Talk:James Dobson

A third

Dobson is cited by social observers and the press as a leading figure in the Dominionism movement.

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)

Broken link needs fixing

The reference number 79 "^ Gorski, Eric (2008-06-24). "Dobson accuses Obama of `distorting' Bible". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-06-24." leads to a "Page not available". Please would someone fix this ? Darkman101 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Rostz (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

Spanking and NPOV

There's an ongoing attempt to remove a statement about the option of experts regarding spanking. I've yet to see any explanation for this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to save some time, before anyone claims WP:OR, here's a source that contrasts Dobson's views on spanking with the view among secular experts.[1] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's your explanation: it doesn't belong in the article. The article is about James Dobson, not somebody's opinion of his beliefs. Your sources are unimportant, because the content is irrelevant.

And by the way, it needs to be pointed out that your SOLE interest in this article is to stalk and harass me. Knock it off. Belchfire-TALK 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Same old WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. I got here from Chick-fil-a, remember?

Anyhow, here's a great example of juxtaposition between Dobson's spanking views and those of experts.[2] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Dobson, which is why we say what his views are, and then follow WP:NPOV by pointing out whenever they disagree strongly with the consensus of experts. So, for example, when a notable person endorses Creationism, it is WP:NPOV to cite the fact that Creationism is rejected by science. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Juxtapose it somewhere else, it's not relevant here. If you want to pretend to be neutral, try a little harder by bringing in other experts who agree with him. Didn't think of that, did ya? Why not? Belchfire-TALK 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How kind of you to tell me what I thought of. Perhaps your crystal ball can read my response. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is counterproductive, not to mention boring, so I dropped a note on Talk:Spanking, calling for editors to come here and help out. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here via that note. Unfortunately, I cannot say if the passage is appropriate to add.

While the majority opinion among experts is that spanking is harmful, and Dobson is more or less stands all alone with his opinions save for 2-3 other fringe experts, and is something of a laughing stock among psychologists for his opinions on child discipline, that does not per se mean that it is necessary or proper to point this out to the reader. Readers who are interested in the facts about it can click through to spanking, whereas readers simply wanted to know Dobson's opinion would read here. But again, that is just my take based on what I know about this topic.Legitimus (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My thinking is that the fact his view is fringe is itself notable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just come here via that note, also. What passage are we talking about? It is not clear what is being discussed here. At a quick glance, I can't see anything wrong with the article as it now stands, from a WP point of view. The man is an obvious charlatan, but we have to represent his views neutrally. -- Alarics (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Alarics, we're talking about the passage just deleted.[3] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I agree with Belchfire. That passage is not about Dobson specifically, and therefore does not belong in this article. -- Alarics (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. How do you feel about including something else that does reference Dobson and puts his spanking views in context? For example, this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of "it isn't about Dobson" are you having trouble with? Belchfire-TALK 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the source. It's about Dobson. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. The proper place to discuss the scientific consensus on any view is in the article on that view itself, not in the articles of various adherents. Including such statements is not NPOV, but people with unpopular views and/or a substantial number of detractors tend to attract such attention--Dobson's far from unique in that respect. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Dobson was a minister, I think I'd agree. My concern is that he's a psychiatrist, so if we state his psychiatric views without context, we'd be misleading people into thinking they're something other than fringe. This also applies to the more recent deletion of a passage that contrasts his views about homosexuality with that of the psychiatric mainstream. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a new argument, but not a convincing one, either. Readers aren't stupid, and yes, they do get sufficient context by us wikilinking to the article where the subject is discussed in detail. It is not NPOV to use Wikipedia's voice for a preemptive debunking of a particular person's views in their biographical article. That sort of piecemeal discussion of topics leads to numerous tugs-of-war over the wording of contentious statements, rather than focusing efforts on a centralized, topical article where all can be given appropriate weight, the best scholarship can be applied, and RfC's lead to a centralized resolution of disputed matters. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're mistaken about this, as shown by Rupert Sheldrake. Here we have another case of someone who speaks as a professional but does not follow professional standards, so there's an ample section discussing the contrast between his views and those of the mainstream.

In general, we are to avoid WP:FRINGE views, but in cases such as Dobson's and Sheldrake's, we must report them because they are biographically relevant. We compensate by not reporting them in a vacuum; we cite sources that identify the beliefs as fringe. We do not do it in Wikipedia's voice, but rather that of the mainstream sources we use. Another good example is this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is how we handle descriptions of the views themselves. A view on spanking in Dobson's article is simply descriptive; to either support or debunk it is POV and inappropriate COATRACK for this article. A discussion of the merits, objections, scientific debate, etc. belongs in the article on the subject proper, not on tangentially related articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Ben_Stein#Opposition_to_the_theory_of_evolution or Michael_Behe#Irreducible_complexity_and_intelligent_design, you can see that the bios of these two Creationists make it clear that their views are scientifically fringe, just as with Sheldrake. This is true even when there are articles dedicated to discussing these views in detail; we just summarize and link. So, for example, I wouldn't expect this article to go on at length regarding the contrast between Dobson's psychiatric view on homosexuality and the mainstream view, but we should mention the conflict and link to something like Homosexuality and psychology. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that no one agrees with you. I haven't looked closely at this particular issue, but, generally, when no one agrees with you, the material you propose should not be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As that's not a response to the issues I raised, I don't see why you're sharing it. No, wait, I do, but it's not a good reason. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No one agrees with you that there is an actual issue. That is a response. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's a conclusion. A response might go into why Behe and Sheldrake are somehow different from Dobson and deserve different treatment.

I'm on record saying that WP:DRN is broken because it tends to turn into a vote instead of trying to resolve the content dispute. Your behavior here makes the same error. You are essentially trying to intimidate me instead of persuade me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sensing a more personal dispute at work here rather than rational decision making. So let me be the first outsider to say that, in light of the examples of Sheldrake and Behe, I think mentioning criticism of his views is warranted. However, I did take note that such material in the aforementioned examples are from sources speaking directly about the person who is the subject of the article, not merely sources that contradict the view itself. If there is a reliable source wherein Dobson is specifically called out as wrong by other psychologists, I think that can used.Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's stick to the content discussion. Dobson was the mouthpiece of Focus on the Family for some time, so some of the citations in Focus_on_the_Family#Misrepresentation_of_research specifically mention him by name as misrepresenting scientific papers. I think those citations would be adequate for a brief mention here of how Dobson's views differ from the psychiatric mainstream. What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think if the article were to include such criticism, the criticism itself would need to be notable. Something buried deep in the literature, while it may have scholarly credibility, shouldn't be unearthed and used to distract from the topic of this article. Criticism from a mainstream source that has been in the public eye would be another matter. Obviously, this would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Belchfire-TALK 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, though Sheldrake and Dobson are both obvious charlatans, they are not really comparable in one important sense, viz. Sheldrake has constructed his own unique personal theory about how the world works. The only reasonable place for WP to discuss this is in the article about Sheldrake. Dobson has merely opined that spanking can be useful in certain circumstances, a view which, however incorrect most "experts" might think it to be, is widely held in the society and by no means peculiar to Dobson. In other words, Dobson is not "fringe" to anything like the same degree as Sheldrake. Dobson's views may be controversial but they are quite commonplace, and so the article about him is not the place to go into the arguments on that particular issue, which are already extensively discussed in articles on that topic. -- Alarics (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he's wrong, it's that he's lying. He has certain conclusions that he wants to support on the basis of his politics, and he's been caught lying about the contents of academic papers and studies so as to distort them in his favor. That's not discussed in Spanking. It has to be discussed here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source that called Dobson out for his distortions on the topic of spanking?Legitimus (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some.[4][5][6][7] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Lessee, what do we have here... (1) a blog post by some person calling himself "dogemperor"; (2) a broken link to a dead domain that doesn't even ping; (3) a refutation of spanking from "Steph" (no credentials) that is based 100% on Biblical grounds (strange indeed that you would try to use this, given your attitude about such things); (4) and a random mention of Dobson plopped into the middle of an article that doesn't address his views directly or make any real attempt to refute them.

In short, what you have here is a bunch of piffle. Belchfire-TALK 05:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The findingDulcinea article explicitly contrasts Dobson with the mainstream, which is exactly what we need to avoid WP:OR. NoSpank, Talk2Action and WhyNotTrainAChild are gold mines of relevant quotes and citations. I guess "piffle" must mean WP:IDONTLIKE. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Piffle" means that "dogemperor" and "Steph" (no last name or professional credentials) are not reliable sources, and that the remaining link (the one that actually works) doesn't approach the issue. Come back when you have something meaningful. Belchfire-TALK 07:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The phrase "come back" almost makes it sound as if you can send me away. Surprisingly, you are not the arbiter here. It's not BelchfirePedia. When it is, I'll let you know.

Anyhow, your incivility aside, you're wrong on all the facts. As I said, the findingDulcinea article is precisely what we need to show that Dobson's views on spanking conflict with mainstream psychology without any original research or synthesis. The other articles, as I explained, are useful resources because of what they point to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources are anywhere near "reliable". If added to support a statement in the article, they should be promptly removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They haven't been used in the article, and they aren't likely to be. I'll recap for you, since I don't blame you a bit for not unwinding the discussion. Some off-topic content was removed, and now Still is arguing to put it back in. But he's having a little trouble backing it up with sources, as you can see. Belchfire-TALK 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite so, and I and others have already explained why we don't "need to show that Dobson's views on spanking conflict with mainstream psychology". This is an article about Dobson, not an article about spanking. Time to stop POV-pushing. -- Alarics (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found two sources that may be useful, but require further investigation due to being scholarly papers: Divergent Models of Childrearing in Popular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the Mainstream Experts Bartkowski & Ellison, Society and Religion, 1995 and Neopatriarchy and the Antihomosexual Agenda Snyder, 2003.

I will not add anything until I have obtained full copies and read them.Legitimus (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to concur with Alarics on this. Not only should the sources single out Dobson specifically, but there should also be some notability attached to them. Dobson himself is highly notable, which sets him up as a target. Therefore we shouldn't give undue weight to an opposing view simply because Dobson was a target of convenience for some no-name researcher whose work never achieved any currency. Belchfire-TALK 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, findingDulcinea is used as a reliable source by many Wikipedia articles, so you're mistaken in this matter. Alarics, you put forth an argument, yes, and I refuted it with examples such as Behe. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you should go fix the problems with those articles, instead of re-introducing them here. Belchfire-TALK 18:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The false premise here is that there's something wrong with those articles, But, hey, if you really believe that, feel free to go edit them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources I selected specifically call out Dobson due to books he wrote (per a specialized library search I did). But I need more details before I can elaborate.Legitimus (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we're not going anywhere so take your time. In the end, whatever you find, Belchfire will object to including it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"findingDulcinea" is a tertiary source, per their FAQ. Even if it is reliable, we should use the secondary sources they point to. We might use them as an indication of notability, if their FAQ is to be believed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant rebuttal

Belchfire, this is your big chance to justify your edit[8]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hilariously, he never did see fit to respond. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Not relevant"

Belchfire just edit-warred[9] 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)

You claimed I removed the material without explanation. But now you are crying to me about false edit summaries? LOL.

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. Belchfire-TALK 06:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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. StillStanding (24/7) (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.... — 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? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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. Belchfire-TALK 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyway to make him stop the civil POV pushing and work collaboratively? The damage he is causing is diverting far too much time from article improvement.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 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. Belchfire-TALK 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 StillStanding (24/7) (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. 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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (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.--The Devil'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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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. 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 cranks. 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. — 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. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, we need better sources. Let's talk about criteria:

1. It has address Dobson specifically, else it's synthesis.
2. It has to be written by a psychiatrist or psychologist, else it's not authoritative.
3. It has to directly address Dobson's claims, else it's synthesis.
4. It has to refute them with quotes from mainstream mental health organizations, else it doesn't support the sentence.

Given these parameters, I was able to find an extremely good fit: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/false_focus.pdf I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some decent book sources on the issue: [10] [11]. One of them quotes the American Psychological Association on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. With sources, more is better. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(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.

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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the latest attempt has been reverted[12] so we're back at the old game of "what's your problem with this?". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (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? Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have provided sources that do support the statement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance and sourcing

Belchfire just reverted another edit without following BRD by coming here to discuss it.[13] 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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (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? — 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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (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? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The journal has a reputable publisher, but their "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. — 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, [14] 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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did your work for you. Based on reading the start of the paper[15], I feel more than comfortable dismissing your objections. We're done here unless you have something more substantive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (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. — 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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also important for the reader to be informed that his views are considered 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 job dominating the majority of the section, much less the article.Legitimus (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP:UNDUE requires us not to report fringe beliefs as if they're not fringe. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Traditional marriage

I just want to say that I agree with Belchfire's edit here, contra the IP-hopping anonymous editor. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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". Belchfire-TALK 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. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Everybody understands that "traditional" means male-female" where the citaion for this, no consenus or factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.39.22 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)