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! ~~~~ Wizardry Dragon 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What a sad entry for wikipedia. The left just can't help imposing its politics on the rest of us. Fox News is less biased than this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.25.139 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I really think this is the most biased article on Wikipedia. I put in the Neutrality template, but I recommend having it rewritten by a trusted source then locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.209.49 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I Can't Read You, I'm Blind

Clearly people are blind because they keep ignoring the NPOV rule This is wikipedia, not a place for you guys to type your personal opinion on this man or anything else on wikipedia for that matter, regardless of what you think. For those of you who are thinking about putting your POV on wikipedia (good or bad), if you do I will delete you, and if you already have Shut the F*** up!!!

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)

Not acceptable sources

Fair.org IS NOT a NPOV acceptable source. They have a left wing agenda and, as such, can not by definiton be a NPOV

• External sources linked to by Wikipedia are not required to adhere to the WP:NPOV guidelines. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:20, 26 September 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)

The section about the borders ("...makes virtually no references to the worlds longest undefended 5000 mile border between Canada and the United States...") is patently biased and should be re-worded or excluded entirely.

I've reworded it to make it more neutral. -Will Beback 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Minutemen "white supremacist" should be qualified (lots of people say lots of things are racist, antisemitic etc.) or given some context. They have black members. If the Minutemen are called "white supremacist," then, for example, Obama's pastor Rev. Wright should be called a black supremacist since he associates with and admires Louis Farrakhan. I mean, come on. You're clearly editorializing here.

Sean Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.25.139 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit

This is my first time commenting on wiki, so if this is not the correct method please let me know...

Dobbs should be recognised as using white spremacist sources and white supremacist propaganda. Dobbs' infamous use of the extremist hate group CofCC's Aztlan conspiracy theory nonsense can be seen on crooksandliars.com. The video proves his use of propaganda to inspire fear and hatred. Also useful is the article on fair.org at:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1162

I am posting these comments here instead of the article in order to get concensus before making edits. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.55.51.144 (talk • contribs) .

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.

---

Can we comment that Lou Dobbs is a heavy cigarette smoker? This is a verifiable fact, and it is important as he is actively fighting the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes

Lou Dobbs Watcher revised

I wrote this original discussion artical: It stated many of Lou Dobbs stong opinions opposing US immigration policy, President Bush, the Iraq War, Trade Deficits and other things. It seems that I stated them too strongly with personal opinions and losing sight of objectivity. I lost Wikipedia's neutrality... In some cases subjects are too hot and offensive for readers in this context.

merlinus 23:15, 17 April 2006 --merlinus 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The ip 216.254.126.222 and 65.213.7.6 belong to the user redwolfb14

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)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wizardry Dragon 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing content from Wikipedia. Please see the above, you seem to be neglecting it. Thank you. --216.254.126.222 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from articles on Wikipedia is removing content from Wikipedia. The article after all is an extension of Wikipedia. I suggest you read the pages on Wikipedia:Consensus and especially the Wikipedia Editing Policy Wizardry Dragon 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuation. I've read those. Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

So what exactly are you saying? You're not making any sense sadly. Please adhere to the guidelines. --216.254.126.222 00:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the Wikipedia policy on external links. The Wikipedia article itself (naturally) has to be written from an objective point of view - the entire function of external links is to provide alternative points of view. That you are removing links that criticise the subject shows that you're not exactly following WP:NPOV yourself. Wizardry Dragon 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm you obviously haven't read the policy, please see WP:External_links Thanks. Furthermore I haven't removed all the links that are critical of Lou Dobbs. My intention is not to remove critical links or differing points of view. That would be wrong please re-read the above. --216.254.126.222 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong with the WSJ piece? Do you think they are a fringe webiste? -Will Beback 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is both notable and reliable - so, please tell me, what is your issue with it? Wizardry Dragon 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it's mostly opinion with commentary such as For starters, Lou Dobbs isn't an economist; he's a television performer. and has absolutely, positively no fact. It's the opinion of a deputy editor for the WSJ. Hardly something that can be considered as a differing point of view. It doesn't address anything in relation to Lou Dobbs besides opinion with little Point of View on Lou Dobbs besides the fact that he's in it for the ratings according to a deputy editor at the journal. That's whats wrong with it. This isn't the Wall Street Journal. This is the OPINION Journal, which is why there is a Wall Street Jorunal and a spin off called OPINION Journal. --216.254.126.222 01:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks, this is David Kralik of the NAM, and founder of Dobbs Watch. I'm terribly confused about the removal policy. Unless I hear by concensus otherwise, I'd like to go ahead and add back in www.dobbswatch.com. The NAM is the nation's oldest and largest industrial trade association. Founded in 1895, we have members (over 12,000 member companies) in each of the 50 states and all congressional districts.

The conventional definition of a "blog" is a one-person outfit, which is the heart of Wikipedia's objection to blogs as sources. But the NAM is far from being a "guy in his pajamas", and their senior VP is hardly just an office hack. We're not even sourcing a particular opinion to them, simply providing the link as a notable viewpoint. -Will Beback 10:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is NAM and all it members aware of the redirect of dobbswatch to a specific section in that site? As it stands there seems to be one editor posting and there seems to be one viewpoint. You are discussing "blog" as if thats the issue, it is not. The issue is the relevancy of what is linked in it's relation to Lou Dobbs. Please stay on issue, and please do not try to mince the words in the guidelines. This is a specific section of a blog.nam.org, with a specific editor. Are you suggesting the rest of the editors here are complete imbeciles? --216.254.126.222 13:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, we are aware that the redirect is to s specific section of the site. There are actually several editors on our blog, not just our blogger-in-chief. And as for one viewpoint, yes, that may be true, but look through the entries of dobbswatch.com and you'll see we post just about every view that comes in through the comments, we welcome opposing views and publish them, so long as they aren't profane. I still think its relevant to note for the **historical value** that a site was created to counter Lou's viewpoints.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. If you have a valid point, make it in a nonoffensive manner. Please remember the ettiquite guidelines and try to keep it civil. Wizardry Dragon 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks made. Can you please point out where you see a personal attack made? From what I can see you've been miscategorizing this full discussion. I'll include more editors on this. --65.213.7.6 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same person as 216.254.126.222? It'd help if unregistered users could obtain usernames. They're free. -Will Beback 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the likes of and even just the titles of the pages listen on the Scientology page, I find it someone funny that a WSJ page is being attacked for bias, myself. -- Wizardry Dragon 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean Opinion Journal, a spin off of the Wall Street Journal for the specific purpose of allowing such commentary. There is a reason it is not in the Wall Street Journal. That said, comparing Scientology, a religion. To a man, one man. I find to be quite silly indeed. I wasn't aware that Lou Dobbs is now comparable to such topics as Religion. --216.254.126.222 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think citing precedents of other link usages was that silly? -- Wizardry Dragon 16:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if the piece was not published in the WSJ, the writer is still prominent opinion page writer, and his opinion is notable enough to mention. Perhaps rather than simply listing the link, it'd be better if we excerpt a criticism to include in the body of the article. -Will Beback 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you describe why his opinion is important? For those unaware the person that wrote the editorial in question is Daniel Henniger a deputy editor for the Wall Street Journals opinion page he joined WSJ in 1977 was it's arts editor in 1978 and editorial features editor in 1980. He was appointed assistant editor of the editorial page in 1983 and chief editorial writer and senior assistant editor in October 1986, with daily responsibility for the "Review & Outlook" columns. In November 1989 he became deputy editor of the editorial page.....A native of Cleveland, Mr. Henninger graduated from Georgetown University with a bachelor's degree from the School of Foreign Service. Please tell us why his opinion on Lou Dobbs is notable enough to mention in the article. Thanks. --216.254.126.222 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We're just going in circles here, (s)he's going into circular logic and since (s)he's the only one that seems to object (assuming the IP addresses are for the same person, which seems to be the case), just add it back, and watchlist it for vandalism. -- Wizardry Dragon 16:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Circular logic? Hardly, please adhere to the guidelines. In the advent that the links are added back I will be forced to escalate further with arbritration or in the extreme; banning. Thanks, as the other editors I have invited have not responded or have had the necessary time, please allow some time for other people to voice their opinions. Thank you. --65.213.7.6 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, I'm getting kind of tired of this guy (/troll) threatening myself and you, is there something you can do about this? (You are a sysop, correct?) -- Wizardry Dragon 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You must be new to Wikipedia, listen. The rules are the rules. Adhere to the guidelines. It's that simple. There were no threats, no personal attacks. Yourself and Will Beback can do whatever you feel is necessary and I will do the same. Thanks again for being a part of the Wikipedia community but you must adhere to the rules set forth in the guidelines and by general Wikipedia concensus. If you are not going to do so then you should reevaluate your participation here. --65.213.7.6 20:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is formal notice that I will be adding this article to the Arbitration queue. If anyone has any objections please let them be known. --65.213.7.6 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be only one editor who is objecting to these links. If that editor is disruptive then he may be blocked. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. -Will Beback 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive is all he has been. He has been using threats of higher administration and/or power (again funny because unless I miss my mark Will Beback is a sysop. Will - am I correct?) to try to disrupt editing of this article to press a point of view. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is all I will be submitting this for arbitration within the next couple of hours. Hopefully this will give more people a chance to comment. Thanks. --65.213.7.6 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted this case for arbitration. You can file your statements by following the link here WP:RFAR --216.254.126.222 00:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please clarify whether or not these two IP addresses are the same editor? -Will Beback 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes those ips belong to the same editor --216.254.126.222 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Throwing in my opinion: rather than weigh in on whether or not the links themselves should belong in the article (I feel Wikipolicy is not much help in deciding how far a POV external links may go), I will say that as they were presented in the last Will Beback edit are not very honest. Dobbswatch.com is a redirect (the true address should be used) and I think that the link to the WSJ editorial should be clearly labeled as from the WSJ editorial pages. That said, I vehemently disagree with Dobbs on most issues, and find him to be a reprehensible xenophobe. I simply think the standards here should be kept a little higher. dfg 00:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of these corrections have now been made. -Will Beback 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently in arbirtration please hold off on any edits regarding the very detail of why it is in arbirtration. Please also take the time to fill your arbirtration statement. Detailing your side.. Thanks. --216.254.126.222 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, you've requested arbitration (which I'm not even sure an anonymous IP can do). Second, you're ignoring consensus on this talk page by removing the links. Do it again and I'll block you for vandalism. Cheers, Postdlf 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no Concensus on the talk page.. The links have been removed we're already in Arbitration. --216.254.126.222 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• One dissenting editor is hardly a lack of consensus. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. That's the second warning I've given you. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the guidelines, you're a clear example of someome misreading a topic for their own personal purposes. --Redwolfb14 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a great showing to a new user of Wikipedia. He goes to a article, he sees extremely biased external links (not critical, but rather idiotic, bashing, and even self-advertising). He removes the links, is harassed by administrators who promptly overturn his changes, and when he claims he has consensus, he is threatened with being blocked for vandalism. VANDALISM, when it is a editing dispute. Good show, guys! --Avillia 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I think you are not familiar with the timeline of events. I don't think there has been any harassment. Even newcomers need to follow Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback 03:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was summarily blocked from editing the article on the frontpage to remove the links in question. I will wait for a full reject of the case for abiratration. I also have filed a public notice of what I feel to be inapproriate administrator behavior on the public Wikipedia mailing list. Which has me pounded with email on the topic it also has pointed out several interesting concepts and previous bans/blocks on users and articles. It's led to my decision to know longer participate on Wikipedia.--Redwolfb14 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point out where I haven't followed policy? Can you please also point out what personal attacks or threats i've made on persons? Thanks. --Redwolfb14 14:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you obviously havent heard of the three-revert rule for one. -- Wizardry Dragon 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, can you please point out where I haven't followed policy and the personal attacks and/or threats I've made on persons. If you cannot do so then please retract the statement.--Redwolfb14 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• For the fourth time, the Three Revert Rule is an official policy on Wikipedia - something you've broken continually and despite warnings from myself and Postdlf. To quote Postdlf from above Second, you're ignoring consensus on this talk page by removing the links. Do it again and I'll block you for vandalism. You persisted - and were IP blocked. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW, having come to this page in response to the request for an ArbCom case, and having little prior knowledge of Mr. Dobbs, I have examined the "critical links" in question. Without any suggestion that my humble opinion is definitive, I do believe the links are acceptable for listing in the article, and are of a higher quality than many critical links included elsewhere in the interest of balanced coverage. Consider this one person's disinterested remark as consensus is measured. Xoloz 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad I'm not the only who who thinks that. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that the critical links section includes a link i've never debated in any form or fashion. The two links in question are the Dobbswatch.com link and the opinion journal link. --Redwolfb14 19:54, 23 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)

You got a lot of Londoners worried by this assertion. Please tell me it's not true. Baggie 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At least you have claim to Jerry Springer being born in your country. --Kalmia 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure that's anything to be proud of. However, David Soul's now gone the other way. He's taken British citizenship. That I like.--Baggie 13:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Merlinus Last Word

• As a disabled person who is a coma survivor... I'm strongly opinionated about disabled peoples rights and jobs for american citizens who have trouble finding minimum wage jobs in Massachusetts today. Lou Dobbs does seem to strike a chord with me on this issue, but it doesnt mean he's right in the long run... I'm not qualified to judge that one... so I shouldn't preach.
• I'm an idiot about internet social skills. I am searching for an outlet to express my opinions... perhaps I will not use Wikipedia for that. I need to brush up on Wikipedia's rules of conduct before contributing again.
• I have expressed myself on this page about immigration and I realize its not worth it to me if it end up hurting, offending people or causing strife. I hope others agree?

--merlinus 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the outcome with putting "critical links" alongside regular links. As long as vandalism is stopped and we behave civally, I think we can all get along. Long Live Wikipedia!

Objective statements about Dobbs' program keep getting removed

Lou Dobbs Tonight is, in fact, strictly an editorial program, and he does, in fact, slant the news segments on the show to support his views. This is an objective analysis, and when I try to include this information, someone keeps removing it.

Moreover, the sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "political views" section has some asinine quote that doesn't relate to the rest of the paragraph or the article, and is poorly written, but someone keeps putting it back in place.

Do you mean this line?

• Additionally Dobbs states that, "I don't think that we should have any flag flying in this country except the flag of the United States."

That appears to be an expression of a political view. How is it poorly written? -Will Beback 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's poorly written because the rest of the statements about his political opinions are broad statements, and then someone tacked on a specific quote at the end. It reads like this- "Dobbs is an economic protectionist, and he is against illegal immigration. Oh, and he doesn't think people should wave Mexican flags." It doesn't make sense. Also, it's poorly written because it isn't blended into the rest of the paragraph, and doesn't use the comma properly.

Those problems are easily fixed. -Will Beback 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is still the matter that Dobbs' show is strictly an editorial program. On all other CNN shows, if the host wants to discuss a news event, they will use clips from the general pool used by every other show on CNN. Dobbs makes a point to go out and create news pieces that reflect his agenda, and ONLY his agenda. The news pieces Dobbs creates don't reflect the same standard of objectivity observed on every other CNN program. Calling such a practice "news" is disingenuous and misleading, but whenever I have tried to point to this by editing the article or the Lou Dobbs Tonight article, the comments have been removed because they are "biased". This isn't about my own political stance, this is about my knowledge of journalistic ethics. There has to be some way to resolve this.

The article, as written today, does not give the impression that he is a journalist or that his show is a news program, in my opinion. If you want to go further the way to do it would be to find a source who characterizes the program as opinion. -Will Beback 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The following information may help find just such a source. Today [June 7, 2006, 17:45 EDT approx.], as Lou Dobbs shortly intervened in Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room to provide the teasers for Dobb's show, Dobbs invited Blitzer to volunteer opinion. Blitzer declined while laughing. The exchange, taken from a transcript --which I do not have and am not willing to pay for-- may support the understanding that Dobbs indeed is more opinion than news. Briefly: if anyone cares to look for this source to support this argument, be my guest. -Trujaman 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't talk pages for critical debate?

I distinctly remember raising a series of factually valid issues regarding Lou Dobbs, including that he continued to assert that the 9/11 highjackers had entered the United States through Canada long after that had been known to be false. I did not edit the article, and decided to raise the issue on the talk page so that someone with a more neutral point of view could verify the info and possibly make changes to the article. Instead, my comments have been deleted. In fact, it appears as if someone has stripped ALL factual information that does not paint Lou Dobbs in a positive light. Lou Dobbs is an extremely controversial figure, and I don't see how discussion of such controvery is either biased, offensive, or irrelevant, especially on the talk page where such discussion belongs.--66.130.0.153 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what's happened before, but I can say that the talk page is *not* a 'discussion forum' about the topic of the article. The talk page is for talking with other editors about what should and should not be in the article and how it should be said - it is specifically for discussing the writing of the main article, not for 'chatting' about its subject.--Daniel 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New countries

Vivacissamamente 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC): I've reverted to the last version by Will Beback. After the Atzlán jazz was removed, there was some random POV vandalism and then half the article got deleted.

Now 129.33.49.25, the Aztlán thing is nonfiction; the fact that another anon (unless it was you—it's hard to figure out exactly who you people are, which may be the point) edited that part to a pro-Dobbs view while retaining it indicates that they agree that some version of the statement was aired on the show. I did link a source, as well, currently the first-listed external link. It's highly critical of Dobbs, but it can at least be checked. I believe that the assertion is unusual enough to be notable, perhaps on the show's page as well, although I'm not touching that for now, as most of the information on it is a morass and possible copyvio that is currently deleted. Okay?

There was no "POV vandalism" at all. You (Vivacissamamente) keep trying to assert Dobbs is a racist who promotes racism by bringing white supremacists on his show. I say that is your POV and perhaps the SPLC's POV but you present it as FACT, and it is not. Frankly, if it were true, do you really think his show would still be on CNN and US Senators and Congressmen, business leaders as well leaders of MALDEF, LULAC etc. would continue to be on his show? Incidentally, I added the further explanation of about Aztlan after you mentioned it first. It was not rewritten to a "pro-Dobbs view" at all. I just clarified what it is and who is behind it. You made it out to be some whacko fringe theory a racist (Dobbs) was promulgating. Personally, I'd rather leave all of that part about Aztlan out, yours and mine, even though he has spoken of it, as well as his guests. You can't have it both ways, however. You can't call Dobbs a racist and then not detail racist groups (MEChA etc.) behind such things as Aztlan. Even the SPLC calls Voice of Aztlan a hate group...

The POV vandalism came after your edit. It said something about "Lou Dobbs is now a right-wing hatemonger," or something, and I wasn't referring to your edit as vandalism. I never asserted Dobbs is racist. I said that several of his guests are alleged to have white supremacist ties, and he hasn't mentioned it. I think he could afford to be more critical considering that he is on a major news channel.

The Nation of Aztlán is unconnected to the immigration debate, as it is a revanchist organization headquartered in California, unless they also run recruitment among Mexicans who they persuade to illegally immigrate to further their goals. It wouldn't make much sense, for Mexicans wanting to leave Mexico, to annex part of the United States into Mexico. Mentioning them is at best misleading.

Another objection is that the image shown was from the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is widely agreed to be racist (read their article; hopefully you'll agree), and he didn't mention that.

—Vivacissamamente 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"I said that several of his guests are alleged to have white supremacist ties, and he hasn't mentioned it." And why should he? They are allegations. If repeated often enough in the media, it becomes fact to many. I have seen other guests such as Simcox interviewed on other networks and they do not say, "Note: this guest is alleged to be a white supremacist" either. In fact, this article lists far more info about that than the MSM. Furthermore, this is kind of a slippery slope as many of his Latino guests could be similarly smeared with the racist label since they often espouse a fundamental tenet of racism- promoting your race/ethnic group to the exclusion of others and/or have attended rallies by or been members of MEChA etc. As for the racist Nation of Aztlan and Voice of Aztlan not being connected to the immigration debate, they certainly feel connected according to their sites. And, since I saw a photo on yahoo news during one of the protests that showed a banner being help up by the demonstrators showing TX, CA, AZ and NM being part of Mexico, talk of Aztlan seems quite salient. And to what image are you referring? I haven't finished reading the article on the CCC yet but it does not start off well, "paleo-conservative...". Where did that term come from??? It should also be noted that even if they are racists, and I don't know that yet, a photo taken by them can still be accurate. So, what is the photo in question anyway? LordPathogen

OK, so I read the article and went to the CCC site. They seem pretty racist in my POV. So, how does already stating in the article on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that critics of Dobbs allege he has on his show white supremacists not really cover that? Frankly, I've seen Latino activists on his show that in my POV I consider racist but he does not go out of his way to detail their histories either. I think you may be confusing intent with a lack of in-depth reporting. His is not a "News" show in the full sense of the term. Also like I have written before, I've seen some of those same guests on other MSM outlets as well and without any disclaimers etc. And one wonders, in particular, why Latino guests would continue to repeatedly be on his show if they consider him racist towards them. Surely they can check out the SPLC article as well. I sincerely think both articles are fine the way they are, barring some new revelation. LordPathogen

Venezuela Vote Rigging has heavy POV

First, I'm not sure the section is even needed. It seems to focus on a specific broadcast without placing it in context of Dobbs' life or career. What makes this one story so important?

Second, this section needs much more Source documentation. It's mostly based on "critics say", but the only source is critical of one aspect of that report and not the Dobbs piece itself.

Third, the section has numerous POV statements like: "Coronel didn’t like Chávez even before Chávez was born.", "a fine example of un-balanced reporting" and "this kind of reporting mixes up minds in the United States about what is happening in Venezuela." 70.16.106.49 22:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I did some editing to try to improve it, but I am not sure that it belongs at all. If it stays it will need much better sourcing. -Will Beback 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the section is uneeded as well. Again, why is this story so important vis-a-vis other stories Dobbs has done? -LordPathogen

I'll second the motion. Best course of action is probably removing the section entirely. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted #5 as factually incorrect http://numismatica.cheng-ca.com/en/index.htm Scroll to bottom of page. Also has source in Spanish. The 500 Bolivar banknote goes out of circulation next year. Hence it was in circulation at the time of the report as well as the 2004 election. LordPathogen

So, seeing 4 in favor of deletion, 0 opposed. I deleted this for the reasons listed above... [[LordPathogen]

H-1B visa program

• DOBBS: Well that's why I was stunned when you said you were supporting the H-1B visa program, because we can give you case after case that has flowed into this broadcast showing abuses of the H-1B visa program.[1]
• Still ahead, why the H1B visa program might as well be called the cheap imported labor program brought to you by the United States government.[2]
• Few immigration programs are more controversial than our foreign worker visa programs. There are an estimated one million foreigners working in this country who entered on H1 and L1 visas. Many of them have high-technology jobs once held by higher-paid Americans, who are now unemployed. And they are very angry. And they're not acting like victims. They're fighting back.[3]

When someone says he is stunned that others support a program, that leads me to think that he opposes that program. -Will Beback 04:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just a difference between us then. I'm not assuming he feels one way or the other on the issue. The link I posted as well as some quotes you posted here show Dobbs has concerns about abuses of the program and that it may take jobs away from Americans, but no where did I see Dobbs (who is very direct on issues) say, "And I oppose H-1Bs completely," or "The visa should be abolished." In fact, he SAID just the opposite in my link - "That's not to say that there are not positive and appropriate uses of those visas in certain cases." So, whatever your perception may be, that is what he said... Now, are you going to devote as much energy to the Venezuela section (which should be deleted) as you did to H-1Bs? ;-) LordPathogen

I devote my attention wherever I wish, thanks. I've already given time and attention to the Venezuela material. It looks clear to me that Dobbs considers the H-1B visa program to have abuses and that it is a low wage program to benefit coporations. You're correct that there he doesn't find some minor value, but his disapproval appears far stronger. Let's say he opposes the H-1B visa program. -Will Beback 21:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of "Let's say he opposes" H-1Bs we do the intellectually honest thing and put in the article what "he says" is position is on them, i.e. he does not oppose them? When you write, "his disapproval appears far stronger, " you are making a subject evaluation of his position based on a collection of his quotes on H-1Bs. That might be fine if he had no direct statement on the matter espousing a clear position (for or against) but in this case he has done so. Regardless, however, you seem intent on substituting your own "gut feeling" for an actual quote by him, and I cannot fathom how you could be comfortable doing so? As for the Venezuela material, if I had posted such drivel, you would have deleted it in a heartbeat. LordPathogen

We could just quote him as being stunned that a congressman would support the program, while saying that some parts may be good. However, as you can see, we avoid using quotes in Wikipedia, as it's better to summarize. Please don't assume you know what I'd do in a hypothetical situation - this isn't about you or me. You can clearly see that I expressed grave doubts about the Venezuela material. -Will Beback 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see a need to quote him. I thought the link to the transcript was just fine as long as the summary did not make it appear as if he opposed the H-1B completely as compared to abuses of it. LordPathogen

I think what he is saying is that he opposes the program because of abuses, not that he thinks the program is a wonderful success except for the abuses. But it's close enough. -Will Beback 05:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I never indicated that he thought it was a rip-roaring success, only that he does not like rampant abuse of those visas, yet in certain cases, he feels there are "positive and appropriate" uses of them. So, saying he opposed them entirely in light of that comment by him seemed wrong to me. Glad we can agree on the abuse part at least and move on. Goodnight! LordPathogen

Personal Life

I thought that Lou's wife was named Debi and that he had four children. From the Exporting America page where he devotes he book to someone and others, "To my wife, Debi, and children, Chance, Jason, Heather, and Hillary." What's up with Kathaleen, Heather, and Hillary? Has Lou been married more than once? Are Heather and Hillary from his marriage with Debi? Is Debi Kathleen?

How do we know his full first name is Louis?

How do we know he lives in Sussex County, New Jersey? Didn't the cover of Exporting America say that he lives in New York City with his wife?

Wow, that's a big mistake. From checking on Google I can't find any mention of a Kathleen Dobbs, while Debi Dobbs is a sportscaster who recently got in trouble for carrying a concealed gun without a permit. This link [4] from March 2006, says he commutes into the city, but doesn't give his area of residence. I'm not sure about the other details, but we'd better double check them. Thanks for the notice. -Will Beback 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This copy of a NYT article says he has a horse farm in New Jersey, but doesn't mention what part.[5]. -Will Beback 08:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those things. Several of the same issues that rile Lou up do the same for me; I beg to differ with him on several. Because of this, I have tried to learn a little bit about him. Thus, that is why I was unsure about the information I questioned. I have read in Howard Kurtz's book "The Fortune Tellers," and he mentions that Lou has a bustling horse farm as well. Oh yeah, I already knew about Debi's fun at Newark from a few years ago... Thanks.

If it means anything, he lives less than 1 mile from my childhood best friend in Sussex County, NJ and less than 3 miles from where I grew up in the same town.

No, that doesn't mean anything. However if you should see him again we could use a photograph of him for the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet more on Aztlan

This is my first time commenting on wiki, so if this is not the correct method please let me know...

Dobbs should be recognised as using white spremacist sources and white supremacist propaganda. Dobbs' infamous use of the extremist hate group CofCC's Aztlan conspiracy theory nonsense can be seen on crooksandliars.com. The video proves his use of propaganda to inspire fear and hatred. Also useful is the article on fair.org at:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1162

I am posting these comments here instead of the article in order to get concensus before making edits. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.55.51.144 (talk • contribs) .

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is a reasonable source, though they are not neutral. Please make sure your material is sourced and is presented following our WP:NPOV policy. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment is directed to User:Will Beback. User:202.55.51.144 appears to want to talk about what I tried to put in (but went about doing the wrong way) wanted to talk about before I got in an argument with User:LordPathogen. I thought about it for a while and realized I didn't have the neutrality or patience to continue. It doesn't seem 202.55.51.144 is coming back. For what it's worth, I would like you to see if you could get it into this article or Lou Dobbs Tonight in acceptable form. I know this is an unfair attempt to shunt responsibility, but I'm not equipped for cool-headed negotiation. Thanks for any help. —Vivacissamamente 09:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservative?

Why is Lou Dobbs listed as a neoconservative by category? Wanting to support Israel less and criticizing the Iraq war is the exact opposite, by most definitions. I'm removing it for the moment, but if there's an objection, feel free to add it back and leave a response. Thanks! -Umdunno 22:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does that category even exist? It's like having Category:Members of the liberal media. Since there is no concrete definition of the term, we shouldn't lable people. Now, Category:Self proclaimed neoconservatives, I could understand.--Munkel (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That category was deleted long ago. (Maybe it's time to archive some of these old disucssions) -Will Beback · † · 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

About Prisonplanet

A few contributors, including myself, are removing Prisonplanet links as an "unreliable source", and as soon as we do, they are being added back. I went to the site to access a youtube video, and found it no longer available. Can one of the people advocating these links please post here showing reliable sources for these statements before merely reverting? Thanks. -Umdunno 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Striver 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the best! That's a smile on your talk page. -Umdunno 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About Lou Dobbs claim of being Native American

He mentioned this once on his show with this serious look on his face in response to a viewer question. As far as I know he has never mentioned it again on his show and it is not in his wiki. Shouldn't this be included in his wiki if he truly is of native american decent like he claims to be? No tribe has said he belongs to them or has called him a liar yet. - 66.142.89.232 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unless it can be verified, not really. Does someone have any more information on this? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Torture Lou Dobbs" thing

There is (was?) a running theme on Eschaton, and some other blogs, in which folks are encouraged to go to loudobbs.com and skew the daily poll in such a way as to counter Dobbs' expectations in his (usually) silly online survey. Someone else could probably write this in a more neutral way, but I feel it would be useful to add it to the profile.

If it's verifiable and deemed worthwhile, that info would be more appropriate in "Lou Dobbs Tonight", rather than this bio. -Will Beback 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Compean and Ramos

I think the article should at least mention Dobbs' support for these two border patrol agents. He mentions them almost every night.-2/7/07

How are we supposed to write "Lou Dobbs supports the right of law enforcement officials to attempt street executions of suspects without any judicial consequence" without either violating NPOV or covering up the truth about what Dobbs is advocating? BobBuckeyeBuddy 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. That's clearly not Dobbs' view of what happened, and if you believe it is, well, that is simply your own POV. It's not POV, however, for the article to mention his views on this issue, which he harps on ad nauseam and is extremely adamant in his defense of. Sean Hannity still believes there were WMD's in Iraq, it wouldn't be POV to mention that in his article, even if Hannity's view itself is highly contentious and highly suspect. So, in my view, since this Compean and Ramos controversy is something that Dobbs is stuck on (justly or unjustly), it is therefore worth commenting on in the article. I think it can be done. You can write something to the effect that "Dobbs also supports two border patrol agents, Compean and Ramos, and seeks a presidential pardon for the two agents who were found guilty of... Critics charge that... Dobbs counters that... etc" How would that be POV? Use some of Dobbs's own quotes on the issue and perhaps some of the counter arguments of his critics, backed up by their statements. I'm sure quotes on either side can be found. I don't think it makes much sense for an article to avoid a controversial topic that it's subjects engage in, otherwise how would you ever write an article on Joseph McCarthy or Pat Robertson... 4:20 PM, 2/7/07

More Bias in this entry

he leans toward isolationism

and....

In his "Broken Borders" segments Dobbs focuses primarily on the southern border with Mexico and the drugs and illegal aliens that cross it. Critics claim this is inconsistent, if not evidence of anti-Mexican bigotry, given that the 5000-mile border between Canada and the United States is longer and also permeable. On the other hand, Dobbs' defenders note the vast majority of illegal aliens and drugs pass into the United States via the Mexican border and that he has in fact had some segments dealing with the lack of security along the US-Canada border. As of the end of May 2006; some 829,109 illegal immigrants had been apprehended crossing from Mexico into the U.S.A. that year. Illegal Immigrants apprehended crossing from Canada to the U.S.A. during that same time period are a tiny fraction of that amount – 4,066. [12][13] Dobbs also has lauded the Canadian government for cooperation in securing the border with their American counterparts.

Bolded Parts are biased...

Lou Dobbs isn't a Isolationist, he just wants the middle class preserved, and wants our borders secure. and if that makes the Mexicans mad, tough. fix the bias.

-HL

Sectioning of References into POV camps

References should all be placed into one category, References, without regard to someone's POV opinion about whether that source is "neutral", or "negative", or "positive".

Self-referential?

I've been noticing a pattern with the Lou Dobbs column that is posted on CNN.com; it seems like at least two times a month (or two weeks, given that the column is posted every Wednesday), he always finds or says something to incorporate himself into the article, usually by either:

• Calling attention to a comment that someone else said about him, and proceeding to comment.
• If nothing is said, taking what somebody would say about him (as perceived by Lou Dobbs), and then proceeding to comment.

Either way, the end result is that he ends up talking more about himself than he does about the subject matter that the article first began with. Does anybody else think this kind of self-promotion or self-referential activity should be noted? --PeanutCheeseBar 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unless some reliable source has discussed the matter. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He may never use any racial slug, but his attitude and comments toward to foreigners are generally hostile. Whenever there's is news about the Chinese, particularly the Chinese government. He tends to exatraggrate how china is gettting too strong too fast. On immigration issues, he tends to critsize Bush administrationa and democratic congress may give illeagal allien amesty. And many more examples. I don know him personally, but I think he is kind of racist to me. Or as some of you call him neo-conservertive.

Dobbs used to be a Conservative, but he has since "taken up the fight" for the middle class, and acts much more like a Liberal now; that aside, he does seem to be extremely xenophobic. With links to some of his articles, it could be pointed out how anti-foreigner he is; I'm more focused on the fact that he likes to draw attention to himself. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree, he does like to draw attention to himself...alot. Not entirely sure where you guys are getting this "rascist" and "xenophobic" stuff from though.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

new "controversy" section?

Hopefully someday someone can add some information about the accusations of factual fabrications made against Dobbs (and his CNN show). see, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonhardt.html?ex=1181188800&en=a429afa0da0d3423&ei=5070&emc=eta1 and http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/29/Dobbs.May30/index.html

"Dobbs tends to agree..."

An editor added this text:

• Dobbs tends to agree with economists who oppose trade deficits and outsourcing for the sake of labor arbitrage to obtain cheap labor as an example of absolute advantage which does not produce mutual gain, and not an example of comparative advantage [6]

However the cited source does not mention Dobbs. I'm not sure if it's a mistake in linking, or what. Unless this is corrected one way or another I'll remove it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dobbs has mentioned these economists on his program and has cited Paul Samuelson for his views against outsourcing. Dobbs wrote the forward to Hira & Hira's book Outsourcing America which also cites Lou Dobbs, Paul Craig Roberts, and Paul Sameulson. Dobbs notes practically every famouns economist who agress with him against outsourcing.Thomas Paine1776 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless he's directly said something like the above we're putting words in his mouth. Transcripts of his program are available, so if he's talked about "absolute advantage" versus "comparative advantage" it may be on record. But if not the material should be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you've added a reference to the printed book Outsourcing America, What's Behind our national crisis and how we can reclaim American Jobs . Does Dobbs talk directly about advantage in that forward? (The index is available via Amazon, but it doesn't mention comparative or absolute advantage). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We can add more citations if you like.Thomas Paine1776 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The last one you added, "Exporting America, Why Corporate Greed is Shipping Jobs Overseas", appears to support the assertion. I'm going to remove the Roberts' sources, as they don't support the assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Along with this, he has been a critic of the Mexican government's apparent lack of willingness to change its laws to help the poor and of church leaders in Mexico for not criticising the Mexican government's policies."

Could someone maybe rephrase this, perhaps adding additional information? I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.66.183.165.57 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It means, he doesn't like that the mexican govt has been unwilling to make the policy changes needed to improve the lives of the mexican people, specificly the poor, and he doesn't like that the church leaders havn't criticized the mexican political leaders for not trying to improve the lives of the mexican people. And so he criticizes both of them.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic bigotry

• Dobbs has also written statements on immigration that have been construed as anti-Catholic bigotry...

For an assertion like this we'd need a source that construes the subsequent quotations as "anti-Catholic bigotry". It isn't sufficient to simply provide a link to the quotes and then assume that someone, somewhere, has construed them. There's nothing in the Newsmax article about anti-Catholic bigotry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is simply bogus. Dobb's has clearly criticized the selected clergy for failing to uphold Catholic values and speak out against poverty in Mexico and pointed to their hypocrisy for not doing so. Illegal immigration is directly related to poverty and exploitation in Mexico, that is why many oppose illegal immigration. Critics simply would like to divert the issues they cannot face by using ad hominems. Dobbs and many others support better conditions for the workers in Mexico, critics simply chose to ignore it. U.S policy impacts working conditions in Mexico. Few U.S. journalists have had the wherewithal to criticize Mexico. Thomas Paine1776 16:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, I wrote the section on Anti-Catholic Bigotry about Dobbs, from both his statements in public, and his book. I am in agreement with many of Dobbs opinions, and think he is a resonable voice for some issues. However, his uneven temperment on the Catholic Church is fairly clear. Here is a citation in print: http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/OPINION03/708070309

It is in an editorial I wrote for the local paper, and it has been printed. This article will be kept online for a week or so. Please replace the section on Anti-Catholic bigotry, as it is now cited in a regular daily print newspaper in a major community. (Aug 7, 2007)

I don't think that we can take one op-ed piece by an uncredentialed citizen (no offense) in a small town as a sufficient source for the strong assertion that Dobbs is "anti-Catholic". While researching this I have found multiple sources that point out Dobb's opposition to the Catholic Church's support for immigration.[7][8] It's a leap to go from that to saying he's anti-Catholic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you say uncredentialed. No offense taken. However, my articles have been reprinted in other publications (examples):

http://www.topix.net/religion/2007/08/religion-part-of-immigration-issue-2 http://www.evworld.com/general.cfm?page=insider&nextedition=73 http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=13144

Well, we could say that "John H., an ordinary citizen, has written that Dobbs' statements are anti-Catholic," but frankly I think that would be silly. I think we'd be much better off, simply saying that, "Dobbs has state his opposition to the Catholic Church's support for immigration." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could say 'ordinary' but even my friends might object. I think the concept of adding some details about his many comments related to Catholics needs to be put somewhere on his page. It is not mentioned at all, and he treats the subject of being Catholic even in his book as it relates to being in Congress. The controversy on his statements related to Christian religions should be somewhere. The word 'Catholic' pops up in many of his shows, and his book. And, it is not for the purpose of flattery. Note the actual terms he chose was 'America has a new enemy...'. That doesn't sound like just a political position to me. Maybe some other wiki experts can find the right verbage. I'll defer to nuetral opinion. P.S. - I write on many topics: (example from this week)http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/OPINION03/708090311/1014/OPINION

Schedule

How does Lou Dobbs manage to host a TV show 7-days a week, host a radio show, give speaking tours, and write one book per year for the last 3 years? That just seems impossible.

Map

The so called map was not a controversy at all, it was an oversight by staffers simply looking for a map graphic. Its a journalistic issue, not a controvery. The changing nature this type of false accusation shows how shallow Dobbs' critics have been. It was wrongly used the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group which has shown itself to be irrational. Why not have another section for CNN's mistakes instead.Thomas Paine1776 16:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs is the managing editor of Lou Dobbs Tonight, thus there is no degree of separation between Dobbs and CNN. This is after all the man who when confronted by Lesley Stahl on 60 Mins concerning the “7,000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in the past three years.”, replied: "Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it’s a fact,"..."How can you guarantee that to me?”..."Because I'm the managing editor. And that’s the way we do business…” [9]

I suppose you are referring to this: "Errors and Extremist Sources on Lou Dobbs Tonight"

• On May 23, 2006, CNN correspondent Casey Wian referred to Mexican President Vicente Fox's visit to the U.S. as a "Mexican military incursion." Wian went on to say that Fox's trip could be called "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," referring to the conspiracy theory, popular among anti-immigration zealots, that Mexico is plotting to "reconquer" the American Southwest. As Wian spoke, a graphic appeared on the screen – a map of the United States highlighting the seven southwestern states that Mexico supposedly covets and calls "Aztlan." Remarkably, it was prominently sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist hate group that has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity" and compared pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape. [10] I am not sure how that was/is wrongly used. Brimba 07:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dobbs corrected the error in question, get over it. And CNN's Christine Romans and her source made the error you mention, not Dobbs. The journal and source were accurately cited, so Dobbs was at first defending it, thats understandable. Then he corrected it not on the back page as some do, Dobbs had an entire program to discuss it and debate it with opposing viewpoints, Dobbs went above and beyond to correct it. Most news sources don't even discuss their errors. Wian was speaking about a "Mexican airforce jet" entering the US as a "fully authorized" incursion. Wian cited "Latino activists" for his comments, not anti-immigration groups. The news story also broadcasted an opposing viewpoint, activist Tony Yapias. The program is for news, debate, and opinion. Wian's comment about Vincente Fox and Gov. Huntsman appeared satirical. Wian was equally critical of both Gov. Huntsman and Vincente Fox. Satirical comments are a dime a dozen among journalists. Its not a controversy.Thomas Paine1776 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we tell it's satirical? And which folks even claim Washington State as a part of Aztlan? As for controversy, if something generates controversy then it is controversial. In addition to the SPLC, Bill Berkowitz, as well as countless bloggers, have written about the map of Aztlan matter. It'd be bettter to include it, along with Dobb's explanation, rather than to exclude it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

People blog about it because they were misled by irrational accusations by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Society. That removes controversy. It's not controversial. Thomas Paine1776 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Even handed

The article had listed category of athiest, yet it provided no documentation for Dobbs religious beliefs. Dobbs has given no such indication. Many journalists criticize selected clergy. Dobbs provides support for his criticisms and he has criticized both conservatives and liberals. Dobbs program has featured both conservative and liberal guests. Dobbs has been complementary of both as well as critical. He's been very even handed, critics need to get over it. Thomas Paine1776 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an interview with Chistopher Hitchens that some have said shows Dobbs to be an atheist.[11] (And also a commentary that is opposed to religious leaders.[12]) While Dobbs does seem to show sympathy for Histchens' view, Dobbs doesn't come out and explicitly give his own view. We would need a more definitive source for a positive statement that Dobbs is an atheist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not hardly. That just shows Dobbs is a professional even handed journalist. He's one of the best out there. Dobbs has also been skeptical of evolution in interviews, when interviewing advocates, taking a more christian or centrist, populist point of view. Dobbs has taken both liberal and conservative clergy to task when they seem to veer from a centrist christian or populist moral point of view. Dobbs is simply making the liberal clergy answer why they say they are for church state separation, yet when it comes to 'illegal immigration' issue they are not. That's a clever journalist turning the tables to boost interest and ratings. That's his job. And it is a good question. Why are liberal clergy crossing the lines of church state separtion on 'illegal immigration' issues, yet not challenging Mexico's exploitation or those who exploit cheap labor if they claim to be christian? Aren't clergy supposed to be supportive of just laws? Dobbs has been supportive of fair wages and better working conditions. And where have the clergy been? Thus, Dobbs is making them answer for themselves. A CNN reporter on Dobbs' program quoted the New Testament, Romans 13, as support for legal immigration and implying it was opposed to 'illegal immigration', a question for those clergy. Dobbs responded positively to the reporters quote. Dobbs has been skeptical of evolution, yet supportive of gay rights. Dobbs has been more populist just as he says. Dobbs uses the right style at the right time. When interviewing activists, Dobbs makes them defend their case, when interviewing for human interest, Dobbs adapts that mode. That's the mark of an outstanding anchor. Dobbs town hall meeting and open forums, he lets the guests sound off, he interviews activists with opposing views, but he answers them. He has attention of the Nation. In Lou Dobbs commentary, "A call to the faithful," (May 9, 2007), he even handedly takes both conservative and liberal religious leaders to task. He faulted James Dobson for implying Fred Thompson isn't christian enough to President. Dobbs also notes evangelical leaders who signed the "Land Letter" supporting the Iraq invasion. Admonishing both liberal and conservative religious leaders to be more cautious about church state issues, Lou Dobbs quotes the New Testament, Romans 13: [13].Thomas Paine1776 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Dobbs has been very even handed and he's shown time and time again he's one of the best.Thomas Paine1776 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Debi Dobbs

Why should the wife of public figure be arrested for carrying a weapon for protection in America? Thomas Paine1776 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because she was trying to carry it through a security checkpoint at an airport. According to the news story I read, she did not tell officers why she was carryig the loaded gun, so it's only an assumption it was for protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Americans don't need protection from celebrities, their spouses, and little old grandma's who get ruffled up at airports. Americans need protection from terrorists. Thomas Paine1776 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't OJ Simpson a celebrity? Anyway we're not here to discuss airport security or gun laws. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder why it belongs on Dobbs' page though. It's not ostensibly about him. —vivacissamamente 05:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed it. Panfakes 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

I meant to put this in the revert summary. Controversy sections naturally attract POV verbiage, but the things you removed are cited and apparently true. If you think the wording is wrong, maybe you should change that; I don't think that "POV" is sufficient justification for the removal of that paragraph. —vivacissamamente 05:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, this paragraph is a problem:

"Dobbs has been known to exaggerate the severity and/or imminence of perceived threats.An example of this is his coverage of supposed secret negotiations to form a North American Union in the mold of the European Union, and the development of the supposed "NAFTA Superhighway" connecting Canada, the United States and Mexico. In covering these, his editorial comments conveyed outrage and feigned surprise. Any planning for such schemes have thus far occured outside governmental purview."

1. No citations whatsoever. 2. The first sentence is an opinion, not a fact and needs to be qualified as such : "Some critics suggest...", etc. 3. The "example" is poorly written, giving no idea of how it does or does not relate to the premise.

Stlcards7 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the above section per your analysis, thanks, --Tom 15:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments like this: "He, has been described by some as a Populist, Racist, and a Protectionist." belong in this section, not the about section. This looks more like vandalism... Andrewschools (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Still seems biased

For example, this is under the Immigration section:

"In an interview with Lesley Stahl, Dobbs spoke about his meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus saying they implied that he was anti-Hispanic by asking him,"

Shouldn't this be under Controversy? It seems like there's much more information to discredit him than to be neutral - you know, what Wikipedia is supposed to be about... Panfakes 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section is NPOV

As well as not backed up by solid sources. Example: Dobbs has in the past presented unclear or inaccurate information on his program to buttress his reporting on illegal immigrants, which he subsequently clarified and corrected. The first clause is a naked statement of opinion; the second, not verifiable by sources (Dobbs actually denied the accusation.) -- J.R. Hercules 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the totally-disputed-section template because the problem with the section hasn't been resolved. -- J.R. Hercules 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the problem? What was it that he denied, or that isn't verifiable by sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I was quite specific from the get-go, as I quoted one of the sentences in the article and pointed out how NPOV it is. I'll re-word the sentence in question to make it acceptable, and maybe do a few other edits to bring neutrality to the article. -- J.R. Hercules 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your original note here still isn't clear to me, but the edits you made are fine. I restored the sentence on his response; the referenced article had been moved into the E&P archived. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC

Sunday School Attendance

I removed the statement "As a very small boy, he quit attending Sunday School." because the cited source refers to an off-air comment made to (and reported by) Christopher Hitchens who is not particularly NPOV on religious matters. If you want to include that statement in the article, you'd best find a better source. 66.194.51.226 12:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)GMM

Quality: as in LOW

This "article" is typical of Wikiality. Rambling, biased, badly-written garbage. It's clearly written by far too many authors, many of whom have more opinions than actual first-hand knowledge. Either unsourced factoids, or sourced by another webpage that's not in fact a primary source. Gossip, heresay, and some of it borders on libel.

All in all a flagship article for the type of crap Wikiality feels is appropriate to have its name associated with. Well done! God help us all, if this is what stands for Truth today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.139.38 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category: Conspiracy theorists

I have added this category, which I am sure will be a controversial move in some peoples eyes, but just listen to dobbs on his show, or in interviews (such as the recent one with Alex Jones(radio)), and he talks a lot about the north american union, the amero, and nafta superhighway, all conspiracy stuff. Although I find the conspiracy theorist label a pejorative, it has been established over and over on wikipedia that this is the catagory to be used for people who talk about these subjects. On as side note, one of the sources for this article is paul craig roberts, that should probably be checked, as he is a notable theorist, and may not be suitable as a source. Hahahahahaoh (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cotton-picking is not necessarily a racist term

"Cotton-picking" is ARGUABLY racist - not racist. In the South, it is often used as an adjective for something or somebody who is frustrating - as is the process of picking cotton. To say that this phrase is racist is to to be applying a point-of-new (yes, a Northern point-of-view) upon the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.57.149.66 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "cotton-picking", hyphonated or not, is indeed very racist. Please see http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/cotton_picking/ The "cotton-picking hooks" referred to in the 1952 Bugs Bunny cartoon are nothing less than a racially derogatory reference to the hands of slaves who worked in cotton fields. OldWolfAtHeart (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC) OldWolfAtHeart

And the site you just gave us also supported the anons position. In short it can mean either depending on what context one uses it in.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars

There is an edit war going on in the article, Newly registered users who seem to be "socket Puppets" keep vandalizing the page. Dwilso 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. You accused a major television news personality of being a racist, and I reverted the changes challenging your source which did not support that statement. Someone else comes in and also disagrees with your edit, and you made a false accusation against him on his talk page, so I backed him up. That makes me a sock puppet? You want me to scan my driver's license for you or something? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty awesome that you got editors to get anonymous users to stop reverting your potentially libellous statements from the Lou Dobbs page. The only party that doesn't seem to be interested in discussing changes is you. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE in lead paragraph

There's a couple of characterizations of Dobbs in the lead paragraph (Protectionist, Populist, and Racist) which may constitute undue weight given the sources: 1) Southern Poverty Law Center (which Dobbs has criticized -- I don't know about their feud but it should probably be described more in detail) 2) Zmag (this is known to be a fairly left-wing biased source and may be considered a minority viewpoint). I think these characterizations should remain in the Controversy section until these sources have been vetted. Putting them in the lead certainly isn't going to move this article towards being more "neutral" (as it is tagged as having neutrality disputed). 98.215.54.162 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just read through the Southern Poverty Law Center article. Here are two key sentences from this article: No matter what others report about the movement, Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols. and In general, Lou Dobbs has declined to report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of, or simply avoided mentioning certain of their views -- notably the conspiracy theories propounded by people like Spencer. The SPLC article criticizing Dobbs for being uncritical of racist attitudes by anti-immigration groups and of supporting fringe theories. It does not suggest that he himself has made racist comments or is a racist himself. Also, this source does not comment on the Protectionist or Populist characterizations (other than attributing the populist identifier to him in one sentence.) I do agree that the Southern Poverty Law Center source is notable, but it seems like the best place for this is in the Controversy section. And it would be fair to research Dobbs' response to the SPLC in return. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's now a reference to a Broadcasting & Cable article that he has called himself an independent populist. That label should probably be stated separately from the "has been described by some" sentence, since he's the one doing the describing in that instance.