Talk:James Dobson

Views on Tolerance and Diversity

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.Scatach (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Relevance and sourcing

Belchfire just reverted another edit without following BRD by coming here to discuss it.[1] 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, [2] 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[3], 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)

RfC

B 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 Traditional marriage Talk page...

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 "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...

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:

• 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) 02:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Older publications?

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?jimswen (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links 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 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://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

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} 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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)