Talk:Lou Dobbs

Conspiracy Theorist...

“Conspiracy theorist” is not a profession, or a neutral description of someone, it’s just a slur. “Anti-immigration advocate” seems oddly specific too. That is to say, those two descriptors don’t seem non-POV, but rather defamatory.

Dobbs is not a conspiracy theorist. He may have truly believed Obama was not born in the U.S. If you use this incident to declare him a "conspiracy theorist," most of the commentators on CNN, and certainly, MSNBC, fit the bill. I have not checked their entries here. I am assuming they contain similar language. Sak5481 (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

> He may have truly believed Obama was not born in the U.S.

Sincerely believing in a conspiracy theory still makes you a conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Conservative?

There's an entire section describing his complex political affiliation, which states several times he doesn't consider himself a conservative. And then the first two sentences describe him as a conservative, and unsourced at that. I'm deleting it. Seems counterintuitive to have the page contradict itself. Joker1189 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Article Has Been Edited to Make It Seem as If Opposition to Illegal Immigration Were Tantamount to Xenophobia and Racism

A thousand times, Dobbs said that he favored LEGAL immigration and was only against ILLEGAL immigration. Yet advocates of illegal immigration have clearly edited the main article to make it seem as if opposition to illegal immigration were somehow inappropriate. No wonder critics label Wikipedia these days as "Liberalpedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that to some extent this article comes off as implying that being against illegal immigration is somehow bigoted, racist, or anti-Hispanic. Although the majority of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. these days happen to be from Mexico, I do not think someone that is against illegal immigration(pro-legal immigration) would change their opinion on the matter if the majority of illegals were coming from a country other than Mexico. Rather, legal immigration supporters are standing up for the Mexican's, or any immigrants from anywhere in the world, that have gone through the process of legally applying to become a U.S. citizen. To put it another way, in line with the logic that being "anti-illegal immigration is racist", someone could counter and say being "pro-illegal immigration is prejudiced and racist", by the fact that illegal immigration has deleterious effects to immigrants that have been working towards legally obtaining U.S. citizenship. For example, if a Mexican was in the process of becoming a legal U.S. citizen, he/she is hurt by the many fellow Mexican's that are illegally cutting in front; causing negative affects to the legal immigrant such as less job opportunity(because the illegals skipped the process and flooded the system before the legal one could), having to pay higher taxes due to the pressures the inflow of non-taxpaying illegals, who are receiving societal benefits, causes on the system. In general, if the intent of the whole illegal immigration issue in this article is to point out his connection to FAIR, which in some documented way can shown to be racist, then it should be revised to express that. But, if it is just to try to smear someone who supports legal immigrations, which is standing up for all the immigrants from anywhere in the world that legally go through the process of becoming a U.S. citizen in order to gain access to all the opportunities American has to offer, then it should not be a part of this article. Adrianw61 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dobbs is against illegal immigration and the abuse of worker visas such as the H-1B. This does not qualify him as "anti-immigration." Please correct by adding specifity, or not using this loaded phrase. Sak5481 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I see that the last comment critiquing use of this phrase is from 2010. Are these comments ever reviewed, and corrections made? Sak5481 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection Needed?

Over the past couple of weeks, there's been a number of infantile and libelous edits. It pains me to say this, but I think the page needs some sort of protection. I don't know if there's an organized effort to vandalize this guys page, or if he's just that reviled by those on the left, but it's gotta stop.Joker1189 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dobbs & Obama Birth Certificate

On recent radio shows, Dobbs has been giving credence to the speculation that Obama's citizenship is in dispute.[1] Just hit the frontpage of Digg today, so it will probably hit places like Huffington Post tomorrow and then, my guess, make the leap to the political news shows.

The fact that Dobbs has made the statements is well-supported, so I almost just added it in, but given that the story hasn't hit mainstream media yet, adding it in right this moment would probably be premature and undue weight. Just a head's up though, because a) it probably will merit inclusion in the near future and b) people are almost certainly going to find there way here and edit the article according to their own points of view. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely Lou Dobbs' voice. Should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.29.103 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

dobbs said he believes obama is a citizen but i just deleted something making it seem like he believes obamas not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.228.58 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a significant controversy, apparently. The head of CNN is reported to have sent an email to the staff of the Dobbs program saying the issue is "dead". The SPLC has called Dobb's commentary "racist" and seeks his resignation. Newspapers from London to Los Angeles have reported on this matter.[2][3] I think we need to restore and reframe the material.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the material, I think that better sources than media matters are needed because of the obvious partisian nature of the organization. Those 2 sources are pretty good. Again, I'm not against inclusion of the material, my revision of your edits were because I was under the impression you did not see the IP's comments on this talk page about the material and therefore I was not sure if you stuck by your edit. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just as well, otherwise I woulnd't have gone looking for better sources. I'll re-read the linked sources and summarize them briefly, unless someone else gets to it first.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have included the actual transcript from his show, which I believe counts as a primary source. Sources from both Fox News and the Huffington Post have also been included, to prevent accusations of bias from either side. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a citation from the Souther Poverty whatever rather than the huffington post? Also, not sure that we need the foxnews/Obama born in hawia link/sentence. --Tom (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation from the SPL rather than the blog. --Tom (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the sentence that says he has recieved criticism is linked to the transcript of his show which makes zero sense. Can this section/few sentences be rewritten with proper sources and NPOV? TIA --Tom (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There must be a decent source that talks about Dobbs giving credence to the birther claims. I recall Jon Stewart noting his phrasing of "I believe Obama is a citizen of the US", pointing out the phrasing as belief, not fact, and sidestepping the birth issue. Sources, anyone? Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Belief vs fact? This seems like what the definition of "is" is :) Seriously, I don't watch Dobbs but like my edit summary said, I would be careful how we word this, especially if the citations are tied to "opinion" pieces, ect. From listening to all the hubbub, it seems that Dobbs' position is that Obama could end all this nonsense by just releasing his birth certificate, but he is unwilling to do so, so Obama is somehow fueling this whole thing or is at fault himself?? Not sure if that equates to giving credence to these "folks" and that would probably be original research or synthesis anyways. Off subject, who started the "birther" term? for some reason I can't stand it, anyways, carry on :) --Tom (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The nonsense has been stopped by verification of the birth certificate by the authorities, combined with local Hawaii birth announcements. At this point the idea that Obama needs to release anything is deep birther territory and saying there are "unanswered questions" etc as Dobbs has is giving that credence. There are no unanswered questions, unless you're a birther. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was just trying to state what I thought Dobbs position was. I haven't heard Dobbs say there are "unanswered questions". I personally think that he is probably doing this for ratings, but thats me. Again, saying he is "giving credence" should be carefully cited if included at all. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, you adding a transcript of what he said as a citation. What is needed is a citation that that shows he was criticised for adding credence to the claims since that is what is stated in that section. Anyways, should be too hard to find, I think one of the cites I read already claims that. It should probably also be reflected to say it that way as well. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CNN Ratings

Lou Dobbs show on CNN is now on HLN, the ratings for both are extremely low. Dobbs show does not have much following. go to zap2it.com to get the niesel ratings.

Thus it is fair to state the facts

~~

Dobbs born in Mexico??

A recent edit has changed his birth place to Mexico. I don't know the facts, but I assume it is vandalism. --72.224.136.152 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An Open Salon posting [4] with (fake?) images of his birth certificate show he was born in 'Delicias, Chihuahua?' So, possibly not vandalism, but should be cited properly if it's readded. Hobophobe (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This would require a very good source.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Open Salon ref is not good enough for a claim like this. It would be hilarious though if it turns out to be true... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a real source saying where he was born? It says Childress, TX with a link that points to a subscription website. Does anyone have a subscription and could the verify the legitimacy of the data. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces

Proquest has three sources that say he was born in Childress:

• The passionate anchor was born in Childress, Texas, an agricultural town that was the setting for much of the recent gay cowboy love story "Brokeback Mountain."
  • Tough-talking Lou Dobbs got start in Yuma" Blake Schmidt. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Jun 20, 2006. pg. 1
• "I was raised in a rural community, doing farm work," says the president of CNN Financial News, a native of Childress in the Texas Panhandle. ... The part of southern Idaho where he grew up "is not entirely different from the area around, I'd say, Waco," Mr. Dobbs says.
  • "Lou Dobbs CNN's financial wizard is always on the money;" Joyce Saenz Harris. Dallas Morning News. Dallas, Tex.: Jan 3, 1999. pg. 1.E
• CNN finance and news anchor, Lou Dobbs was born in Childress.
  • "River's current generated power in Austin's early days;" Jane Greig. Austin American Statesman. Austin, Tex.: May 27, 2006. pg. E.1

Of course, they may be in on the conspiracy too.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be, the border states (Texas included) has gotten a lot of federal cash for the border due in some part to Lou Dabbs xenophobic rants on CNN, and a story like this that would discredit him and maybe kick him out of the country could hurt the local economy - so you never know. I would just feel more comfortable in the validity of this if we could see his real birth certificate, the long form, the real deal. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

These different stories and questions about his place of birth and nationality could easily be setteled by the man himself. Until that happens some mention in the article should be made as to the controversy surrounding his true nationality and place of birth: England, Mexico, Texas (which is on the verge of seccession anyway), or the latest investigation: somewhere in the vicintiy of Skopje to mixed breed Slovenian and Romany cattle thieves and fifth columnists. Since his birth certificate and the name on the birth registry could easily be counterfit (one version has it that it was manufactured by former KGB agents operating out of Uzbekistan, a lead that I am following up on with google searches, another mere rumour at this stage is that it is the work of expert Muslem/Arab forgers in Cairo. Until he produces the original of his birth certificate and submits it to scrutiny by the folks at MSNBC and Wiki questions about his birth remain and we must so inform the public. The burden of proof is on him to 'come clean' once and for all. Tonygumbrell (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate description for intro

I've removed the sourced description (from Media Matters) as 'conspiracy theorist' from lede; though the source may be credible, this is probably inappropriate for the opening. However, please discuss if there is a consensus otherwise...99.0.83.41 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I have trimmed this back since this had gotten beyond out of control. See WP:EL. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Gunshot

Recently there was a gunshot near Dobbs' house (most likely a stray hunter's bullet). Dobbs, however, claims he is being targeted by Latinos. The controversy has been in the news: [5] Stonemason89 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving CNN

Where is he going after leaving CNN? I have been searching for quite some time and nothing came up...Anybody? It wouldn't shock me if he moves to the "fair & balance" network...lol TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

clarification needed

What campaign is this sentence talking about: "Dobbs and CNN President Jon Klein said Dobbs's leaving had nothing to do with the campaign;". Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)},

"Other views" section

The following part of "Other views" cites only this reference - [6] - which does not mention the ADL bit, nor the quote about "insults and innuendo" (based on only two Google matches, this appears to be another one of those Rush Limbaugh-esque quotes that originated from Wikipedia). While the citation, written by Dobbs, does mention the foreign aid/1948 parts, the sentence "Dobbs criticized U.S. foreign policy as being disproportionately supportive of Israel" seems like an interpretation of his column, and not exactly representative of his whole point (part of which was that the war in Iraq was ignored by the media, etc.). I think if that sentence is to be kept, some other sources - ones that comment on Dobbs' statements - would be needed. All Hallow's (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"In July 2006, Dobbs criticized U.S. foreign policy as being disproportionately supportive of Israel, pointing out the U.S.' rapid recognition of Israel in 1948, foreign aid to Israel, and other policy choices in the past and present. The Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith) claimed that some of Dobbs' comments bordered on "anti-Semitic." Dobbs responded on his website that "insults and innuendo from ethno-religious special interest groups no longer angers me, it just bores me.""

References

Wife's arrest not relevant

I took out the mention of his wife's arrest because I don't think it is relevant to Dobbs himself (It would be perfectly appropriate for an article on Debi herself--she was a news caster, sports if I remember correctly). The arrest was also 6 years ago and it is not encyclopedic to mention the arrest and not the disposition of the case. 134.134.139.73 (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

An American born in Mexico???

OK, isn't this like saying a Mexican born in "America"? (Oh god, don't get me started on the definition of America) You guys get my point. If she was born in Mexico then she is Mexican or even Mexican-American... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.0.52 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling John Stossel a self important ass

Is it worth noting that he called John Stossel a self important ass on his radio show? Stossel brought this feud up on his TV show. JettaMann (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundant article redundancy

There was a paragraph inside the 'Return to CNN' section about his subsequent departure. I moved it into the appropriate 'Exit from CNN' section, excluding the redundant stuff.Capon Transfix (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Controversy section fails neutral point of view test

On 08 October 2010, I added clarification that The Nation's cover article was written by a freelance writer with a significant bias, as substantiated by the author profile from The Nation Magazine: "Isabel Macdonald is a freelance journalist and former communications director of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting." I further clarified that according to the neutral organization Sourcewatch.org, "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a group that criticizes the fairness and accuracy of the news media from a left-leaning standpoint." Both quotations were properly cited via web links. As a further note, ABC News - Good Mornign America published a 08 October 2010 rebuttal from Lou Dobbs quoting from the on-air segment. Isabel Macdonald attempts to create a false color impression regarding Lou Dobbs's hiring practices. As a professional who is certified to use E-Verify by USCIS, Lou Dobbs's statement that he is forbidden to inquire about the immigration status of a contract employee is absolutely correct. It is the responsibility of the contractor to make an immigration status determination via the I-9 process, which merely states that the presented documents must on their face appear to be genuine. The only exception to this rule is when the use of the E-Verify system is legal in the specific hiring circumstance, which is not yet the case for contractors in either New Jersey or Florida. For these reasons, I request that my edit not be tampered with. DrGeneNelson (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)DrGeneNelson

The problem, imho, is that your additions are not NPOV, and are undue weight. I hear what you are saying about adding context about this latest "hub bub" about not much, imho, but maybe add a descriptor to the Nation, like, left leaning, ect, even though I hate those. To go into detail abou the author doesn't seem proportional. I am not even convienced that this "material" even belongs at this point, but adding more isn't necessary. Anyways, what do others think? Thanks,--Threeafterthree (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole of that section is rubbish and nothing but partisan slurs. I don't think a single part of it is worth anything educational or informative about this persons life at all. He is accused in our article of being anti Mexican, he is married to one, utter partisan attascks repeated in wikipedia, are we to be a recorder and reporter of actial historic detail or just a tabloid filth spreader of partisan lies and gossip. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lessee -- a demagogue who advocates stringent controls against immigration is determined to have employed illegal immigrants? Quite relevant, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the smear however, since he never employed illiegal immigrants. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it he is relying on the legal fiction of having had a contract with someone other than the people who actually did the work? That certainly doesn't diminish the relevance, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture reference

It's not much but it's rather funny. In the 30 Rock 3rd season episode "Flu Shot", Jack Doneghy is having a conversation with his nurse lover where she says "I have another patient on my off days. He's a sweet old man with advanced dementia. Totally disconnected from reality," to which Jack responds "that reminds me, I owe Lou Dobbs a call..." It's clever, it's not much, but I'd like to suggest it for inclusion nevertheless. __meco (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Animation indoctrination

I don't know if this worth mentioning here, but I ran into this story today. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be updated

I am not familiar with developments but this article still speaks about the 2012 elections in future tense. 98.204.157.43 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)nn

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091115010049/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_lou_dobbs to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_lou_dobbs

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Perspective on Donald Trump by William J Bennett, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan

I've just read an interesting theory put forth by Mr. Bennett. I was sruck by his claims regarding politicians, both Rep and Dem, and just how corrupt our government is. If you're not one of the "big media" he discusses I would very much like to see him interviewed. It would be a great service to the American people to see just how duped we really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.236.25 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

98.159.70.32 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)I am looking for an article that discussed 'how we are what we read and watch" this article concerned how we tend to get less adverse to things of this world if we watch them on tv or read them in books.

Can you direct me to the article. It was direct and to the point and very truthful. Thank you, Betty garner3@arkwest.com98.159.70.32 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804092623/http://gawker.com:80/5320976/jon-stewart-to-lou-dobbs-do-you-even-watch-your-own-f+ing-network to http://gawker.com/5320976/jon-stewart-to-lou-dobbs-do-you-even-watch-your-own-f+ing-network

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lou Dobbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gawker.com/5320976/jon-stewart-to-lou-dobbs-do-you-even-watch-your-own-f%2Bing-network
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831084120/http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200908280026 to http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200908280026

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lou Dobbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604144247/http://www.american.com/archive/2006/november/lou-dobbs to http://www.american.com/archive/2006/november/lou-dobbs
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=225197
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425075638/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/dobbs_fires_back_at_clinton_for_hot_air_comment_74182.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104180416/http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Lou_Dobbs.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Lou_Dobbs.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512050634/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206H to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206H
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115010358/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33815 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33815

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted "Factually incorrect" claim NPOV BLP

It is derogatory to state flat out that Dobbs made a factually incorrect statement (BLP) and it was supported by only 1 source. Since Dobbs himself is a "reliable source," you need more than one source to overrule him. This stuff should be in a Controversy Section unless you have Dobbs himself recanting. And if there are 2 sides to the claim (pro & con), both should be presented with citations. Thus I deleted the derogatory statement. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029211705/http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-spitzer1029.artoct29,0,2408884.story to http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-spitzer1029.artoct29,0,2408884.story

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Known for"

Lou Dobbs' career in journalism is decades old, yet the lead of this article has depleted those decades into the last few years and has labeled him as only being known for being pro-Trump, anti-illegal immigration, pro-birther movement, and anti-NAFTA.

This is a travesty and wrong to do to a man that Bill Moyers referred to as "a winner of the Horatio Alger award and the Peabody award, a fixture of cable news, a founding member of CNN, a man touted for changing the landscape of business journalism...".[7] It's wrong to do to any article subject with a career as broad and successful and celebrated as Dobbs' has been. Bottom line: highlighting (what are seen by those left-of-center politically as) negatives is not only not WP:BALANCE but it's catering to WP:POV and is, frankly, dishonest and a disservice to readers of Wikipedia. It turns the article's lead not into a complete snippet of who Dobbs is but a mini-hit piece that leaves readers seeing only a small part of who he is. That's propaganda, not encyclopedic. It's wrong and it needs to be remedied. Now. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• You're talking about one single sentence at the end of a fairly long lead. Yes, that one single sentence is not a "complete snippet", but it's not the only sentence, and the lead as a whole gives a better representation. Is that award in there? No? Then add it, rather than clamor about propaganda again. Or add a sentence like "after winning an award and being hailed as a fixture of TV journalism, he became more interested in conspiracy theories such as birtherism". Offers both facts and development. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Wait, he believes that Deep State shit too? And that's not in the lead? Well--that's practically a hagiography then. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Or add a sentence like "after winning an award and being hailed as a fixture of TV journalism, he became more interested in conspiracy theories such as birtherism". Offers both facts and development." Actually, it offers POV in Wiki-voice as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you turned literalist, and you missed the word "like". But thank you for the lesson--I'm obviously a newcomer and don't know about POV and SYNTH and all that. (BTW, lead writing is, in a way, a kind of synthesis--or so I'm told.) Anyway, I see what's happening here--Snooganssnoogans was editing the article, which they've been doing since October of last year, so you decided to follow them and, dare I say it, mess with them a bit. Bishonen, you recently offered some advice to Winkelvi. Was there anything in there about "stop harassing editors with whom you are regularly in conflict"? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "turn literalist", I've always been one. That's part of being on the autism spectrum. A big part of it. And no, you don't see what's happening here. I'm not trying to mess with anyone. If that were the case, I wouldn't have been actually improving the article and bringing it into compliance with policy. I don't really have to remind you about AGF, do I? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• A lot of people with Wikipedia pages have long careers where they do a lot of things. There's not a single sentence is anyone's lede that fully encapsulates who they are and what they've done. The sentence you're concerned about is about things that Dobbs earned substantial RS coverage and notoriety for. Even in that 2004 Moyers statement that you cite, Moyers talks about how Dobbs is getting a lot of attention over his views on "outsourcing", which Dobbs then goes on to relate to NAFTA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is utterly sabotaged.

This is not an objective article. Had I been an established wiki editor I would do it myself, but someone who is should really weed this one out.

Anti-immigration

An IP number keeps adding text claiming that Dobbs is solely anti-illegal immigration. Dobbs is not just anti-illegal immigration. He's anti-immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs has repeatedly and publicly claimed support for Dreamers. He has also repeatedly claimed that he would support more immigration. His concern is over border protection and illegal immigration. It is an obvious leftist bias that allows the incorrect statement that he is an "Anti-Immigration advocate". All citations to support that fallacy come from leftist organizations that are not doing in-depth analysis of the issue, but are simply repeating a partisan characterization of the man. I have several citation of Lou Dobbs, in his own words, supporting legal immigration, and even supporting some illegals. Doniboy71 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans, User:Gamaliel, User:Soibangla, Doniboy is now blocked for edit warring (7RR? 8RR?). Drmies (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for edit warring. Odd that no one else was. I made the change and it was repeatedly changed back. Yet I was the only one blocked. I guess the editors give the liberal, left-wing view the benefit of the doubt, while conservatives are silenced. One look around shows this to be true. Regardeless of these deceitful editing practices, it is important to note that this article is completely false. Lou Dobbs is not anti-immigration, he is anti-illegal immigration. Unless Wikipedia condones an article that contradicts itself, why would there be such a strong effort to protect this incorrect language? In the Lede and in the Immigration section he is called Anti-Immigration, yet also in the immigration section he is quoted supporting legalization of some illegals. No where in this article does it establish that he is anti-immigration (because he isn't), yet this incorrect statement shows up twice, and is bitterly defended by several left-wing editors and their admin friends. Why? Doniboy71 (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh boo fucking hoo. You think that the rules don't apply for you? If you revert seven or eight times you're going to get blocked, whatever your politics: this was one of the easiest blocks ever. And if there's a whole bunch of editors reverting you, take a hint ("collaborative editing") and stop editing against consensus. I am going to check whether you have been warned of discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• ”I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally,” Mr. Trump ad-libbed last month during his State of the Union address...”That Mr. Trump would advance the interests of the global elite ahead of our citizens would be a tragic reversal on any day,” Lou Dobbs, the Fox Business Network host, said in a televised rant against the president on Wednesday evening. “The White House has simply lost its way.” soibangla (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

This biographic contains inaccurate statements. Mr. Dobbs is not anti-immigration. Mr. Dobbs is anti-illegal immigration. Allkir669 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Since this information is part of the editing that got the article protected, there is clearly no such consensus at this time. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with AllKir669 , It is a false statement to call him an anti-immigration advocate, when he is simply a pundit who strongly supports border patrol. His own words show that he has supported Dreamers, and supports increases in legal immigration as long as we control the border. He has argued several dozen times that preventing illegal immigration would allow us to increase legal immigration. Doniboy71 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

”I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally,” Mr. Trump ad-libbed last month during his State of the Union address...”That Mr. Trump would advance the interests of the global elite ahead of our citizens would be a tragic reversal on any day,” Lou Dobbs, the Fox Business Network host, said in a televised rant against the president on Wednesday evening. “The White House has simply lost its way.” soibangla (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Awful Article Ruined by Political Motivations

This is one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia, truly shameful. The amount of political bias and ranker allowed because it achieves a political goal in this article is shameful. Wikipedia discredits itself by hosting this level of content. 73.39.122.50 (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral Point-of-View

The intro summary was written in a very biased way. Stating Dobbs is anti-immigration is not true. HE IS ANTI ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The notation-emphasis on his previous views of Obama as well as tying in President Trump's statements on Obama prior to running for president are not critical to "Lou Dobbs" as a personality with decades of experience and statements . TOTALLY BIASED. Markvrb (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Markvrb, please read Lou Dobbs#Immigration to understand how this is not biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please maintain NPOV. Overstatements and misrepresentations serve neither the readers nor the mission of wikipedia. Sbelknap (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dobbs has at times spoken favorably of illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children and who therefore did not knowingly violate immigration law, and who have often assimilated, become educated, served in the military, and become productive members of American society. Dobbs has also opined that controlling illegal immigration would permit *increased* legal immigration. This article should be neutral and consider the more fine-grained nature of Dobbs's opinions. Sbelknap (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

the body of the article includes multiple overstatements. For example, this article links to the global cooling article, which acknowledges that some climate scientists (but not all) expressed concern about global cooling in the 1970s and before. The goal here is to simply state the facts without misrepresentations or exaggeration. Sbelknap (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your changes to the article are textbook WP:WEASEL, with the exception of the "anti-semitic" sub-section header. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Dobbs has spoken favorably of the Dreamers and has suggested that limiting illegal immigration might justify increasing legal immigration. What specifically are the weasel words to which you refer? Sbelknap (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The implication that Dobbs is antisemitic is not reasonable. No evidence is provided supporting this allegation. The problem was apparently with Guests on his show, not with Dobbs. Sbelknap (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The cited source says, unequivocally, that Dobbs has also peddled various conspiracy theories about Soros. Removing this cited statement of fact from a reliable source in favor of the weasel-nonsense "criticism" is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional source for "anti-Semitic" is found here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

forward.com is hardly a reliable source of unbiased information. There appears to be a severe breakdown in the governance of wikipedia. Dobbs is a living person who is being unfairly tarred as antisemitic. If I were he, I would sue wikipedia for defamation of character. This is outrageous. 165.124.84.72 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose on WP:RSN that the Forward be deprecated as a reliable source. However, if the only reason you think it's not reliable is that "it's Jewish," you should probably first read WP:NONAZIS. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

forward.com is also a socialist publication. Due consideration ought be raised about RS when a socialist publication attacks a conservative public figure. Surely, some other less biased source could be used (if there exists one)? Sbelknap (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Forward is not socialist, and it wouldn't matter even if it was. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You provide no evidence supporting your absurd assertion. From their web site: Launched as a Yiddish-language daily newspaper on April 22, 1897, the Forward entered the din of New York’s immigrant press as a defender of trade unionism and moderate, democratic socialism. Any regular reader of The Forward would be aware that its political orientation tends toward the Socialist. Sbelknap (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Forward as published in 2019 is not socialist in political orientation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You continue to offer no evidence supporting your opinion. You clearly are unfamiliar with The Forward, which continues to have a Democratic Socialist perspective. Jodi Rudoren, the recently hired editor and former NY Times reporter and associate editor, is a radical progressive with a long history of "advocacy journalism." See for example this linked article at camera.org. Whatever its virtues might be, The Forward is not an unbiased source of information on conservative pundits.Sbelknap (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

CAMERA is a right-wing interest group, and is hardly an "unbiased source of information" on anyone. You continue to not have consensus for these changes - if you want to dispute The Forward as a reliable source, you're invited to open a thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think Dobbs and his producers are unaware in advance of what his guests are going to say, which the guests have done multiple times? And why hasn't Lou ever attempted to walk back their statements? He lets them stand, on his show, in his voice. soibangla (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Opposing Illegal Immigration =/= Opposing Immigration

Leaving aside the disgraceful attempt to delegitimatize Lou Dobbs and proving once and for all that Wikipedia has never actually been neutral by dismissing him is as a conspiracy theorist, the other worst part of this article is how his opposition to illegal aliens is depicted.

Lou Dobbs is not anti-immigration. Lou Dobbs opposes unlawful entry into the United States. Lou Dobbs does not object to immigration into the United States of America and, more importantly, WIkipedia should have a higher standard than buying into the sheep that cannot separate lawful entry from illegal entry into the country.

For this reason, I propose that the headline be altered as follows, emphasis in bold:

Louis Carl Dobbs (born September 24, 1945) is an American television commentator, author, opponent to illegal immigration, radio show host, and the anchor of Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business Network.

[...]

Dobbs was an early promoter of the Barack Obama Birther conspiracy theory, which posits that Obama is not a natural born US citizen. (Here, the comment about Trump agreeing with Birther conspiracies is removed because ORANGE MAN BAD is not relevant. Donald Trump's opinion on Birther conspiracies has nothing to do with an article about LOU DOBBS.)

[...]

He is known for his opposition to illegal immigration, as well as for his belief that the American civil services and intelligence community is deliberately undermining the Trump administration. He maintains opposition to NAFTA and other international trade deals. A Trump confidante, his show is known for its pro-Trump coverage.

This maintains the fact that Lou Dobbs backs the Birther conspiracy theory and believes in the Deep State without stating Wikipedia's opinion that ORANGE MAN BAD and that any narrative contradicting the American left's talking points are not worth being allowed.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, though it has never been so, so using charged terms like "anti-immigration" does a disservice.

Hence:

• 1. "Anti-immigrant" becomes "opposed to illegal immigration". You can support lawful immigration without wanting illegal aliens.
• 2. "Deep State conspiracy theory" becomes "belief that the American civil services and intelligence community is deliberately undermining the Trump administration". Every nation has a Deep State and every bureaucracy wants to protect its power. Why is this seen as a falsehood?
• 3. Removed Wikipedia proclaiming Birther conspiracies to be false, as if this is law. PERSONALLY, I reject Birther conspiracy theories myself, but it's not Wikipedia's job to pretend that its core cabal of liberals that volunteer the most time editing the site is a neutral point of view. Anyone who uses their mind knows Birther stuff is fictuitous.

When people ask me why I think Wikipedia is a leftist organization overall, I point to this article. It's that bad. Wikipedia's primary editing base and powers that be who enforce the rules are overwhelmingly left-of-center, because bull crap like this is not only allowed, but enforced all the time.

--2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not whether wikipedia is socialist or conservative. Instead, the issue is whether this particular article is biased or fair. It seems very unfair, and to a living person. Sbelknap (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Dobbs is anti-immigration, not anti-illegal immigration. He supports restrictions on both, and has pushed all kinds of conspiracy theories and lies about immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This is an encyclopedia article, not an op-ed in a progressive magazine. Let us endeavor to converge towards the goal for a wikipedia article — "to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about (Lou Dobbs)." Please write your edits with a neutral point of view, which is how wikipedia works. Encyclopedias aim to be neutral. Sbelknap (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You continue not to have consensus for these changes, which weaken well-sourced descriptions of his use of anti-Semitic tropes, trafficking in "Deep State" conspiracy nuttery, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss each of your edits so that a compromise and consensus can be achieved. For example, I have no objection to removing "anti-semitic" before "George Soros conspiracy theories", but I object to most of your other changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: Edit-warring is not going to accomplish anything. I suggest you heed Snooganssnoogans' call to discuss your proposed changes here. There may be some which are acceptable and gain consensus, but removing well-sourced statements about Dobbs' belief in "Deep State" conspiracy theories, removing well-sourced descriptions of anti-Semitic tropes, etc. is not acceptable. "Neutrality" does not mean pretending something which is false is actually true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Which of the cited sources do you consider to be the strongest evidence that Dobb's believes in a "Deep-state" conspiracy? Sbelknap (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an extensive section under "Support for Trump" which discusses Dobbs' support for the "Deep State" conspiracy theory. For example: Lou Dobbs: 'May be time to declare war' on 'deep state', sourced to The Hill here. This Politico source is also of interest. So is Business Insider: Dobbs ... has pushed conspiracy theories that "deep state" national security officials and Jewish financier George Soros are determined to unseat the president. Which of these sources do you wish to contest? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The use of the word "conspiracy" seems terribly biased. Even the leftist/progressive magazine 'The Nation' acknowledges that there is some truth behind the idea that a deep state of unelected bureaucrats are frustrating the policy decisions of elected officials.

From your proposed source: In trying to sort out the dispute between Trump and his enemies inside the government, it useful to ditch the term “deep state,” with its overtones of conspiracies and origins in far less democratic societies like Turkey and Egypt. So your proposed source literally says that no, there isn't a "deep state conspiracy." Instead, it says that there are officials in government who are committed to upholding the law and international agreements, even when what Trump wants is illegal and violates those agreements. Why is Trump so angry? Because unlike his Trump Organization toadies, they won't just kowtow to his every whim. That's not a "deep state conspiracy!!!!!," that's public servants carrying out the public trust. I remind you (and perhaps Lou Dobbs needs such a reminder as well) that career federal employees work for the people of the United States, not for the president, and swear a sacred oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not to any mortal man. Perhaps a review of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act is in order. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is that there is a group of bureaucrats who resist the will of the elected official. Its not a "conspiracy theory." Reasonable men may disagree as to whether this is good or bad in some particular instance but it is not a conspiracy theory. So lets not use the term "conspiracy theory" in this wikipedia article. Sbelknap (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that it is not a conspiracy theory is irrelevant here - the cited reliable sources describe it as a conspiracy theory, and hence so do we. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not relying on personal opinion. I've cited a liberal/progressive source that makes it clear that the bureaucrats do resist the actions of elected officials. Just in the interest of balance, here is a conservative/capitalst source saying much the same thing. The cited sources in the article are of dubious reliability.Sbelknap (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an opinion by a notably pro-Trump conservative commentator. Not really helpful or useful here except to further underscore what Trump defenders such as Lou Dobbs believe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that a deep state exists. Some people think this is a good thing and some people think it is a bad thing. Either way, its not a conspiracy theory to note the existence of a deep state or to note that some unelected bureaucrats frustrate the efforts of some elected officials. It must be noted that the Constitution (Article 2) gives rather wide discretion to the Chief Executive. Sbelknap (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that a bureaucracy of career professionals that serve under multiple presidents of both parties exists, but some have characterized it as a "deep state" to demonize and subvert it in order to implement policies that are often not reality-compliant and in some cases predicated on conspiracy theories, so as to effectively create their own deep state. Please refer to the recent reporting about the forthcoming DOJ inspector general report showing that several conspiracy theories about the deep state have been debunked, and that career professionals were not "out to get Trump." Then take a look at how Rudy et al. subverted our "deep state" foreign policy toward Ukraine at Trump's behest. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, suppose some members of the 'Deep State' or 'Career Bureaucrats' disagree with the policy aims of a President. This results in friction between the President and the Deep State, and prevents his policy preferences from being implemented. This clearly has happened to Presidents of both parties. So why is it a 'conspiracy theory' to say so? Sbelknap (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As soibangla said, the "conspiracy theory" purports that there is an organized conspiracy (conspiracy: a secret plan or agreement between persons for an unlawful or harmful purpose) of this so-called "deep state" to unlawfully/unethically undermine the president of the United States. There is no evidence that this is happening, has happened, or ever will happen. In fact, independent investigations keep discovering that career professionals are faithfully carrying out their duties — including investigating the president and the president's appointees when necessary, because it is fundamental to the American system of government that no person is above the rule of law. Ergo, it is a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Some Trump defenders claim that the Trump-Ukraine scandal is merely a matter of policy differences, that all presidents have done what Trump did, it's just that some people who hate Trump, notably the "deep state," just don't like his policies. But that's not what it is. Other presidents offered official acts in exchange for official acts, which is fine; Trump offered official acts in exchange for personal acts. That's an objectively corrupt thing. But he and his defenders insist it was a "perfect" call and that the only people who can think otherwise are the evil deep staters. The only way Trump and his defenders can keep believing this is by maintaining a deep state conspiracy theory. But anyway, NOTAFORUM, so that's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You are entirely missing the point. Its not about whether some particular politician is doing the right thing or not. Instead, its about being neutral in descriptions of persons. In this case, Lou Dobbs. The current article is extremely biased. The same content could be presented using neutral descriptions. There is no need to invoke charged language. Perhaps some currently engaged editors might reconsider their goals here? Sbelknap (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean that we use meaningless words. Instead, as per WP:DUE, neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. It is demonstrable that in reliable sources, the view that there is a "deep state conspiracy" against Trump is rejected and considered a conspiracy theory. Therefore, that will be the viewpoint given prominence in this article. That Dobbs believes it to be true is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The point made above is that reliable sources from both a progressive POV and a conservative POV accept the existence of the deep state as a given and describe examples where unelected bureaucrats have hindered the policy aims of a president (and its not just the current president and its not just from one party). There is no consensus among reliable sources that this idea of a deep state is a conspiracy theory. In fact, the motivations, actions, and influence of 'deep state' bureaucrats have not been well-studied and are poorly understood, c.f.: Sbelknap (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Revert of BOLD removals

I have reverted User:Sbelknap's removal of a number of sourced discussions of Dobbs' political and social viewpoints, which were often replaced with weasel words. Contrary to their assertion, the SPLC is neither unreliable nor self-published; the IG report does not support the Spygate conspiracy theory, and Dobbs' comments about George Soros have indeed been repeatedly described as trafficking in conspiracy theories. These are all well-sourced and cited: that Sbelknap has been unable to gain consensus for their proposed changes is self-evident from this talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is a biography of a living person. The current draft includes disparaging language that is not accurate. By posting and reverting disparaging remarks about a living person, @NorthBySouthBaranof is in violation of wikipedia policy. They appear to misunderstand WP:Weasel. They are invited to post here their most certain example of a WP:Weasel problem in any of my edits. Sbelknap (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The current draft includes language that is well-supported by reliable citations. From the deliberate falsehood over "global cooling" to the ones over illegal immigration. I'm sorry if people are upset by this, but,. these are facts. Dobbs has made demonstrably false statements, on more than one occasion, and has been fact-checked by the media. ValarianB (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This entire page is more like a political hit piece than an information page

User:ValarianB I agree with Sbelknap's observations and strongly contest the idea that the current draft is "well supported by reliable citations" or that it meets NPOV. There are several assertions in the current draft that aren't even backed by their own citations, let alone all the claims that are made here that use biased and questionable citations. For example, global cooling is not a "deliberate falsehood", even the source being cited admits there were many scientists who took up the theory.

To revert every single edit I just made under the guise of "political POV" is outrageous. If you're against a certain edit, point out your issue with that edit, but don't claim it's all a "POV" problem when this article is written in a way that is openly and obviously anti-Dobbs in every single aspect. Edit5001 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There are an array of reliable sources which describe Dobbs' bizarre claims about undocumented immigrants doing voter fraud to flip the House in 2018 as what they are: bizarre, unsupported, outright nonsense. Likewise the discussion of Dobbs' trafficking in conspiracy theories about George Soros, the putative "deep state," etc. Your apparent personal disagreement with these sources is irrelevant. It is insufficient to state that Dobbs believes these things therefore it's "contested" - I'm sure that some people deeply and truly believe that the Earth is flat, but reliable sources unanimously say that it is an oblate spheroid, and hence that is factually what it is, for Wikipedia purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually I just looked at the two sources cited that contest Dobbs' claim about illegal immigrants voting and neither use the words "bizarre" or "outright nonsense". Those are your partisan spin words. People like you are the reason this article has a "Neutrality" dispute/credibility issue and you won't let anyone lift a finger to resolve it. Edit5001 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hyperbole is permitted on talk pages. It is sufficient in the article that we describe them as factually false. Do you have reliable sources which seriously support Dobbs' claim, or are we done here? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Center for Immigration Studies has covered this issue in detail and describes many examples and avenues illegal immigrants have used/can use to vote. https://cis.org/Huennekens/Aliens-and-Voter-Fraud For example, they note "Researchers from Old Dominion University (ODU) and George Mason University (GMU) analyzed participation rates by non-citizens using data from 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies. With this data, the researchers estimated that roughly 620,000 non-citizens were registered to vote prior to the 2008 election." They also note "The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a law group dedicated to ensuring election integrity. They published two reports detailing the specific instances in which aliens were registered to vote. The first, from August 2018, details how at least 3,100 aliens were registered to vote in 13 different sanctuary jurisdictions between 2006 and 2018." There's a lot more in the link.

With examples like this it's outrageous to attempt to pretend there's no such thing as illegal immigrants voting. Edit5001 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)