Talk:Lou Dobbs

I have removed several biased or offensive articles on this talk page that have no relevance to the improvement of this article. Please refer to the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines before posting to see what is and is not considered acceptable. Thank you and remember to be bold when editing Wikipedia! ~~~~

Please Remember

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. Wizardry Dragon 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The current version of this article about Lou Dobbs says Rick Kaplan was accused of having a liberal bias. That complaint could be made of any conceivable person in news, regardless of the merit of the accusation. But what does it have to do with Lou Dobbs? I took it out because it's partisan note about someone other than the article's subject, but someone put it back in. What's the point? It's unnecessary. Put that stuff in a blog, not an encyclopedia.

Read it in the context of the sentence—it was the implied reason for the clashes with Dobbs. Postdlf 16:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Pro-Dobbs statement edited:

• "is a Harvard-educated economist" -> "earned a degree in economics from Harvard University. Identifying someone as an X-ologist, where X-ology is a very deep and rigorous enough field, based largely on an undergraduate degree is a stretch. I doubt Harvard would call their bachelor's graduates in economics economists. Certainly the degree and his initial posting as CNN's chief economics correspondent continue to bear mention.

Anti-Dobbs statement removed:

• "Dobbs has cut his ties to the white supremacist movement but has never been apologetic about them." ...what ties? when? This is a recent addition of 24.128.48.91. Is it a broad reference to the Minuteman Project? If so I have to say it's overbroad.

Ambiguous statement moved here for now:

• "his possibly libertarian stance on certain social issues." Since I've reframed it, downplaying his supposed "conservatism" per se – I believe his book endorsed or seemed to the Democrats in the last election – the fact he doesn't beat the social issue drum is less important, and the suggestion of a possibly libertarian stance isn't much to go on, unless we have something further documented.

And yep, I've broken out, changed and added to a new section on Political positions. Thoughts? Samaritan 14:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Boycott Lou Dobbs Statement removed: Petty vandalism removed. Let's try and keep this kind of stuff out of this page please, regardless of what we think of him.

---

Lou Dobbs Watcher revised

Proposed Article addition to Main Page :

• Goal: To Give insight to Dobbs Opinions
• Dobbs said: "I am not fair and ballanced, I get paid to give my strong opinions to english speaking americans.
• Lou Dobbs is the "Tip Of The Iceberg" in post 911 America where we are focused on Homeland security and always knowing who are neighbors are we are terrified by immigrants who are not cleared by the goverment as being safe (not criminals) first.
• Under current laws we have no way of weeding out the criminals from the good ones.
• US Bureau Of Immigration and Customs Enforcement notice: [[[1]]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bureau_of_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement

I watch Lou Dobbs every night with my wife. I do not think that his views about protecting american jobs and borders from illegal invaders is the least bit out of touch with the American values of his target audience that is english speaking American citizens.

• Dobbs said: "If you want to watch pro "Mexican" news go to "Mexico" where they have tougher immigration laws than we do! He believes that the US should accept immigrants from every nation on the earth fairly with no favorites, all nationalities should have access to US immigration and Mexicans should have thier percentage of the immigrants we choose to let in each year and no more. He is not a racist but he believes that Mexicans believe they have more right to immigrate here in greater numbers than all the people from India, Africa, Asia or the Middle East combined. Is that fair? We are not a State of Mexico where people can come and go freely across our border. It is a national border like between Iran and Iraq.
• One thing to keep in mind in this article is that Lou Dobbs News is aimed towards the 280 Million English Speaking American citizens in the country not the others. Many Ilegals have targeted Lou Dobbs for his tough American news style. This probably is innefectual because his audience does not care about offending the very illegal people they want deport. Lou Dobbs work on the premise that most English speaking Americans are looking for a permanent way to enforce our border security and keep illegal criminals out. Hundreds of thousands of American Citizens are seething and at the point of revolting against the unfair immigration policies of our country that seem to allow more mexicans to come to the USA than we allow any other nation on earth to come here. [ http://www.newnation.org/NNN-news-invasion.html]
• It is a very real fear for Americans; fostered by unprecendented illegal alien coverage and visability; highlighted by hard numbers of how many illegals have come here. With some, radical elements, gaining populaity advocating taking up arms and do violence against these non-citizens aiming to send them home. Government innaction may spawn just such rebbellion by the 280 million legal Americans.
• Lou Dobbs points out that many illegals are to be considered hardened criminals, drug dealers, drug users, gang members and petty felons.
• Under current laws we have no way of weeding out the criminals from the good ones. Thus so, many Americans see all illegal aliens as criminals or those who are only marginally in the law. This means some work in under the table jobs or do not pay taxes. Something that the goverment would greatly penalize Americans for. It is a doulbe standard then.
• Lou Dobbs supports finding a permanent solution to enforcing our borders and deporting people who are marginally criminals here in the US. This includes people who have overstayed thier VISA's. We don't want a foriegn speaking subculture here in the USA like Canada has in French Quebec.

• Lou Dobbs said all of this and made it clear that all criminal types must be properly screened out before being allowed to enter the USA. Lou Dobbs stands for and if some people find it inflamitory... the world is not Politically Correct! On Monday,

4/16/06 Lou Dobbs Said: "I never claimed to be fair and ballanced..." Reality is harsh! -- Who Supports Lou Dobbs & Advocates orderly Deportations of Illegals? [[2]]

• • We are a diversely ethnic people basicly only united by our Language and shared culture. We can accomidate and naturilize a few immigrants but not an invasion. Theres a lot more to being a good American citizen than having a job. It has to do with conforming to some degree with our language and culture.

merlinus 23:15, 17 April 2006

Being pointed here with this as a candidate for adding to the article, I have to suggest that you keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia that conforms to Neutal Point of View guidelines. Perhaps a good way to approach it would be to label the section Criticisms of Lou Dobbs and remove the biased language. Wizardry Dragon 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Removed Dobbswatch.com & Opinion Journal

I removed the link to the site regarding both these entries as they don't provide unbiased information. The first is merely a site poised to bash the man and the second provides quips with no factual data, wholly ones own opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with his message Dobbswatch and the link to the Opinion Journal are clearly not neutral. Which prevents the reader from deciding for themselves without having to endure the childish commentary. Opinion has its place in regards to Lou Dobbs, and this isn't the place to link to them. --216.254.126.222 06:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The first site is written by the VP of the National Association of Manufacturers. There is no requirement that external links be neutral. See WP:EL. -Will Beback 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. --216.254.126.222 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.) --216.254.126.222 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

NOTE relating to items #3 and #9: Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included. --216.254.126.222 06:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who the first article is written by it's relavancy on Lou Dobbs isn't relevant in providing anything near neutral. It's like having an entry for a racist group and then linking to a Catholic priest on why this group is wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with the racist group and doesn't provide any neutrality or fact. The links themselves are unbalanced.

Please also review the following Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial --216.254.126.222 06:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement for external links to follow NPOV. On the contrary, we use external links to provide differing viewpoints. I am not associated with the linked sites. The blog is directly related ot this topic, being solely about Dobbs. -Will Beback 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of the Wikipedia article is to be neutral, and the entire point of website links is to provide differing points of view. In fact, there is a bias in the links right now, because not all viewpoints are covered appropriately. Wizardry Dragon 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are additional viewpoints that aren't represented then please feel free to add some links which illustrate those views. -Will Beback 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would if I had time myself, but please feel free to add them yourselves people, I'm not the only contributor to Wikipedia. Be bold! Wizardry Dragon 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least tell us which viewpoints are not included? -Will Beback 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves there were quite a few that were deleted, and I'm sure at least a couple of them were usable links. Sorry I can't be of more assistance right now - but I'll try to give it a hack in a couple days if no one else beats me :) Wizardry Dragon 00:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the above links. In the advent that you wish to replace the links do so when you find differing points of view and the links are balanced. In the meantime, they should remain removed. Thanks; as for discussion purpose " Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." Unless you are asserting the blog and opinionjournal are of high standard the rest of it clearly states the general premise. You've clearly misread it. --216.254.126.222 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Wall Street Journal peice is high-quality, as is the blog. -Will Beback 03:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will and have reverting the change back to Will Beback's latest version. Next time, please defer to the talk page before you make controversial changes. Thank you. Wizardry Dragon 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with this. Reverting the changes and will escalate further. --216.254.126.222 23:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't act without consensus. You may not be familiar with Wikipedia, but many articles have links that are critical of their subject. -Will Beback 00:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus says the links should be in, so they'll be in. In either event, do not revert it again, or you could be reported under the 3 revert rule. (If this is going to become a problem then perhaps the article should be protected indefinetely, as other than the redlinks potentially being fixed, the external links being deleted is the only thing that is going on here.) Wizardry Dragon 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Wikipedia enough to know that the two links in question are removable under the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. Concensus so far includes two people. That's not concensus. I've added the NPOV dispute tag on the front, will remove the links, again, and will escalate further.--216.254.126.222 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this unnoticed vandalism?

"An immigrant himself,", how is Mr. Dobbs n immigrant if he's born in Texas?--Eupator 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The article claimed for awhile that he was born in London, England. All other sources I could find cite Childress, TX as his birthplace, so I don't know where London came from. Postdlf 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's just incorrect, or at best, unsourced. Wizardry Dragon 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the London assertion came from. I'd assumed it was true, but IMDB lists his birthplace as Texas. -Will Beback 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)