Talk:James Dobson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Church of the Nazarene      (Rated B-Class) Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Church of the Nazarene. (with unknown importance) Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) I do believe that much information in this article has a negative conotation toward Dr. Dobson and there is much information here that simply isint true. Ive already removed a statement saying that Dr. Dobson encourages parents to shun the PTA due to its "liberal" nature. I've found an article on the FotF website to the contrary. Also there are statements that go against the biographys of living persons policy. example: "According to critics, local schoolbook censors use Focus on the Family's material when challenging a book or curriculum in the public schools. Focus on the Family encourages Christian teachers to establish prayer groups in public schools. Dobson supports student-led prayer in public school but doesn’t support teacher-led prayer for fear that a teacher would encourage Christian students 'to pray to Allah, Buddha, or the goddess Sophia against the wishes of the parents and/or students'." "According to critics" is not a source, and the last two sentances contradict each other, one saying Dr. Dobson "encourages christian teachers to establish prayer groups", and the other saying he "doesn't support teacher lead prayer". WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: I do believe that much information in this article has a negative conotation toward Dr. Dobson and there is much information here that simply isint true. Ive already removed a statement saying that Dr. Dobson encourages parents to shun the PTA due to its "liberal" nature. I've found an article on the FotF website to the contrary. Also there are statements that go against the biographys of living persons policy. example: "According to critics, local schoolbook censors use Focus on the Family's material when challenging a book or curriculum in the public schools. Focus on the Family encourages Christian teachers to establish prayer groups in public schools. Dobson supports student-led prayer in public school but doesn’t support teacher-led prayer for fear that a teacher would encourage Christian students 'to pray to Allah, Buddha, or the goddess Sophia against the wishes of the parents and/or students'." "According to critics" is not a source, and the last two sentances contradict each other, one saying Dr. Dobson "encourages christian teachers to establish prayer groups", and the other saying he "doesn't support teacher lead prayer". (edit) WikiProject LGBT studies     (Rated B-Class) LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies: Homophobia significant to the LGBT community B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Archives
Archive 1 May 2004 - Dec 2007 Archive 2 (not yet in use)

[edit] Rewrite for neutral point of view

This article requires rewriting to achieve NPOV, and I added the POV tag. Dobson, the subject of the article, makes controversial claims and he is a controversial figure, but there is no "Criticism" section. One can easily find criticism about Dobson's published claims and criticism about the policies of his organizations. Without mention of criticism the article is both incomplete and biased. Please remember that whether the opinion(s) of an editor or reader align with those of Mr. Dobson or not, his views should be presented together with those of his critics.

Examples of biased passages and statements requiring citation include the following:

• "Dobson first became well-known with the publication of Dare to Discipline, a book that became a cultural phenomenon among Christian families." (This requires citation. With appropricate citation, the term "cultural phenomenon" might pass muster.)
• "At the invitation of presidents and attorneys general, Dobson has also served on government advisory panels..." (This is vague and unsubstantiated. If "president" is meant to refer to the President of the United States, it should be capitalized. The same for Attorneys General.)
• "Dobson suggests that falling heterosexual marriage rates in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are due to the recognition of same-sex relationships by those countries during the 1990s (pp. 8-9)." (Comments of this type should be followed up by references or links to the original studies. Comments by critics who dispute Dobson's interpretation of the cited studies should be included as well.)
• "He also believes that homosexuality is a learned moral choice, citing actress Anne Heche, and other individuals who practiced homosexuality and do not anymore." (The phrase "practiced homosexuality" is a phrase peculiar to a certain viewpoint and certainly not NPOV.)
• 'Dobson has written that "[t]here is no issue today that is more significant to our culture than the defense of the family. Not even the war on terror eclipses it" ' (Criticism about this viewpoint of Dobson's must be included in the article.)
• "According to critics, local schoolbook censors use Focus on the Family's material when challenging a book or curriculum in the public schools." (What critics? What aspect of the book is being challenged? Citations and details are needed.)
• The section "Views on discipline within the family" presents controversial views. Opposing viewpoints abound, and specific criticism of Dobson's views in particular must be included.
• "Dobson has contended that "tolerance and diversity" are "buzzwords"..." (As implied by the Wiki author's use of the word "contended", Dobson makes a claim that will certainly have its detractors and critics.)
• "Dobson believes that homosexuality is not genetic but a preference that is influenced through the child's environment." (This sentence is incomplete--"not a genetic" ....what?. It requires citation as well.)
• "Although Dobson initially remained somewhat distant from Washington politics,..." (Citation required. A rewrite would be nice, too.)
• "Dobson's Family Research Council is identified as an dominionist organization by TheocracyWatch[25][26], which says that the Congressional scorecard of the Family Research Council illustrates its success and the strength of dominionists in Congress." (This reference hides the fact that the TheocracyWatch website is highly critical of Dobson and his organizations.)

By comparison, the following short paragraph (already included as of 1 January 2008) demonstrates how Dobson's views can be presented together with those of his critics: "While Dobson is a licensed psychologist in California... mainstream psychological and mental health organizations have rejected his view..."

A controversial figure such as Dobson is certain to attract supporters and detractors to the Wikipedia entry about him, and this can benefit the article (and Wikpedia as a whole) provided all editors work to present both Dobson's views and the published criticism of his views.

I urge any and all Wiki editors to maintain the POV tag until the article's bias is fixed. -71.82.111.111 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; let's do that. Every article needs to be well-sourced, especially one about a living person who also happens to attract some controversy. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone (71.82.111.111 ???) claimed above: "...citing actress Anne Heche, and other individuals who practiced homosexuality and do not anymore.' (The phrase 'practiced homosexuality' is a phrase peculiar to a certain viewpoint and certainly not NPOV.)" I believe you have it backwards. A person who ultimately decides they are heterosexual can certainly practice homosexuality for some time before coming to the conclusion that they are not homosexual. Surely both sides of the debate could agree on that. To claim as you apparently suggest that Anne Heche and others were undeniably homosexual to the core and are not so anymore, that would be counter to the hopeful belief of the LGBT community that sexual orientation is innate and unchangable. While your other concerns may or may not have merit, this particular statement is already NPOV as it is written. Phonetagger (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV revisited

I don't think this article quite fails the NPOV test, but it comes close. The reason I placed so many tags on this article is because there are quite a few statements which are unsourced, poorly sourced, or in need of attribution (e.g. "Some people say...", "...many see him...", "According to critics...", etc.). This situation can easily lead to a POV article, as poor citations and attributions can be shaped to reflect an editor's POV, particularly with a subject who remains rather controversial. The better solution would be to replace those tags with citations & attributions, rather than viewing them as unnecessary. -- JeffBillman (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, you've just reverted my edit and claim the source is "not good enough" for the claim. What specifically do you think is unsupported in the following? (I've changed the formating of the refs) Pairadox (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• • While Dobson is a licensed psychologist in California and often couches his views on homosexuality in terms of psychology, mainstream psychological and mental health organizations^[who?] have rejected his view that homosexuality is abnormal and treatable.[1] ^{American Psychological Association: Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth}[2]^{American Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)}

The source is fine, Pairadox. The problem is with the clause that begins, "mainstream psychological and mental health organizations...". That begs the question: Which psychological and mental health organizations? Is it the APA? Just the APA, or are there others? Note that the tag I placed is asking for attribution in this case, not citation. (Although there are several other clauses and sentences that do need citation as well.) -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be something like that when I investigated the attribution tag. I feel that the info is in the reference, you just have to know what to look for (I almost missed it). If you click on the first reference you'll see on the first page that the publication Just the Facts "was developed and is endorsed by the following organizations:

• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Counseling Association
• American Association of School Administrators
• American Federation of Teachers
• American Psychological Association
• American School Health Association
• Interfaith Alliance Foundation
• National Association of School Psychologists
• National Association of Social Workers
• National Education Association"

So that one reference actually covers 10 different organizations. Quite honestly, I didn't even look at the second ref after that. I figured the APA, ADA AAP, NASP and NASW (couldn't resist the alphabet soup) were enough to justify the wording of the text. I'm willing to hear if you think differently, or if you have ideas of how to bring that out in the article and not leave it just in the ref. Maybe expand the footnote to include the list above as a quote? Pairadox (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "mainstream psychological and mental health organizations, including the APA, ADA AAP, NASP and NASW..." IMO, we don't need an exhaustive list, as that's what the citation shows. We just need enough to justify the "mainstream" label, or alternatively to demonstrate which organizations, specifically, are being cited. Is there some kind of consortium or umbrella organization which refers to all these organizations en masse? If so, maybe we can use that consortium's name instead of the generic "mainstream psychological and mental health organizations". -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

no such consortium. Those on the other side of the pov are a diverse group. Fremte (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's one option, although it might end up a bit unweildy or confusing with just the letters. What I was thinking was more along the lines of "mainstream psychological and mental health organizations have rejected his view that homosexuality is abnormal and treatable.^[1] blah, blah blah....

I would suggest that the wording be "mainstream national psychological, social work, educational and medical associations ..." , to include the breadth of the organizations. Or - it could be worded "Dobson holds a minority view about homosexuality, not accepted by mainstream national psychol, soc work, educ, med assoc ..." Fremte (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather not get into the whole "minority view" wording because then somebody is going to demand a citation that uses exactly that phrasing. Pairadox (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Which is unweildy in it's own way, but hidden at the bottom of the page, and the initials could be used if desired. But either way; you're the one that wanted attribution, so however you think it fits should be fine. If this solution works for you, why don't you pick another attribution or fact tag and let's work on it while we can collaborate? Pairadox (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Lacks A Controversy Section

Many of Dobsons views would be seen by large portions of the U.S. population as controversial. Adding a 'Controversy Section' to an article is the standard Wikipedia approach to presenting this aspect of a public figures life.

I would also add that not all Christians are fundamentalist, nor are all Christians conservative-- and contrasting/showing controversy between Dobson & more politically moderate or even Liberal Christian movements in the U.S.A. should be a part of such a section.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and was going to comment on it but I see you've already created this post. Comparisons of Dobson's views with not just opposing groups (left-wing, etc) but also academics, other Psychologists, other Christians is a significant part of Dobson's public life. Not having a controversy section ignores a big part of what makes Dobson worth having a Wiki article on in the first place. 68.55.150.25 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huckabee endorsement

Should it be added to the article? It was announced on [www.mikehuckabee.com] today. Would it be relevant? (ApJ (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC))