Talk:James Dobson/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks Dave, the corporal punishment section looks much better now (See NPOV Part 2 below).  PublicServant 16:26, 01 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed right-wing to conservative in a couple places to make it NPOV.JumpingGerbil 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  200 Million hear the show? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LGBT rights opposition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You make a good point, Tijuana. I agree. Pollinator 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nicolosi quote 

message: I looked through DEFCON's website, and it's pretty mild.  There is a petition 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)
thread_title:  Dobson/Abramoff Connection? 

message: "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
*http://www.factcheck.org/article379.html - REFUTES DEFCON SLANDER
*http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0039768.cfm - REFUTES DEFCON SLANDER
*http://spaces.msn.com/rhysrabbit/blog/cns!64E1169A7D6A886A!1536.entry - REFUTES DEFCON SLANDER
*http://www.defconamerica.org/about-DefCon/ - liberal anti-Christian Right movement
*http://www.afa.net/dobson_slander.asp - REFUTES SLANDER
*http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49220 - REFUTES
: 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)
thread_title:  DOBSON/Abramoff Connection IS REFUTED 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shower controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  External links - appropriate or inappropriate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced paragraph in corporal punishment section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Stephanopoulos interview 

message: 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.   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)
thread_title:  AIDS and homosexuality 

message: 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."   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Im going to read up on the event, then I will give my opinion ;) slimp01 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Foley scandal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  China or Taiwan? 

message: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  "Publicly forgave Mel Gibson" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Twin Studies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources from family.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Relevance? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.  Good eye, CyberAnth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. -- Zz414 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Slagfest or Biography? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Note one needs to reference this link  Witnessforpeace 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Dobson on Marriage 

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

message: There is currently a dispute in Pornography addiction on whether James Dobson's views should be included in that article (see ). Personally I feel it would be more appropriate in this article. See Talk:Pornography addiction/Archive 1#Dobson.2C_.22opponents.22_out, thanks for any comments. Mdwh 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be appropriate to include a mention of his views in this article. VisitorTalk 07:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography addiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have removed him from that template, since he is not infact such an advocate.  Frjohnwhiteford 00:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article says otherwise.  72.198.121.115 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Salon as a source is fine, there is no reason not to use it. Odd nature 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I agree, where are theonomist writings of James Dobson?! --LC 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Dominionism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Salon as a source is fine, there is no reason not to use it. Odd nature 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I agree, where are theonomist writings of James Dobson?! --LC 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Salon reference

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of academic sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment by Ccgjjg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment by GRBerry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Follow up by Pairadox

message: 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)
thread_title:  Licensed psychologist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political endorsements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mother 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Football 

message: (reflist removed from this spot, see bottom of page)
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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: That might be overkill, but yes, the article should provide context that Dobson is not the Evangelical equivalent of a pope. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: All the sourced criticism of Dobson that exists in this article has been integrated into the appropriate sections.  The fact that there is room to expand the criticism does not mean that any was excised.  Rather, there's been an IP editor who's actually tried to remove sourced criticism of Dobson a couple of times in the past few weeks.  Much of the criticism of his ideas is integrated into other articles, like Homosexuality and Christianity, and I don't see any reason to rehash those articles here--actually, let me strengthen that: Criticisms of Dobson's ideas which prompt their own articles should be in those articles, and summarized here per WP:SS.  If there are specific, sourced criticisms that you'd like to see integrated into the article, I'll be happy to help you insert them appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lacks A Controversy Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huckabee endorsement 

message: I must admit to being new to Wiki.  That said, may I present a recommendation that could reduce the flavor of bias in the Dobson article.  
My recommendation is that the 'viewpoints' section be structured as follows:  
*a) Dobson's view, in his own words as available.  
*b) Indicators of those organizations & documents that agree with his view, including 'why', if possible.  
*c) Indicators of those organizations & documents that disagree with his view, including 'why', if possible.    
As example, paraphrasing, the section on 'Views on Marriage' mentions his view that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, followed by a parenthetical note that many organizations disagree, without reference to organizations in agreement such as Exodus International.  As stated, it has a flavor of "Here's his view, without support, and these organizations refute it soundly", which suggests bias.
Having also read the article on Dr Benjamin Spock, it seems that the structure of Viewpoint-Proponents-Opponents may be a good recommended template for all biographies of influential people, in order that both sides of each story may be told. 
Jj hil (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but if the viewpoints are just wrong, they don't get added.  The Earth is flat does not get added.  And if the viewpoints come in a fashion that is not wikiworthy, then they don't get added either.  For example, Media Matters is a biased organization that takes the news and twists it.  The story then, if any, is the news, not the twist that Media Matters added to it.  Further, this page should not be a rehash of material existing on other pages, except to the extent that the page's subject is involved.  Consideration should also be given to the article as a whole -- if the viewpoints section blows up its own self importance by being very large in proportion, then that could be a red flag.  If you have not already noticed, people like to use wiki pages as fronts in their own wars on the subject matter--they totally lose sight of the need to follow wiki policy to produce a quality, encyclopedic article.  James Dobson is a powerful magnet for such people.  I can see, by the way, that you are striving to produce a quality article, and I commend you for working with other editors to that end.  And know you as a new editor have equal value as any other editor, though some like to think otherwise.  Besides, you'll learn as you go.  So welcome!  Have fun! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Structural Recommendation 

message: The citations in this article are a mostly inconsistent mess.  Here's a few things anyone can do to help out:
#Use the name= parameter on existing references that don't have one, and then link use those instead of redundant links.
#Converst bare links to WP:CITET formats, especially .  Note that this will be simpler after #1 is done.
#Better source his opponents' criticism.  People for the American Way has an excellent set of specific, documented claims about Dobson, which starts at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17931 and extends for almost a dozen pages.
#When possible, find a citation in one of the existing sources (or find a new source and cite it--that works too!) for some of the tagged statements. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can help 

message: Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment