Talk:James Dobson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:55, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Dobson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

James Dobson received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Christianity: Arminianism / Holiness / Evangelical Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Holiness movement (assessed as Low-importance).
	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

LGBTQ+ studies

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: opponent of same-sex marriage, other topicsLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pre-Civil Rights Southern Upbringing

James Dobson was nearly thirty years old during the time of voting rights expansion for poor Southern African Americans. What do we know about causes and politicians that he might have supported during this time, which presented many changes to the beliefs and values of white Southerners? In his publications and broadcasts, all of which were developed and presented well after his PhD in psychology, and long after he had left the South, he simply does not mention any family value themes relating to matters of poverty or any admonition to Christian followers regarding care for and supporting attitudes toward the disadvantaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.65.236 (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a valid topic for inclusion in the article if any reliable sources have discussed it. Do you know of any? If we include editor suppositions without supporting evidence, that is called original research, and is not appropriate, especially about a living person like Mr. Dobson. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A third

Dobson is cited by social observers and the press^[who?] as a leading figure in the Dominionism movement.^[1]^[2]

Neither reference, though critical of Dobson, calls him a Dominionist. The second one doesn't even reference the term. The citations are fine and probably should be in the article, but not until they're placed in context with assertions that they actually support. Jclemens (talk)

References

^ Foxman, Abraham H. (2005-11-03). "Religion in America's Public Square: Are We Crossing the Line?". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
^ Clarkson, Frederick (2004-04-21). "On Ten Commandments bill, Christian Right has it wrong". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-06-20.

POV language: "traditional marriage"

"James Dobson is a strong proponent of traditional marriage." As User:99.74.99.206 commented earlier (and as suggested by User:173.3.206.86's recent edit comment), the phrase "traditional marriage" is sloppy and biased because its definition requires context that is currently supplied only by the POV primary source citation itself. The simplest fix would be to remove the sentence altogether, leaving the remainder of the text (suitably tweaked) to neutrally describe Dobson's views on marriage. Rostz (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it with a citation to RS -- all RS say he is famous as a supporter of traditional marriage. When telling readers a person's position, Wiki rules allow citing that person's writings as a RS on his views. It is the person's POV that is involved (which is OK) not the editor's POV (which is not allowed). Rjensen (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not define the phrase; put another way, the sentence adds no value to the article and should simply be removed. (And no, of course "all RS" do not say that, for example the top NYT hit.) Rostz (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

defining the phrase is another article entirely. "traditional family" is standard language not an absgtract sociological concept. The sentence adds a lot--Dobson and his supporters and opponents always bring it up. And yes the RS who wrote the NY Times article (Laurie Goodstein) does use the term: as in her article in NY Times May 30, 2004 "strengthening the traditional family, in part a reaction to the growing gay rights movement. ... By 2000, Mr. Colson and James Dobson, the broadcaster who founded...." Rjensen (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the use of the quotation as stated. Can someone please articulate an actual problem (not liking the terms that our RS use is not something we can fix) or remove the tag? Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is with the quote. The problem was with the first sentence in the section, which until recently read "James Dobson is a strong proponent of traditional marriage." The quote that comes after it has a source, but the point of contention is stated in a way that makes it appear as an established fact. Sorry, it's confusing, but I think the current configuration (JD is a strong proponent of heterosexual marriage. ... quote with explicit reference to so-called traditional marriage) is acceptable to both sides. addy12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The source doesn't say "heterosexual marriage", it says "traditional marriage". Sourcing either statement to a source that states the other is a misuse of sourcing, since the terms are not the same. As such, the willful falsification of what the source said has been reverted, and future attempts to make this source say something it does not will be met with blocks: we do not make up stuff about living people, even if we believe it to be true, that is in conflict with the source used to support that statement.

Jclemens, thank you for sharing many Wikipedia resources with me, including the Five Pillars. I was excited to read them, but I am discouraged to see you violating them openly here. Your allegation of "willful falsification" is very accusatory, and it certainly does not assume good faith. I also would like you to substantiate the allegations that you have used to calumniate me. Namely: I would like you to enumerate the specific ways that saying "strong supporter of heterosexual marriage" is a misuse of that source. I believe it shows that he is a very strong supporter of heterosexual marriage. Despite your accusations, I truly thought that so called traditional marriage was synonymous with heterosexual marriage, and sought a more specific, less-emotional term for people who might not understand its connotation. If you disagree, please explain why. This is not a matter of "not stated, not proven." This is easily inferred and strongly implied by the article; if you want everything on the Wikipedia to come from sources who state things explicitly, that is a slippery slope. The exception I suppose is that there really is a substantive difference between the two, which you seem to imply. If you can provide a nuanced description of how heterosexual marriage and traditional marriage differ, that might be helpful for future users. I think the onus is on you to share those differences, and then to make an argument for why your criteria for why the terms can and should be distinguished are superior. Finally, I will admit that while it wasn't intentional, I overlooked the problem with the sources, and would not have made the edit had I realized that the source linked to something else. Since this was the case, I will revert your last change, and remove the source, which should satisfy your objection until the above can be covered. Addy12 01:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Having said THAT, it's entirely possible to come up with another source to document a "heterosexual marriage" quote, but I can't see that replacing the "traditional marriage" quote, merely augmenting/adding to it. That is all up for fair debate. Sourcing wording "A" to a document that says "B" is not. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Will give you the benefit of the doubt that there is a good faith difference between hetero and traditional marriage and will remove the citation (and reversal) Addy12 01:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Addy12 until such time as he agrees to sourcing policies with respect to WP:BLPs: That each cited fact or statement must have a matching reference, and that is improper to replace a cited statement with an unreferenced statement in order to use wording not supported by the original reference.

It's entirely possible that Addy12, a brand-new single purpose account, is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I can think of at least three separate blocked sockmasters who might be inclined to argue in such a manner. I'll ask some more experienced CU's to see if they see any evidence of such. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, having said and done all that, please don't let that hubub interrupt the ongoing discussion. It's entirely possible to qualify or add to the existing statement, provided we do so with appropriate sourcing. I haven't seen anyone propose a specific cite they want added to the paragraph in question, which would probably be the next step in the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization

the term "traditional marriage" is not a neutral term -- when it is used by persons such as dobson, it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman, permenantly, until death. globally, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage", therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what is meant by dobson when he uses the phrase "traditional marriage".

the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" are only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals "christian". if this article -- and any other article that refers to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:

traditional Christian definition of marriage
orthodox Christian definition of marriage

personally, i prefer the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...

the wikipedia entry for "traditonal marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification... oedipus (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how much you people argue over nothing. Don't you have real lives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.86.26 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Dobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130817203753/http://drjamesdobson.org/About/Commentaries/The-rest-of-the-story to http://drjamesdobson.org/about/commentaries/the-rest-of-the-story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Dobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Dobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104231501/http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ to http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Dobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James Dobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by James Smith1967 rolled back

Hello. I rolled back James Smith1967's edits per my comments on his talk here. I don't have time at this moment to go through and add archive links (or even research every reference he removed) but having found two ref removals that were unnecessary indicates there were likely more bad edits. Killiondude (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Foxman, Abraham H. (2005-11-03). "Religion in America's Public Square: Are We Crossing the Line?". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 2008-06-20.

[csm-2] Clarkson, Frederick (2004-04-21). "On Ten Commandments bill, Christian Right has it wrong". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-06-20.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk header}}
 {{Controversial}}
-{{Old peer review|archive=1| small=yes}}
+{{Old peer review|archive=1}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|listas=Dobson, James|1=
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=Mid|church-of-the-nazarene=yes|church-of-the-nazarene-importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid|holiness-movement=yes|holiness-movement-importance=Low|arminianism=yes |arminianism-importance=low|evangelical-christianity=yes |evangelical christianity-importance=low}}
-{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=b|listas=Dobson, James}}
+{{WikiProject Biography}}
-{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=B |explanation=opponent of same-sex marriage, other topics|peer-review=yes}}
+{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|explanation=opponent of same-sex marriage, other topics|old-peer-review=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}}
 }}
 {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 }}
+==Pre-Civil Rights Southern Upbringing==
-{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|small=yes|dounreplied=yes}}
+James Dobson was nearly thirty years old during the time of voting rights expansion for poor Southern African Americans.  What do we know about causes and politicians that he might have supported during this time, which presented many changes to the beliefs and values of white Southerners? In his publications and broadcasts, all of which were developed and presented well after his PhD in psychology, and long after he had left the South, he simply does not mention any family value themes relating to matters of poverty or any admonition to Christian followers regarding care for and supporting attitudes toward the disadvantaged.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.97.65.236|68.97.65.236]] ([[User talk:68.97.65.236|talk]]) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-==Views on Tolerance and Diversity==
+:That sounds like a valid topic for inclusion in the article if any reliable sources have discussed it.  Do you know of any?  If we include editor suppositions without supporting evidence, that is called [[WP:OR|original research]], and is not appropriate, especially about a [[WP:BLP|living person]] like Mr. Dobson. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
-The section is really his views on the "we are family" foundation and has nothing to do with "tolerance and diversity". It's almost like someone is thinking of all the underhanded, dishonest ways they can slur against this man.[[User:Scatach|Scatach]] ([[User talk:Scatach|talk]]) 04:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 == A third ==
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 the wikipedia entry for "[[Traditional_marriage|traditonal marriage]]" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification...  [[User:GJR|oedipus]] ([[User talk:GJR|talk]]) 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
+Amazing how much you people argue over nothing. Don't you have real lives?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.92.86.26|72.92.86.26]] ([[User talk:72.92.86.26#top|talk]]) 00:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== "Not relevant" ==
+== External links modified ==
-Belchfire just edit-warred[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Dobson&diff=508736949&oldid=508736122] to keep out a paragraph contrasting Dobston's view of homosexuality as a psychiatrist with the mainstream psychological view. The stated reason was "not relevant". I would politely suggest that the relevance of this is obvious so the edit comment is false. I encourage Belchfire to expand upon his reasoning and perhaps build a consensus in his support, instead of further edit-warring. 06:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-:You claimed I removed the material without explanation.  But now you are crying to me about false edit summaries?  LOL.
+I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=707232123 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
-:My reasoning is pretty simple: this is Dobson's biography; it's not your coatrack to push your agenda.  As I already explained, if you want the material in the article, you have the burden to establish why it should be included.  Saying "it's obvious" doesn't cut it.  [[User:Belchfire|'''<tt><span style="color:black">Belch</span><span style="color:red">fire</span></tt>''']]-[[User_talk:Belchfire|<span style="color:black"><small>'''TALK'''</small></span>]] 06:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
+*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130817203753/http://drjamesdobson.org/About/Commentaries/The-rest-of-the-story to http://drjamesdobson.org/about/commentaries/the-rest-of-the-story
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
-::Right, "crying". I'm sure that was the most civil word that came to mind.
-::As I explained above, we state Dobson's views and then put them in context by contrasting them with the mainstream. This is required by [[WP:UNDUE]]; we can't give undue weight to minority and fringe beliefs, which means we need to point out when a belief qualifies as one of these.
-::If you cannot explain your objection on a basis supported by policy and sources, it carries no weight, per [[WP:CLOSE]]. So, "not relevant" turns out not to be an explanation. [[User:StillStanding-247|StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-:::"Not relevant" isn't an "explanation", it's a fact.  Unless one of those reliable sources as to the mainstream belief specifically comments on Dobson, '''and''' is [[WP:BLP]] reliable....  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-:::::Oh, you mean a secondary source such as http://web.archive.org/web/20080321081822/http://www.sovo.com/2005/6-3/news/national/anti-gay.cfm, which Belchfire deleted? [[User:StillStanding-247|StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
-::::::You're proving Arthur's point.  If all you've got is a partisan [[gay media]] source that isn't even in business any more, it isn't reliable enough for BLP purposes and wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion even if it was reliable.  Thanks for the help.  [[User:Belchfire|'''<tt><span style="color:black">Belch</span><span style="color:red">fire</span></tt>''']]-[[User_talk:Belchfire|<span style="color:black"><small>'''TALK'''</small></span>]] 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
+Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 16:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
-::::Is there anyway to make him stop the [[WP:CIVIL|civil POV pushing]] and work collaboratively? The damage he is causing is diverting far too much time from article improvement.&ndash; Sir [[user:Lionelt|Lionel]], [[wikt:evil genius|EG]]<sup>([[user talk:Lionelt|talk]])</sup> 07:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-:::::What's civil about it?  He's making blatantly false statements, e.g. "Removed without explanation."  It's not an isolated occurrence, either.  It's clearly [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]], and it's been going on for weeks.  [[User:Belchfire|'''<tt><span style="color:black">Belch</span><span style="color:red">fire</span></tt>''']]-[[User_talk:Belchfire|<span style="color:black"><small>'''TALK'''</small></span>]] 07:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::Yes, there's definitely a way. It's time for the RFC/U that you've been planning. Go for it. I'm [[User:StillStanding-247|StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-::Look, the best place to cover a specific discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of Dobson's personal views is probably either [[Homosexuality and psychology]] or at [[Homosexuality and Christianity]], and perhaps both.  The views aren't unique to him, even though he may have been a very identifiable proponent, and deserve to be covered in a detailed, expansive, and NPOV way that would constitute a [[WP:COATRACK]] if shoehorned into this biography.  Covering the topic once (or twice) centrally and linking to those discussion from articles like Dobson's allows for far more in depth and quality coverage than piecemeal treatment in many articles. "Debunking" is not NPOV, and FRINGE is not a license to put POV in articles that should dispassionately describe facts. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 07:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-:::Look, if the passage were shoehorning generic criticism of anti-gay psychologists then you might have a point. Instead, it's reporting on criticism specifically directed at Dobson. It therefore would not belong in [[Homosexuality and psychology]] or at [[Homosexuality and Christianity]]. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 08:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-:Have to say, there certainly needs to be some balancing regarding the material about his views on homosexuality. I am seeing a dearth of material criticizing his views, even though such criticism unquestionably exists and material about it could easily be supported with reliable sources.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 00:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
-::::I strongly agree. If you can take a moment to find some relevant sources, I'll be glad to help get them written up and in the article. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 04:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
+== External links modified ==
-If the sources specifically contrast the mainstream view with that of Dobson, then it should be in the article. Objections based on [[WP:COATRACK]] can only go so far. It's gone much too far at the moment. [[User:Acoma Magic|Acoma Magic]] ([[User talk:Acoma Magic|talk]]) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
-:I'm inclined to agree.  Coat-racking takes it name from coats literally covering up the rack underneath, i.e. criticism overwhelming the article so that they outnumber normal non-critical content.  A single paragraph is far from doing that, and is frankly a lot less than many other articles about people who are considered [[Crank_(person)|cranks]]. [[User:Legitimus|Legitimus]] ([[User talk:Legitimus|talk]]) 00:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
-::If a (reliable) source specifically names Dobson, it ''might'' be usable for that.  If it focuses on Dobson, it would be.  However, it appears the sources so far suggested contrast what appear to be Dobson's views to the mainstream, without naming Dobson explicitly.  ''Those'' sources would not be acceptable for this article.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
-:::The problem with the reinserted statements is that they do not clearly follow from the sources cited--or, at the very least, I cannot find the assertions simply in either the SPLC or Larry King refs.  While Dobson may indeed be near the end of his life, this is still a BLP, and such statements ''must'' be accurate.  Removal of inaccurate statements in BLP is 3RR exempt, and editors edit warring to insert content which has already been called out as inappropriate may be blocked by any admin regardless of involvement.  I would hope that won't ever be necessary, since it should be pretty straightforward to modify either the assertions to match the references, or find references which clearly support the statements as worded.  Still, better to remind everyone of the importance of ''getting it right'' proactively, rather than springing BLP enforcement sanctions on anyone else without a proximate and specific warning. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 07:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-{{od}}Clearly, we need better sources. Let's talk about criteria:
-# It has address Dobson specifically, else it's synthesis.
-# It has to be written by a psychiatrist or psychologist, else it's not authoritative.
-# It has to directly address Dobson's claims, else it's synthesis.
-# It has to refute them with quotes from mainstream mental health organizations, else it doesn't support the sentence.
+I have just modified 3 external links on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=775945718 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-Given these parameters, I was able to find an extremely good fit: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/false_focus.pdf [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727000847/http://www.gazette.com/articles/radio_38491___article.html/dobson_fame.html to http://www.gazette.com/articles/radio_38491___article.html/dobson_fame.html
-:Here are some decent book sources on the issue: [http://books.google.com/books?id=okQ-4YOQ4kAC&pg=PA56&dq=Dobson+homosexuality+mainstream+science&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Dobson%20homosexuality%20mainstream%20science&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=cf5RFWIMJugC&pg=PA69&dq=Dobson+homosexuality+mainstream+science&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Dobson%20homosexuality%20mainstream%20science&f=false]. One of them quotes the American Psychological Association on the matter.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
+*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/17/gay_rights_group_dobson_manipulated_data/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News
-::Thank you. With sources, more is better. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 15:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf
-::: (ec) And, as Dobson appears still to be living, it has to be published by a reliable source, so a self-published work by an individual doesn't count, even if said person is an expert.
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19228250
-:::The books seem promising, but the "google books" extracts make it difficult to determine whether the books are in the imprint's scinece lines (allowable) or political lines (possibly not allowable, as being the personal opinion of the author).  Still needs some more work.  Also, you need to be sure what we (Wikipedia) say is actually what is in the source.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901171332/http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers to http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers
-::::Even if they weren't reliable for establishing a factual claim about Dobson's views, they would be plenty reliable for establishing a factual claim about ''criticism'' of Dobson's views. If we really struggle to find a strong scientific source that mentions Dobson in this context, we could always say something to the effect of "These views have been criticized as being outside of the scientific mainstream" without there being any real problem with sourcing.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
-{{od}}Well, the latest attempt has been reverted[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Dobson&diff=509047859&oldid=509047643] so we're back at the old game of "what's your problem with this?". [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 02:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
-:Um, that reversion was a week ago, and has my explanatory note above to accompany it.  Is there a specific question about my objections--the sources don't actually support what was specifically said in the text--which wasn't explained above? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
-::I have provided sources that do support the statement.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-== RfC ==
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-{{bulb}}An RfC: [[Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?|Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?]] has been posted at the [[Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?|Southern Poverty Law Center talk page]]. Your participation is welcomed. &ndash; [[user: MrX|MrX]] 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
-== Relevance and sourcing ==
+== External links modified ==
-Belchfire just reverted another edit without following BRD by coming here to discuss it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Dobson&diff=514586220&oldid=514567478] I've evaluated the stated reason -- "sourcing does not equal relevance" -- and concluded that it does not seem plausible, so I'm going to revert it back now. If he wants to discuss it at some point, I encourage him to do so here and perhaps gain some consensus before reverting again. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 03:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-:I'm not going to revert, but: is [[Sociology of Religion]] a reliable source in general, is the paper a scholarly paper or an opinion piece, and is the statement sufficiently relevant to belong in this article?  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 06:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-::Do these tags serve a purpose other than to impugn the source on an indefinite basis? Likewise, when do we change descriptions of attributed statements to "claims"?
-::Unless you have a good answer to both of these questions, I suggest that you revert yourself immediately. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 06:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-:::It's a real question.  There are a lot of weird journals in sociology.  As I don't recognize "Sociology of Religion", and a URL wasn't supplied, I'd like to know more about it.  And, even if it might be reliable, is it sufficiently important to belong in this article.  We're not saying his views are non-mainstream; we're saying that Bartkowski and Ellison ''say'' that his views are non-mainstream.  Who are Bartkowshi and Ellison, and why should we care?  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-:::The journal has a reputable publisher, but their [http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/socrel/about.html "about" page] also says "we also welcome agenda setting essays".  It does not say they ''review'' those essays.  I'd have to see the paper to see if this is intended as a scholarly paper or an essay.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-::::The reason these two are saying it is because it's entirely true. We don't need to attribute it to them explicitly, just cite them as reliable sources. This is a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal associated with a world-class school, [http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/socrel/about.html] which makes it a higher-quality source than most of the ones we use without reservations. If you wish to claim it's merely agenda-setting, then it's up to you to dig up the full text and prove this.
-::::Arthur, the real problem here is that you are once again raising the bar artificially high when presented with a source whose views you dislike. This was discussed on [[WP:3RRN]] and bounced to another forum, but it's not going to stop until you stop it or they stop you. I strongly suggest the former. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 07:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-:::::Ok, I did your work for you. Based on reading the start of the paper[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3712036?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101080245683], I feel more than comfortable dismissing your objections. We're done here unless you have something more substantive. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-::::::OK, you're right.  We need to put it in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the authors.  I'll take care of it, if you haven't done so already.  I'm not entirely sure of the importance to someone who wants to know about Dobson, but the sourcing is good.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 08:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::The paper is explicitly about Dobson and the contrast between his authoritarian child-rearing practices and the mainstream. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 09:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::It is also important for the reader to be informed that his views are considered [[Crank (person)|fringe]].  While people have offered examples of other BLP articles who hold fringe views, many of them are ''obviously'' fringe.  Whereas it is less obvious with Dobson because it sounds credible on its face.  This is due to both popular ignorance of the subject and Dobson's own implied misrepresentation of his views as being based on psychology (which he holds a degree in) when in fact they are just his personal opinion stemming from his religion. Besides, it's just one little sentence at the end, not a huge [[Smear_campaign|smear job]] dominating the majority of the section, much less the article.[[User:Legitimus|Legitimus]] ([[User talk:Legitimus|talk]]) 12:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-{{od}}Right, [[WP:UNDUE]] requires us not to report fringe beliefs as if they're not fringe. [[User:StillStanding-247|I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-== Traditional marriage ==
+I have just modified one external link on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792512517 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-I just want to say that I agree with Belchfire's edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Dobson&diff=526796112&oldid=526795328 here], contra the IP-hopping anonymous editor. [[User:StAnselm|<b>St</b>]][[Special:Contributions/StAnselm|Anselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104231501/http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ to http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-:If there's been a POV edit here, it's the change to "heterosexual-only".  As I stated briefly in my edit summary, Dobson's views on marriage have a much broader scope than simply the gender of the parties.  Everybody understands that "traditional" means male-female, but Dobson also thinks that marriage is for life; that marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation; and that marriage should be conducted according to Biblical principals.  All of this is encapsulated in the word "traditional", which is found in the sources, but it's lost entirely by changing to "heterosexual-only".  [[User:Belchfire|'''<tt><span style="color:black">Belch</span><span style="color:red">fire</span></tt>''']]-[[User_talk:Belchfire|<span style="color:black"><small>'''TALK'''</small></span>]] 01:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
-::That, and the assumption that opposite sex == heterosexual.  Dobson/FotF-related ministries have encouraged those previously identifying as homosexual to seek out marriages as part of what they have advocated as a reparative process.  So, one might say that they're advocates of gay marriage, but not same-sex marriage. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
-:"Everybody understands that "traditional" means male-female" where the citaion for this, no consenus or factual?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/200.48.39.22|200.48.39.22]] ([[User talk:200.48.39.22|talk]]) 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-== RfC ==
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
-{{bulb}} a '''RFC''' arguing that the term "traditional marriage", as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is '''''not''''' a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization, has been logged on the [[Talk:Traditional_marriage|Traditional marriage Talk page]]...
+== External links modified ==
-the term "traditional marriage" is ''not'' a neutral term -- when it is used by persons such as dobson, it refers to the evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman, permenantly, until death.  globally, however, there are myriad forms of "[[Traditional_marriage|traditonal marriage]]"...  therefore, it is '''''imperative''''' that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what dobson means when he uses the phrase "traditional marriage" to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement for all...
+Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" when used by those such as dobson are only self-evident to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals a very specific understanding of "christianity"...  if this article -- and any other article that refers to "traditional marriage" where what is meant is a "traditional christian definition of marriage" -- is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:
+I have just modified 3 external links on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/811288509|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-* traditional Christian definition of marriage
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210003656/http://www.pointloma.edu/Athletics/MensTennis/Archives/Year_Coach_Record_MVP.htm to http://www.pointloma.edu/Athletics/MensTennis/Archives/Year_Coach_Record_MVP.htm
-* orthodox Christian definition of marriage
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707190532/http://www.radiohof.org/pioneer/focusonthefamily.htm to http://www.radiohof.org/pioneer/focusonthefamily.htm
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006062936/http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000716.html to http://www.focusonyourchild.com/develop/art1/A0000716.html
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-personally, i prefer the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...
-the wikipedia entry for "[[Traditional_marriage|traditonal marriage]]" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification...  [[User:GJR|oedipus]] ([[User talk:GJR|talk]]) 02:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-== Older publications? ==
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
-I have in my hand a hardbound book, titled "Hide or Seek", author James C. Dobson, copyright 1974 by Flemming H. Revell Company. It cites Library of Congress data {BF723.S3D6, 649'.1'019, 73-23033, ISBN 0-8007-0653-6}.  Is there any reason it should not be included in the Publications section?[[User:Jim Swenson|jimswen]] ([[User talk:Jim Swenson|talk]]) 11:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 == External links modified ==
@@ Line 162: / Line 130: @@
 Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678248280 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
+I have just modified 6 external links on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813368592|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713225454/http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=131 to http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=131
+*Added archive https://archive.is/20130117004430/http://www.ambassadoradvertising.com/media-center/family-talk-dr-james-dobson/news/family-talk-largest-launch-christian-radio-history/ to http://www.ambassadoradvertising.com/media-center/family-talk-dr-james-dobson/news/family-talk-largest-launch-christian-radio-history/
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120729170636/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/17/gay_rights_group_dobson_manipulated_data/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/17/gay_rights_group_dobson_manipulated_data/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728085049/http://www.tennisministry.org/LTS/lts-091500.html to http://www.tennisministry.org/LTS/lts-091500.html
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103144010/http://www.usc.edu/academe/faculty/especially_for/faculty/leaders.html to http://www.usc.edu/academe/faculty/especially_for/faculty/leaders.html
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.troubledwith.com/stellent/groups/public/%5C@fotf_troubledwith/documents/articles/twi_012701.cfm?channel=Parenting%20Children&topic=Discipline&sssct=Questions%20and%20Answers
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114095317/http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?p=0&ar=625 to http://www.tolerance.org/teach/current/event.jsp?p=0&ar=625
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211040635/http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FeelingTheHate.html to http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FeelingTheHate.html
+*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-24/politics/evangelical.vote_1_obama-bible-presumptive-democratic-presidential-nominee
+*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718221216/http://www.5280.com/issues/2006/0607/feature.php?pageID=400 to http://www.5280.com/issues/2006/0607/feature.php?pageID=400
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
+When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
+{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
+Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
+== Edits by James Smith1967 rolled back ==
-== External links modified ==
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[James Dobson]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=707232123 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
-*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130817203753/http://drjamesdobson.org/About/Commentaries/The-rest-of-the-story to http://drjamesdobson.org/about/commentaries/the-rest-of-the-story
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
+Hello. I rolled back [[User:James Smith1967|James Smith1967]]'s edits per my comments on his talk [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:James_Smith1967&oldid=849556369#Removing_citations_and_marking_with_cite_needed_tags here]. I don't have time at this moment to go through and add archive links (or even research every reference he removed) but having found two ref removals that were unnecessary indicates there were likely more bad edits. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
-Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 16:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)