings include many tenets of the Dominionist movement." The source, Salon's interview with Hedges, says nothing at all about Dobson's teachings, one way or another. Tom Harrison Talk 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There are now several independent sources for this section. A person cannot discredit Harpers, Salon, and the New York Times if they're going to turn around and present a statement from the National Review as fact. Mbelrose 07:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not suggest Harpers, Salon, or the New York Times is not a good source, nor did I cite the National Review (though it too is a legitimate source). I appreciate the addition of 'It is claimed...', but it is exactly my point that the Salon interview makes no such claim. It says nothing at all about Dobson's teachings. It records Chris Hedges saying Dobson is bad. So my point again is that wonderful as Salon is as a source, and fine as the article is, and Chris Hedges' wisdom and perception notwithstanding, the source cited about Dobson's teachings says nothing about Dobson's teachings. Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, where are theonomist writings of James Dobson?! --LC 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalConservative (talk • contribs)
"we don't want people to think that we're comparing James Dobson to Hitler or America to Weimar Germany"-Goldberg "...I think there are enough generic qualities that the group within the religious right, known as Christian Reconstructionists or dominionists, warrants the word."-Hedges I interpreted this passage to be Hedges accusing Dobson specifically as being a dominionist. Please do not assume this is intended as original research, I am going solely off of Hedges' words here. You are also welcome to disagree with the wording, I personally hate trying to parse the laborious sentence and paragraph structure used in the news. Mbelrose 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past each other. An interview with Hedges in Salon is cited. Do you acknowledge that it says nothing at all about Dobson's teachings? If you maintain that it does, I guess we will need to solicit a third opinion - someone to go and read it, and report back. This is a controversial claim about a living person, so it's not really such a simple matter as two reasonable men with differing interpretations of a passage. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Proabably a communication gap. You're asking me to review and interpret Dobson's words to determine for myself whether or not he is a dominionist. That would be original research, which is both frowned upon and beyond my resources. If you wish to critique Edges' work, there are some very good arguments already in this article and the main dominionism article. Mbelrose 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is all I am asking: Do you acknowledge that the Salon reference cited says nothing at all about Dobson's teachings? Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Although since the phrase is not now in our article, maybe it doesn't really matter. Tom Harrison Talk 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

OK, now you have removed the POV tag. This article, as it stands, is full of one sided half truths, distortions, and fabrications. It is definitely imbalanced as it currently stands. You may be a system's admin, but you have an ax to grind here, and as you say, truth has nothing to do with it. How can you deny that the neutrality of this article is disputed? That is a fact. Frjohnwhiteford 05:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

An example of the kind of bias you have in this article. The article asserts:

"In his opinion, the call for men to lead isn't limited to the home, but reaches into both the church and government. He is highly critical of efforts to increase a female presence of leadership in these realms of authority."

Were is the evidence that Dobson is opposed to women leadership in the Church. Again, painting with the broad brush, and being ignorant of the differences among Protestants, one might assume so, but where has he ever stated this? Dobson is a Nazarene. Nazarene's have always allowed woman to be ordained as ministers, and to serve as pastors. I believe Dobson even has a relative who was one (but passed away). Dobson is even criticized by some Fundamentalists for this:

"In 1992, Dobson formed a new team to minister to pastors and to help them "balance their competing roles as spouses, parents and spiritual leaders." This outreach is headed by Dobson's cousin, H.B. London, Jr., who also was Dobson's pastor at the First Church of the Nazarene in Pasadena, California, before assuming the new position in Dobson's organization. In an interview from his office at Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, London said, "Every pastor deserves the right to be a father or a mother, a husband or a wife, along with their duties as a pastor." This reveals the compromise attitude of Focus on the Family toward Biblical teaching. God forbids a woman to be a pastor (1 Tim. 2:12), yet Focus on the Family refuses to require what God requires in pastoral leadership. Instead, they will "minister" to female pastors and encourage them in their rebellious positions in ruling over men." (Excerpted from O Timothy, Volume 9, Issue 8, 1992, p. 26.)

But of course this doesn't fit the template that those who hate Dobson wish to view him through. Dobson does think that mothers should be home with their children, ideally. This says nothing about women without children, or women who have grown children. Frjohnwhiteford 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to this one ministry, saying that Dobson is a "leader" of the "Dominionist movement," yet not a Christian Reconstructionist, is quite amusing. --LC 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberalConservative (talk • contribs)

POV tag needed

I think this article has a definite bias problem, and that the POV tag that Feloniousmonk removed should be put back, since it is rather obvious that the neutrality of this article is in dispute. Fundamental fairness should require that everyone, regardless of their opinions at least concede the undeniable fact that there is a serious dispute here. What is the consensus here? Frjohnwhiteford 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is lop-sided and seems like a press release from Focus on the Family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.41.246 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 May 2007.

Use of academic sources

I came to the article because I heard of this incident in which Dobson wrote an article for TIME magazine citing two academics for the purpose of saying that children need a mother and a father to grow up with, and two mothers or two fathers just won't do. Both scholars repudiated Dobson's use of their words and said that he misappropriated their research, and that their research does not support his conclusion that gay parents aren't good enough-- one of them even had directly addressed gay parenting in his book that Dobson cites, and said that love is what mattered rather than gender. Both asked Dobson not to cite them in the future without their permission. Anyway, I'm surprised that this is not mentioned under "views on homosexuality" or in another section which might address controversies. I see that the article is undergoing a review for neutrality; I'll check back in a week or so and if this isn't in the article I'll add it.--76.182.88.254 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage

{{RFCreli}} Should the article use the sentence "James Dobson is a strong proponent of the traditional Christian view of marriage," or wording that relates what Dobson believes about marriage? The first option is seen as stating what traditional Christian marriage IS (what Dobson says it to be), has the potential to be POV and political in nature (see Traditional marriage movement). 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Traditional Christian view of Marriage" has changed in time and space. I think it is more accurate to describe Dobson's views, rather than describing them as normative for all time and cultures. Pairadox's descriptive approach is more neutral and descriptive. Robert1947 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Also notice that the second sentence in Frjohnwhiteford's version doesn't even address Dobson's views, but rather presents what the Bible says - "Although wives enjoy a different role in biblical marriage than husbands, they are not inferior to men because both are created in God's image." Not this is what Dobson believes, just a straightforward this is biblical marriage. Pairadox 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not write the rest of that paragraph... but it might be better to qualify it with "Dobson believes..." or some such thing. Frjohnwhiteford 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
How has the traditional Christian view of marriage changed? There are non-traditional Christian views to be sure, but there is broadly speaking only one Christian tradition on what marriage is. There are different traditions when it comes to divorce, and possible remarriage... but that is a related but different matter. Frjohnwhiteford 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Rather than get into a debate about the history of marriage in christian history, wouldn't it be better to sidestep that entirely and relate what Dobson's views are? This is the article about him, after all, and not the space to define marriage, traditional or otherwise. Pairadox 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But Dobson did not come up with his views on marriage out of thin air, and that is the point. He is an advocate of the traditional Christian view because it is the traditional Christian view... not because studies have shown it works best. His views are rooted in his faith, and on this point, his views are rooted in the Christian tradition. That is not an opinion, that is an objective assessment of what his opinions are. Frjohnwhiteford 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So he believes in the marriage debt, eternal marriage, arranged marriages, dowries, morganatic marriages, and the view that women are essentially the property of their husbands? You should also see Traditional marriage movement for why this phrase is political in nature. Again, this isn't the place to state what marriage is or is not - this is the place to describe Dobson and his views. Pairadox 01:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Celestial marriage is a Morman idea... not a traditionally Christian one. Dowries have to do with custom... it has never been seen as an essential part of a Christian marriage. Inheritance customs likewise are customs that have never been seen as an essential part of marriage. The idea that both of the partners in a marriage belong to each other is a part of the traditional Christian view of marriage. The phrase "marriage debt" is not a universally used phrase... but the basic idea is found rather clearly stated in the Scriptures. And whether the traditional marriage position has political overtones or not, this is Dobson's view. It is traditional Christian view. It is a completely accurate and objective thing to state that without equivocation or any attempt to abscure the plain facts. Frjohnwhiteford 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
After looking at your user page and user talk page (interesting selection of topic removal, BTW), it's time to file a formal Request for Comment - it's now clear that this won't be resolved by dialoguing with you, nor are you willing to accept a Third opinion. Pairadox 03:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am quite willing to accept a change that is both fair and more accurate than what the text reads at present. Your problem seems to be with the traditional Christian view of marriage, rather than with the fact that this is Dobson's view. Whether you like it or not, however, that is his view. Frjohnwhiteford 11:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ccgjjg

I have reverted the edit "Dobson is a strong proponent of the traditional Christian view of marriage" for the following reasons: 1) Most individuals outside of Christendom would be confused by the term , "traditional Christian marriage" because they have no idea what that is. 2)Even within Christianity the correct interpretation of marriage scriptures is the subject of much debate. For instance Quakers, Assemblies of God, and Catholics have different interpretations of the marriage scriptures. Dobson's interpretations are "Dobson's interpretations" and should be represented as such, and these interpretations happen to be patriarchal. 3)Patriarchal means "rule of the fathers". It is objective, unlike "traditional" which is subjective, and means the same thing in every time and place. I also reverted the edit "women enjoy a different role in marriage" for the following reasons. 1) We do not know if women enjoy their different role. If women do a neutral source needs to be cited. 2) This " different role" is not defined. The reader, who may have no knowledge of Dobson or Christianity, is left to figure this out. I defined this role for what it is. Subordinate. Ccgjjg 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Parlimentary inquiry. When a request for comment is made, is it not normally the practice that time is given for comments before a user unilaterally changes the text? Secondly, "patriarchal" is not a neutral term. It is a feminist label used to criticize that which they see as sexist. Dobson would never use the term in reference to his own views. Traditional Quakers, Pentecostals, and Catholics do not disagree that marriage is between one man and one woman, in which both parties belong to each other, and must mutually submit to one another, but in which the man should be the leader in the family -- and being a leader is not the same as being a "ruler", in the Christian context. If you wish to dispute that, please cite the evidence which shows that there is a fundamental disagreement historically (i.e. Traditionally) among Christians on these points. No doubt you can find some Christians today who would disagree, but you would not find any denomination that taught anything different prior to the 1960's. Also, I find it more than a bit coincidental that Ccgjjg first and only contributions to Wiki are just now and this article. Whose sock puppet are you? Frjohnwhiteford 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Parlimentary answer. I have seen nothing to indicate that the article should remain static. Second, you mischaracterize the word patriarchy; it is commonly used in anthropology, without any feminist connotations. Third, Dobson's article is not the place to define marriage, traditional or otherwise, but rather report Dobson's views on it. Finally, you fail to assume good faith about newly registered editors. I see evidence that suggests User:Ccgjjg has been editing this article, as far back as July, under an IP address. Pairadox 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the more historical use of the term "Patriarchal". However, just as with many other words, such as "Gay", one cannot ignore the connotation that has developed. To label someone as "patriarchal" in our cultural is a derogatory statement. Were we talking anthropology, it would be different... but we are not. Aside from that, the term in its more historical sense is far too broad to be meaningful here. The patriarchal view of marriage in pagan Rome meant that the pater familias could have anyone in his household put to death for any reason... including his wife. Polygamous marriage would also fall under the broad label. These are all things that Dobson would never support. The traditional Christian view however is far more precise. Now if the article stated that the traditional Christian view was better, it would have a pov problem. However, if Dobson is an advocate of the traditional Christian view, then there is no pov problem in stating that fact. There would perhaps be a POV problem if we left out the word "traditional", because there are many people today who consider themselves Christians, who support gay marriage. However, traditionally, this has not been so. Dobson is, at least on this point, a Christian traditionalist. This is just a fact. Frjohnwhiteford 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an excellent article titled "Christian views of women" that already covers many aspects of interpretations of scripture on this subject, both current and historically. It would be redundant to repeat them here. Perhaps you would like to provide a link to this article. Furthermore, a quick internet search would reveal the Vatican, some pentecostal denominations, and yes "traditional quakers" have issued statements of belief on behalf of their entire denominations concerning this subject. Statements that differ from Dobson. As already mentioned "patriarchy" is an academic term that predates the feminist movement and is used in discourse regularly by educators. Indeed I've been following this article for months now and providing editions, though I have just now registered. Ccgjjg 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What statements have you found that would demonstrate that Dobson's views about marriage differ with the traditional Catholic, Pentecostal, or Quaker view of what essentially constitutes a Christian marriage? Frjohnwhiteford 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

My first instinct, as should be almost any editor's instinct, is to ask "What are the sources?" and "What do they say?" I find that the editing since Ccgjjg has arrived has made the sourcing of this section weaker; current source #6 does not support the sentence it is now attached to, but does support the sentence it was attached to before the RfC question was posed. Even there, though, it is too far into the original research space. He does support traditional marriage over alternative family styles, but Wikipedia requires sourcing.

The entire current section, in all the versions I've checked, runs too far into problems with non-compliance with the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Seek and find independent sources discussing his views, and use those sources. Given the original research problem, we aren't ready to address whether the coverage adheres to WP:NPOV, which requires "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" - without knowing what those sources are, we can't tell whether the coverage fairly represents them. GRBerry 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Yksin

I'm a previously uninvolved editor, coming here by way of the RfC list. It took me all of five seconds to do a Google search on the terms "traditional marriage" + "Christianity" to come up with a reliable source -- a Seattle Post-Intelligencer op-ed piece by Stephanie Coontz, a faculty member teaching history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Washington and author of Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage (Viking Penguin) -- which pretty conclusively shows that so-called "traditional marriage" in Christianity is hardly so universally understood as Frjohnwhiteford claims. See "'Traditional' marriage has changed a lot", originally published February 23, 2006. Pairadox says, a POV statement that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. With proper sourcing, the article can say that Dobson believes his view of marriage to be the "traditional Christian view of marriage", but for the article itself to claim his view is the "traditional Christian view" is hopelessly POV. I agree with Robert1947 that a description of what comprises Dobson's view of marriage is a better way to go than to make a (false) claim that his views on Christian marriage are "traditional" or normative. --Yksin 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article you reference that claims that the traditional understanding of marriage has changed has a number of problems. For one, it has no references whatsoever. It should also be noted that the author is a Marxist, and so is not a disinterested person when it comes to Christianity (any more than a member of the KKK is when it comes to the civil rights movement), nor is there any evidence that she has a clue when it comes to the history of Christian doctrine, canon law, or to Church history in general. Yes, she teaches history at a university. That and 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. But in any case, if the claims the author makes are true, she should be able to cite original source documents to substantiate them. Secondly, the spin she puts on her facts go well beyond any evidence she could cite to substantiate them. Thirdly, to suggest that there have been different understanding of sex is a whole different question. The Roman Catholic view was unduly influenced by St. Augustine. I can cite you references from the Ecumenical canons of the first millenium which refute the claim that sex in marriage is tainted. But that is beside the point here. Also, if one is going to talk about how marriage is viewed sacramentally or how the service was conducted, no doubt, there have been different views... particularly once protestants were thrown into the mix. However, there are certain things about how Christians view marriage that are universal, and always have been. Christians have never accepted the idea that a man could have more than one wife at one time. St. Vladimir, for example, was a Viking "Great-Prince" (Veliki Knaz) with many wives, but when he converted to Christianity, he had to settle on keeping only one... though he supported all the rest for the rest of their lives. There have been disagreements about how many times a person could be remarried in the case of death or divorce (according to the Ecumenical Canons, 3 was seen as the absolute max, 2 was a preferable limit... once was the ideal that should be encouraged), but never about whether a man could have more than one wife at a time. Christians have always seen marriage as a binding covenant between the two spouses. In the earliest form of the sacrament, the two parties simply received communion together... but there was no such thing as a valid marriage that was just a secret agreement with no witnesses.
All this to say, I would agree that the phrase "traditional view of marriage" encompasses a lot that Dobson would not support. The traditional muslim view of marriage, for example, -- which involes up to 4 wives (not to mention concubines), is one that he would not support. But one thing that even the broader traditions of marriage all have in common, is that they all involve men who are married to women. But for the sake of being precise, speaking of traditional Christian view is far more accurate. Frjohnwhiteford 10:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to forget that Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV requires (& this is a direct quote from policy):
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.
Whether or not Stephanie Coontz is, as you claim (a claim you haven't proven in any case), a "Marxist" is irrelevant from this perspective, so long as her view is published in what Wikipedia considers a reliable source -- which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is. Newspapers usually don't have room to contain footnotes & bibliographies; however, her view is lent creditability as being a significant view (per WP:NPOV) by virtue of that fact that she is also author of a full-length book on the history of marriage, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage (Viking, 2005) which has been widely reviewed. It's also fully searchable at Amazon.com; there, one can learn among other things that her notes take up a full 100 pages. So if you are flustered that her P-I piece doesn't have citations in it, check out her book. It in itself is sufficient to show that there is at least one significant view besides James Dobson's about what, if anything, constitutes "traditional Christian marriage"; thus, it in itself is sufficient to prove Pairadox's & Robert1947's case that using a sentence claiming that Dobson's view is the "traditional Christian view" is hopelessly POV by Wikipedia standards. Pairadox also makes a good point in stating that "this isn't the place to state what marriage is or is not - this is the place to describe Dobson and his views." --Yksin 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Those significant views are significant views on the topic of the article, or here the topic of the section. What we need are significant views in published reliable sources about Dobson's views on marriage. It has not even been suggested here that Coontz has published on Dobson's views, which makes her writings totally irrelevant. If she has written on Dobson's views (despite it going unmentioned so far), what has she written about Dobson's views? This whole discussion is comprised primarily original research violations, and this needs to be corrected before we begin discussing what this article should say. GRBerry 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The question of the RfC, & the question my comment responds to, is:
Should the article use the sentence "James Dobson is a strong proponent of the traditional Christian view of marriage," or wording that relates what Dobson believes about marriage? The first option is seen as stating what traditional Christian marriage IS (what Dobson says it to be), has the potential to be POV and political in nature (see Traditional marriage movement).
That's it in a nutshell: We're talking here about the very definition of the terms that are being used to write the article. To say that looking at how another writer besides James Dobson defines the terminology "traditional Christian marriage" is "original research" & "irrelevant" to this RfC is akin to saying that a good English-language dictionary is "original research" & "irrelevant" to this article because "there's nothing in Webster's or the OED about James Dobson." Coontz doesn't have a place really in the article itself, but her stuff does have a place in this discussion, because it has direct bearing on the definition of "what traditional Christian marriage IS" and thus whether unqualified use of that term in this article is POV or not.
As I've already said, there would be no problem saying that Dobson believes his view of marriage to be the "traditional Christian view of marriage". Perhaps the sentence could say, "James Dobson is a strong proponent of what he describes as the traditional Christian view of marriage." In my opinion, that would be sufficient qualification to meet WP:NPOV.
I agree with Frjohnwhiteford that "patriarchal" is a problematic alternative term, & not one I would pick. --Yksin 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not convinced that Coontz's views qualify as a significant view here. If her comments are worth noting at all, it would be in the article on Christian Marriage or perhaps on the article on the traditional marriage movement. Even if we assume that all of the facts she asserts are true... which is a big assumption, all she has done is make a case that the way marriage has been handled ceremonially in the Church has changed, and that laws about the rights of women in marriage have changed. This does not prove at all that the Christian view of what constitutes a marriage has changed. Christians believe a marriage can take place outside the Church. They believe a man and a women who are married according to the pagan aboriginal customs of Australia are truly married... Roman Catholics believe that, Orthodox Christians believe that, Protestants believe that. If that couple later becomes Christian, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox would say that through the blessings of the Church that marriage has a sacramental blessing... but not that was no marriage before, and became one when they entered the Church. The aforemented Christians traditionally would not have recognized such a marriage between two men, or a man and his horse, or between a woman and the villiage idol. Also, as for the "self marriage" that Coontz spoke about. In the past, due to people living far away from a minister on the frontier, people often were married according to common law... with out a minister. This still happens today in isolated places. For example, I know that many Orthodox Christians in China had no access to a priest since the cultural revolution until very recently. They were married in civil ceremonies. When they finally had access to a priest, their marriages were blessed by the Church. Dobson is not concerned specifically with the sacramental aspects of marriage that Coontz is disputing. Dobson is concerned with the essential aspects of marriage that exist or do not exist regardless of whether or not one is even a Christian. Coontz has done nothing to question what Christians have always believed about the essential, non-ceremonial, aspects of marriage. Frjohnwhiteford 10:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are proving my point. This is the talk page for the Dobson article, not the marriage article, yet your entire post was about the concept of marriage. Not one word about Dobson. It's best if this article stick to what Dobson believes and not try to editorialize about marriage. Pairadox 10:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are not getting the point. It is fallacious to argue that there is no such thing as the traditional Christian view of marriage on the basis of Coontz's article, because she does not provide any evidence that the traditional Christian view of what essentially constitutes a marriage (whether the marriage in question is a Christian one ceremonially or not) has changed, or that there is any ambiguity on the question. That Dobson is an advocate of the traditional Christian view is quite easily proven. No one is trying make the text read that Dobson's view is right or wrong... only to describe what it in fact is... and it is, on this point, the traditionally Christian one. If you wish to dispute this, please show me where Coontz has brought into question what Christians have believed about what constitutes marriage (any marriage), whether it be between Christians or between atheists, Buddhists, or Democrats. Frjohnwhiteford 10:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow up by Pairadox

I've decided to be bold and made some edits. Actually, I got tired of looking at a version that was blatantly wrong. Here's a rundown of the changes I made, based on careful consideration of this RFC. I don't consider this to be the best possible version, but rather one we can work with as a new starting point. Here's a run-down of the changes:

  • Dobson calls it the traditional Christian view of marriage. Now it needs a source.
  • Partially reverted User:Ccgjjg, because his edits did not support the source it was attached to, but the source did support (most of) the sentence in prior versions.
  • Removed wives enjoy a different role in biblical marriage than husbands For the same reason, it was not supported by the source. If a source can be found, it could be returned.

My next goal is to convert the sources into template format, which means that I'll also be checking that they match what's in the article. Pairadox 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The point about whether or not wives "enjoy" a different role is a symantic question. Americans enjoy the right to vote... but whether all Americans even care about that right is not the point, they have it... therefore they "enjoy" it, according to the first definition found in Webster... not necessarily the second definition. I don't care if the word is removed, but the reason should not be because there is no proof that women take satisfaction in having a different role than men. Frjohnwhiteford 10:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It was taken out because it isn't in the source material. None of it - not a word about marriage, not a mention of marital roles, nothing. Pairadox 10:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved editor: WP is an encyclopedia. The purpose of its articles is to publish informational content to readers, not anoint winners and losers in ideological battles over language. I suspect Dobson has outlined his view of marriage clearly. I suspect he has also indicated that it is his understanding that the view he holds of marriage is based on the "traditional Christian view of marriage". He is very public about his views, they're widely published. Find out exactly what he has said by consulting good independent secondary reference sources, then describe his view of what marriage should be, and describe, if sourced, that he characterizes it as the "traditional.. etc". I doubt this will be hard to do. Professor marginalia 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Licensed psychologist

There is significant further information about Dobson's education and professional background at his official bio on the Focus web site: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/press/focusvoices/A000000025.cfm

This bio indicates that he is a licensed psychologist not just in California, but also in Colorado. VisitorTalk 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead

The lead should mention that Focus on the Family is a publisher & distributor of materials from a large number of authors and speakers, not just Dobson. (http://resources.family.org/) In addition, the lead should mention something about Focus being founded in Pasadena, CA and its relocation to Colorado Springs, CO, where it is a significant part of that city's noted cluster of evangelical Christian organizations. VisitorTalk 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? This is the article about Dobson, not Focus on the Family. Pairadox 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see from the Focus article that I got the geography wrong - Arcadia and Pomona rather than Pasadena. But I do see plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for mentioning major personal relocations, to the place where the bulk of career notability and fame occurred. For example:
  • "Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Franklin learned printing from his older brother and became a newspaper editor, printer, and merchant in Philadelphia, becoming very wealthy. He spent many years in England..."
  • "In the early 1980s, Carrey moved to Los Angeles and started working at The Comedy Store..."
  • "Sagan lectured annually at Harvard University until 1968, when he moved to Cornell University."
  • "Driving back East from Los Angeles, Siegel happened to drive through the small railroad town of Las Vegas, Nevada. Legend has it that Siegel suddenly had a vision of turning Las Vegas into a gambling mecca."
  • "Born in Auckland, New Zealand, Currie emigrated to England in 1977, as a drop-out rock journalist. Currie squatted in various places in South West London, ending up in Lillieshall Road, Clapham Old Town. This turned out to be a major step on the road to stardom with the Thompson Twins."
In each of these examples, the move was not the incidental bouncing back and forth that does not particularly matter, but a fundamental change that directly led to the pinnacle of success and notoriety in the person's field. The move to Colorado Springs was every bit as important in Dobson's career as the other life-changing relocation examples I provided above. VisitorTalk 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see. I would suggest that any significant move be written about with Dobson as the subject, not Focus on the Family. "Dobson relocated to Colorado Springs in 19XX when Focus on the Family moved from..." Remember to keep the focus (no pun intended) on Dobson. Pairadox 08:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with your wording - which would focus on his family, not on Focus. :-) VisitorTalk 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Political endorsements

I just whacked a bunch of text about endorsements, or more accurately anti-endorsements, for the current election cycle. Most of it doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. The first paragraph I whacked might merit a sentence somewhere in the article about the '08 U.S. presidential election, but certainly doesn't belong in Dobson's article. GRBerry 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mother

Further information needed...

  • Name: Myrtle Dobson (Dr. James Dobson: Egyenes beszéd. Ford.: Greizer Miklós. KIA, Budapest, 2002. p. 303.)
  • Born:
  • marry: 1935 (Dr. James Dobson: Egyenes beszéd. Ford.: Greizer Miklós. KIA, Budapest, 2002. p. 66.)
  • had Parkinson disase.
  • Died in 1988. (Dr. James Dobson: Egyenes beszéd. Ford.: Greizer Miklós. KIA, Budapest, 2002. p. 20.)

- user:tothaa from library —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.201.128 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Football

He is for South California. (Dr. James Dobson: Egyenes beszéd. Ford.: Greizer Miklós. KIA, Budapest, 2002. p. 207.) -- bye, user:tothaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.201.128 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)