Talk:Lou Dobbs/Archive 3

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...".[1] 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)
• When explaining the theory that Obama was not born in the U.S., using the word "false" seems unnecessary. "Dobbs was an early promoter of birther conspiracy theories, which falsely posit..." There is no need to assert veracity or falsehood when explaining a concept. This appears to be one of multiple indications of bias in the article. Arinddio (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)arinddio
  • Telling the truth is not "bias". The fact that Dobbs promotes patently false conspiracy theories is an important part of the description. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (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.

• I agree, this article is one large NPOV violation. "Conspiracy theorist" directly violates WP:EDITORIAL and MOS:LABEL. There are six separate examples of Dobbs "falsely claiming", or having someone else who "falsely claimed" something on his show, each a violation of both WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:WIKIVOICE. Plus two more examples of "incorrectly". The statement "Dobbs rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" is almost a direct copy of the example of framing to avoid given in WP:AWW I could go on, but what's the point? The heat exhibited on this talk page shows that this has become a political argument, not an exercise in encyclopeadia building. For what it's worth, I'm not an American and have no dog in this fight. I didn't even know who he was and actually came to look this man up to learn something. All I learnt is that he's too politically controversial for Wikipedia to treat objectively. 217.155.66.190 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nonsense. There is nothing weasely about "Dobbs rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". That consensus is clearly explained in our articles on the subject, and that you and Dobbs do not know or accept facts is your own problem. We will not call facts "opinion" because some ignorant readers do not want to accept them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Labelling Dobbs "rightwing" would be uncontroversial except that, just for example, Don Lemon's entry never uses the word "left" even though he is reliably leftwing on just about any issue. Pointing out a particular political ideology on the part of celebrity journalists while ignoring an opposed ideology in others is a double standard that has rhetorical implications devoid of substance and designed to induce readers to think of some people as politically biased while assuming that others must not be biased at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.64.220 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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)
• I guess the editors give the liberal, left-wing view the benefit of the doubt, while conservatives are silenced. -- Why do people do this? It completely robs them of any credibility. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was the word immigrant scrubbed and replaced with alien? Can this be reverted? Jake453 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2021 (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)

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)

Conspiracy theorist may come off as a slur because of how people use it, but denotatively it's applicable. Conspiracies aren't inherently negative even if that's the most likely connotation, but if you truly do believe in the theory of one, that's a statement of fact. It might be easier to replace "he believes in conspiracy theories" with "he believes ice cream doesn't have any bones." It's not about the content, it's about whether he believes it or not. 2603:9001:6B08:9E6A:F0CD:1E88:EE0C:785 (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2020 (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)

Wait, you're proffering a source written in October 2018 as support for claims about the November 2018 elections? No, that's not how it works. Nobody's "pretending" anything. Lou Dobbs made the specific claim that "many" undocumented immigrants voted in the 2018 midterms and that they had an "immense impact." Reliable sources say that's false. Do you have a reliable source which says that it's true? A report written before the 2018 elections cannot possibly provide factual information about the outcome of the 2018 elections. That's simply impossible, unless you're arguing that the CIS is capable of time travel or has pre-cogs in a bacta tank. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If prior to the 2018 elections literal thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands, of illegal immigrants were registered to vote, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to claim that many of them did indeed go vote. Dobbs' claim may therefor be unsubstantiated by direct evidence, but to claim it's outright "false" is insulting to everyone's intelligence. Edit5001 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to personally make that assumption all day long. Wikipedia articles cannot make assumptions. Period. So either you have a reliable source, or you do not. And it appears that you do not.

What you do not seem to grasp here is that Wikipedia content is based on what is published in reliable sources. You apparently believe that most, if not all, reliable sources are biased in some way against your beliefs. That is not a solvable problem. If you personally believe that all reliable sources are biased against you, this may not be the right Internet project for you to participate in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Except the article is making an assumption - that the claim is "false" rather than simply "disputed". And it's not me I think some (not all) of these sources are biased against, but the entire political right and anyone within its scope. Edit5001 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the article is repeating what reliable sources say about the claim. Reliable sources say it's false. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Source does NOT say it's false that scientists used to warn about global cooling in the 1970s

In fact, the source notes; "Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."

and "Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the "Little Ice Age" from the 16th to 19th centuries."

and "But the story was tantalizing enough that other variations – somewhat more nuanced – were written by the New York Times and National Geographic, among others. The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue."

If anything, this acknowledges Dobbs' claim is based on factual history. It at no point says his claim is "false" - the furthest it goes is to say it "misses the point" about modern climate science. Edit5001 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The article was written in the 70s, and heavily misused by the likes of Dobbs and Limbaugh. A person who states, now in the present, that there was once "a push for the idea of global cooling", is deliberately disseminating a falsehood. There's no wiggle room here. ValarianB (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What? Read what the very source being quoted here wrote. "Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the "Little Ice Age" from the 16th to 19th centuries." "The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue."

The source literally says the claim of global cooling was accepted by some reputable scientists. You can say Dobbs misunderstands the weight of the science in that direction, but his claim that scientists warned about this is not false and the source doesn't call it false. This page thus shouldn't either. Edit5001 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep reading.

"It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking."

The gist of the Scientific American piece was that latter-day right-wing pundits have taken a decades-old article, written about an obscure niche of science, buried on on Page 64 and written in a bit of a purposefully melodramatic fashion, and scream it as the gospel truth. Dobbs is lying when he cites this, as are you when you misrepresent it. ValarianB (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that some scientists were backing the concept of global cooling, and more importantly the very source you're citing does not claim he was incorrect. Dobbs didn't claim that every single scientist, or even a majority of scientists, were backing the claim - his claim was far more vague. You're the only person lying here by deliberately misrepresenting a source and putting words in its mouth. As I directly cited from the article, it wasn't just a "decades old article", there were books written on it that were endorsed by prominent scientists. I directly quote from the source again; "The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue." News outlets like Newsweek also published articles such as this one titled "The Cooling World" : https://www.scribd.com/doc/225798861/Newsweek-s-Global-Cooling-Article-From-April-28-1975 Edit5001 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking what suits you and ignoring what is inconvenient. There doesn't seem to be much else to say here. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It says And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. "Revisionist lore" is clearly describing Dobbs' position as WP:FRINGE, which we have to avoid promoting by including it without such a disclaimer per WP:PROFRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

So several scientists can conclude something, many news outlets can report on it, but simply observing that scientists were saying it is now false? I dispute that this "fact" is even worthy of inclusion on the page. Edit5001 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Dobbs didn't simply say that "several scientists said something." He argued that in the 70's, scientists as a group argued for global cooling rather than global warming, that there was some sort of reversal, and that this indicates climate science today should be disregarded. All of these points are false and the narrative he is presenting is counterhistorical, as both the Scientific American source and the one I just added says. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The quote simply says "The fear then was global cooling." Is there more of the quote than that? Because that alone is not specifying that scientists as a group believed that. Edit5001 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I see it's been a year since this debate died down, but there is still room to improve the Environment section of the article. Dobbs was entirely wrong to imply, as he did, that scientists generally believed in global cooling in the 1970s. As has been pointed out, a substantial majority of climate-related scientific articles published during this period were about rising temperatures, not falling ones.

But the article currently reads 'Dobbs has falsely asserted that "scientists" used to warn about global cooling in the 1970s.' Anyone who knows the facts can reasonably infer that the assertion is about "all scientists" or "most scientists", but that isn't what the sentence actually says. In the current sentence structure, "scientists" means the same thing as "any scientists" and that position is inconsistent with the existing references, as others have noted.

This sentence can be changed minimally to accurately describe the error: 'Dobbs has falsely asserted there was a scientific consensus for global cooling in the 1970s.' It's the notion of a consensus that Dobbs was wrong about. The references support this new text as much as they contradict the existing text.

If this makes sense to people, I think that change can be made immediately. If not, we should discuss and find a better way to improve the section. But as it stands, I think the section is not acceptable. It should be fixed one way or another. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully this change I just made works: "Dobbs has misleadingly asserted that "scientists" warned of global cooling in the 1970s, though that was a distinctly minority view." soibangla (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement, since it preserves the ambiguous use of "scientists" (which scientists?) and introduces a new ambiguity: what is the referent for the new word "that"? The assertion or the warning? I think the wording I suggested is clear and correct. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The claim about the illegal immigrant federal prison population should be adjusted and given context

Firstly, this page just flat out wrongly says Dobbs said overall "prison population" when he clearly said "federal prison population" in his quote. The source also notes that as of 2001 (Dobbs made the claim in 2003) that illegal immigrants accounted for 24% of the federal prison population. The main source https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hardline-views-made-lou-dobbs-a-fox-powerhouse-now-hes-shaping-trumps-border-policy/2019/04/26/cb8ebd6c-5fa4-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html cites https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html

So while Dobbs' numbers were off by an estimated 9%, his emphasis on the problem illegal immigrants pose on the prison system wasn't baseless. Hence the source does not directly call his claim "false" like this page does. Edit5001 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Severe NPOV violations all over this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was lurking through various ARBCOM cases in 2019, and happened across one that covered this article. I clicked it, interested in the subject, only to find that the article is teeming with NPOV violations. Take the section under "Political views and controversies" called "Birtherism": the entire section is just attacking the subject of the page. I'm not a defender of Fox News or their obvious bias, but this seems completely contrary to Wikipedia's purpose as an aggregate of what reliable sources say to produce an encyclopedia. What's the point of mentioning an AP article that says that he was supposedly a "publicity nightmare"? The only reason this is here is to attack the subject of the article, which is not only a NPOV violation, but is also a BLP violation. Hell, the entire political views and controversies section is just attacks (typically, controversies sections are not something that should take up half of the article). Also, the claim in the lede that he is a "Trump confidante" is not supported by the sources that the claim cites. As a result of all of this, I'm asking for input on what we should do to neutrally reword the controversies section, to the best of our ability, as supported by reliable sources. I understand that this topic has been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page, but nothing has been done to solve the problem. Do any of the editors of this page have some ideas as to how we could rework the controversies section? Thanks, and happy holidays! Jdcomix (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The existing content is AFAIK all reliably sourced. That was not a NYT op-ed, but an AP news report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I did not catch that, thanks! Jdcomix (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In the lead, remove the "conspiracy theorist" mention, as Dobbs is not notable as a conspiracy theorist but as a television commentator and best-selling author. Giving air time to somebody does not make Dobbs a conspiracy theorist.

Reasonable people disagree as to whether the "deep state conspiracies" are actually "bureaucratic resistance to the policies and decisions of a duly-elected president." Thus, the language should be made more neutral or perhaps both POVs presented.

For reasons that are not immediately obvious, the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered a reliable source by wikipedia. Despite this, there are other sources that provide information that conflicts with the SPLC. This ought be reflected in the article.

In the lead and elsewhere, Dobbs is said to hold anti-immigration views. In fact, his views are more nuanced than that, he is generally in favor of legal immigration, with opposition to what he sees a violation of the spirit and letter of the law on legal immigration.

Notably, Dobbs speaks Spanish and is married to a Mexican woman. This ought to be included in the article.

Despite some improvement, there remains the implication that Dobbs is antisemitic, which is simply untrue. His criticism of Soros and the Soros organization is a defensible point of view that is not out of the mainstream thought. He is clearly not a hater of Jews.

There have been many attempts to fix this article but most editors have given up. There does seem to be a problem with misunderstanding WP:OWN. It might be helpful if there were rfc guidance on this.

Sbelknap (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in reliable sources of Dobbs' adherence to, and promotion of, false conspiracy theories targeting various figures. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should reflect the body of the article, which, in turn, should reflect what reliable sources say about the subject. There are no grounds for removing it. Your personal beliefs about Dobbs are irrelevant - reliable sources have noted an anti-Semitic tone of his statements about George Soros, and those reliable sources are controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the unsupported opinions of editors is not relevant. We agree there. However, there have been many attempts to bring this article to a NPOV with citation of high-quality sources. These are often quickly deleted for specious reasons. Interested editors are invited to parse through the edit history. res ipsa loquitur. Sbelknap (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Another serious issue is that whenever neutral POV language edits are made, these are reverted with the assertion that the NPOV edits are "weasel words", when they in no way meet the definition of weasel words at WP:weasel. Assuming good faith, some editors have a wildly inaccurate understanding of what constitutes weasel words in a wikipedia context. Sbelknap (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Giving air time to somebody does not make Dobbs a conspiracy theorist So should we call him a conspiracy theory promoter? He books these people on his show, so he can't claim to be unaware of what they believe and what they'll talk about, and Lou provides no pushback. And these conspiracy theories are widely embraced by Trump's base, which is Lou's target audience.

It seems that we are living in a country where there is one screen upon which people see two (or more) movies. This presents a challenge for wikipedia editors. One may not like the fact that there are millions of intelligent, engaged, well-educated people who profoundly disagree with ones point of view. But here we are.Sbelknap (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

he is generally in favor of legal immigration See his response in the article when Trump said he wanted to dramatically increase legal immigration. Can you find a cite showing Lou distinguished his views on legal vs. illegal?

One need not look far. The current version of the article includes this statement: In a November 2009 interview with Telemundo, Dobbs said that the U.S. needed a "rational, effective humane policy" for immigration that included enhanced border security and also "the ability to legalize illegal immigrants on certain conditions.Sbelknap (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap — He said that a decade ago, and it's rather vague. What did he say this year when Trump said he wanted massive legal immigration? soibangla (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We currently have massive legal immigration, approximately 1.2 million a year. Dobbs opposed increasing this further. That is not the same as opposing legal immigration.Sbelknap (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap — Dobbs opposed increasing this further Is that what he said, or is that what you're asserting he meant? soibangla (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

the implication that Dobbs is anti-Semitic comes from the fact that the various Soros conspiracy theories are rooted in anti-Semitism, so if anyone wants to avoid being called anti-Semitic, maybe they should stop repeating all the trash about Soros, because that trash appeals to anti-Semites

I'm sure that from your point of view, this statement appears to be a sane one. Yet many people, including myself, consider this statement to be completely bonkers. Perhaps you are familiar with the Jewish periodical, Mosaic? Here's a quote from a recent article

When Donald Trump, joined by various conservative politicians and journalists, accused the Jewish billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros of paying people to protest the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a number of liberal American journalists immediately cried anti-Semitism. But, notes James Kirchick, the truth is that Soros’s Open Society Foundations did give large sums to the groups organizing the largest and most prominent protests. Praising much of Soros’s work in Europe, Kirchick argues that in the U.S. he has chosen to back “some of the forces of illiberalism that threaten to rip apart [America’s] open society.” This discrepancy, Kirchik writes, must be kept in mind when determining if criticism of Soros is anti-Semitic

Sbelknap (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap — No, Soros didn't fund Kavanaugh protesters, he didn't fund the Women’s March, and contrary to the assertions of one of Lou's guests, Soros doesn't fund migrant caravans or antifa, either. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

When, in the midst of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s contentious Supreme Court confirmation battle, a pair of female sexual assault victims confronted Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator and screamed at him for four minutes, conservatives pointed out that one of the women serves as executive director of an organization—the Center for Popular Democracy—which received $1.5 million from Open Society in 2016 and 2017 alone.

Sbelknap (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

At least 50 of the largest organizations that participated as “partners” in the Jan. 21, 2017, Women’s March had received grants from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations or similar funds in the “House of Soros,” as his philanthropic empire was once called internally. The number of Soros-backed partners has grown to at least 80. At least 20 of the largest groups that led the Saturday anti-Kavanaugh protests have been Open Society grantees.

Sbelknap (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is the oft-repeated assertions of astroturfing, that Soros pays people to appear as grassroots protestors, and thus it's all fake. And you posted an opinion piece. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

For reasons that are not immediately obvious, the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered a reliable source For reasons that are totally obvious, some people challenge SPLC as a reliable source. Namely, because SPLC exposes them as bigots and they really, really don't like being exposed as bigots. I liken this to why conservative liars hate Media Matters: because MM exposes them as liars and they really, really don't like being exposed as liars.

Are you suggesting that this wikipedia article about Lou Dobbs ought to reflect your original research on Lou Dobbs? That's not how we do things at wikipedia. There is clearly a serious problem with the credibility of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has gone completely off the rails. Their founder was fired for sexual harassment. The SPLC has unfairly tarred individuals and organizations with defamatory slurs.

Are you suggesting that this wikipedia article about Lou Dobbs ought to reflect your original research on Lou Dobbs? What reason do you have to believe that? soibangla (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable people disagree as to whether the "deep state conspiracies" are actually "bureaucratic resistance to the policies and decisions of a duly-elected president." Deep state conspiracies actually predated Trump, and included accusations that Obama had politicized the government. Trump expanded that narrative (drain the swamp) as a campaign theme. The bureaucracy has existed for generations to advance the policies of whoever the sitting president has been, and some have argued that the deep state conspiracy theory is a ruse to give someone like Trump an excuse to install his own bureaucracy that is loyal to him. It could be projection, similar to the reasoning that "the media is liberal so we need to create our own outlets and call ourselves fair and balanced" even though they're brazenly slanted right. The great propagandists of history would be impressed by this stuff.

Mind you, I watched Lou for many years on CNN, his show was great. It was obvious he leaned right, but it wasn't in your face. Then he went to Fox and came unglued. What happened to that guy? soibangla (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable people disagree as to whether the "deep state conspiracies" are actually "bureaucratic resistance to the policies and decisions of a duly-elected president." Which reasonable people would you be referring to, and in which reliable sources can this POV be found? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern accounts of the national security state tend toward one of two opposing views of bureaucratic tensions within it: At one extreme, the executive branch bureaucracy is a shadowy “deep state,” unaccountable to the public or even to the elected President. On this account, bureaucratic obstacles to the President’s agenda are inherently suspect, even dangerous. At the other end, bureaucratic resistance to the President represents a necessary benevolent constraint on an otherwise imperial executive. This account hails the bureaucracy as the modern incarnation of the separation of powers, an alternative to the traditional checks on the President of the courts and Congress, which are faulted with falling down on the job. These “deep state” and “benevolent constraints” approaches to bureaucratic behavior track debates in the scholarship over the legitimacy of the administrative state more broadly, and are used as rhetorical devices to challenge or defend current allocations of power. These accounts lead, respectively, to fear of or over- reliance on bureaucratic resistance—which I define here broadly as action or inaction within the executive branch that hinders executive movement—as a means of checking Presidential power. Fear of bureaucratic resistance results in an erosion of valuable internal checks on the President. Alternatively, over- reliance on these internal checks may result in complacency, and an abdication of responsibility by the traditional external checks, namely members of Congress and the courts. Both approaches result in an insufficiently constrained President, which should concern most advocates and opponents of the administrative state.

Sbelknap (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, but it doesn't say anything about Lou Dobbs or whether the things Lou Dobbs has said are or are not conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The wikipedia article about Lou Dobbs includes this assertion, Dobbs is a proponent of the Deep State conspiracy theory. Yet, this is not a conspiracy theory at all. It is in fact a point of discussion among academics, journalists, attorneys, politicians, and many ordinary people. Using this charged language is not consistent with WP:POV. One could either use less charged language than "conspiracy theory" or also present the opposing view that there is a legitimate concern about bureaucratic resistance. Sbelknap (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Washington is hotly debating whether President Trump’s wall-building falls within the powers that Congress has delegated to him. But the bureaucracy has been eroding the president’s executive power with much less fanfare. Deference to the “experts” in the “non-partisan” civil service has weakened the principle that government officials who are not accountable to the voters require oversight by those who are. Bureaucrats are now thought to deserve their own independent power base, and the president’s rejection of their expertise can be ruled illegal.

Sbelknap (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The panel was titled “2020 Vision: U.S. Intelligence and the Presidential Election.” It enabled me to see something more clearly: The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party. I don’t mean this in a conspiratorial sense (though it has conspiratorial implications), and I don’t mean it literally. Although there are three former CIA employees in Congress (and a fourth is running), the CIA does not resemble the Democratic or Republican parties. But in practice, the U.S. intelligence community, led by former officials, is developing into an organized political faction. Call it the Intelligence Party. Like other factions, at home and abroad, this faction is seeking to gain public support and influence the 2020 presidential election to advance its institutional and political interests.

Sbelknap (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a discussion in the popular press.Sbelknap (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a discussion from The Regulatory Review.Sbelknap (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This article does not contain the words "deep state" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The wikipedia project aims for relevance, accuracy, and a neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to support the goals of wikipedia. Sbelknap (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with the currently-cited reliable sources is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I am providing specific citations in support of my attempts to achieve a NPOV. I encourage you to do the same.Sbelknap (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Dobbs' status as a noted conspiracy theorist is widely documented in reliable sources. Your personal disagreement with those sources is not relevant. You are edit-warring because you can't convince other editors that you're correct. Snooganssnoogans, Soibangla and Muboshgu have discussed this recently. If this open RFC determines that there is a consensus to remove the material, I shall yield to that consensus. Until then, you're peddling FUD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Those sources don't mention Lou Dobbs, so using them would be WP:SYNTH; and the National Review is a WP:BIASED source in any case, so even if they did mention Dobbs we couldn't use their opinions to cite statements of fact or to contradict statements of fact made by more neutral sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are about bureaucratic resistance to the policies of a duly elected official (or pejoratively, deep state). The issue is whether or not referring to the existence of such bureaucratic resistance is a conspiracy theory. Its about the term and its proper use, not about Lou Dobbs. There is no WP:SYNTH issue here. Sbelknap (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: the section entitled "Birtherism," it is entirely NPOV to note that Dobbs was an early and frequent promoter of the false and discredited conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was lying about his birthplace and was not legally entitled to be U.S. president. That is frankly a key part of Dobbs' notoriety, and there is nothing violative of NPOV in mentioning it. Frankly, it would violate NPOV not to mention it, as that would be pretending it never happened. Birtherism is perhaps the textbook definition of a fringe theory which is entitled to no credence in this encyclopedia - we are not required to give equal validity to such utterly-ludicrous nonsense. It is not an "attack" to note that Dobbs pushed lies about Barack Obama, any more than it is an "attack" to note that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex in the Oval Office. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because some people think there is a deep state conspiracy is no reason to remove reference to Dobbs promoting it - which he clearly is per the sources. The arguments by Sbelknap (as elsewhere) are in effect a synthesis of quotations and some primary sources chosen by him/her to make a point. Drive-by tagging should be removed and this item closed off unless there is some new evidence. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. deep state section - I'm not advocating for its removal, I'm just asking for people to help reword the section so that it is more neutral without synthesizing reliable sources. Jdcomix (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, violates NPOV about it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is actually not with this section, it's with the political views section, which is already covered in the RfC intro. Jdcomix (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of Sbelknap‘s observations and have made similar ones previously. Edit5001 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The term Conspiracy theorist is not a profession, avocation, or a neutral description of someone, it’s defamatory. Use of these terms in a BLP is inappropriate and unnecessary, as more precise descriptions are available that are not defamatory.Sbelknap (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends a lot on if there is any evidence on the nature of the theory and the balance of reliable sources on the subject. As far as I can see Deep State falls into the category of conspiracy theory and it is thus appropriate to use it. Where and how is a matter of debate.-----Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a "profession" to be used as a label for a person, if the person is widely-known for such theorizing, such as Mr. Dobbs or an Alex Jones. If the sourcing supports it, it should be used. Zaathras (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a link to what you consider the best reliable source that Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist. Sbelknap (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You are perfectly capable of perusing the citations in Lou Dobbs#Birtherism at your leisure. Zaathras (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I did look through these sources. That is why I posted my comment on this issue on this talk page. I don't see any support for the assertion that Lou Dobbs is (or was) a conspiracy theorist about the birtherism issue. Some of this kerfuffle occurred prior to the release of the Haiwai'i long form birth certificate; many reporters and pundits discussed this birther issue during that time. Talk show hosts often have guests who say things that are not the POV of the host. Again, please pick the *one best source* for this assertion that Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist and we can evaluate it. At this point, the assertion that Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist seems unsupported by any reliable source. Citing ad hominem attacks from elsewhere is not reasonable. Lobbs is a living person and the current lead appears to violate WP:BLP. Sbelknap (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs has, on numerous occasions, promoted birtherism.

Birtherism is a conspiracy theory.

Therefore, Lou Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist.

Q.E.D.. Zaathras (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "promoted birtherism"? What is your best source for this assertion that Lou Dobbs "promoted birtherism"? Sbelknap (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"Lou Dobbs’s promotion of the "birther" controversy", for one. soibangla (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Promoted and birtherism, two links to answer your first query about the meaning of words in the English language. The second question's answer will be found at Lou_Dobbs#Birtherism. Zaathras (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not reasonable, as this CSM article was published prior to release of the Obama "long form" birth certificate. Many other journalists continued to pursue the story at the same time that Dobbs did. Dobbs (and most other commentators) mostly dropped the issue shortly after the long form was released. Sbelknap (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add language to the effect that "Dobbs dropped the matter after Obama's long-form birth certificate was released," and you have a RS to support that, proceed. But as the article now stands, "Dobbs promoted the false conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States" is correct. soibangla (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Non sequitur. No other president has ever had to release their birth certificate, and there was literally never any evidence that Obama was born outside the United States. No serious journalist ever bought into that utter nonsense delusion. It was an invention of far-right wingnuts and grifters hoping to score a quick buck from like-minded morons. The claim that he was not a natural-born citizen and was covering it up through an elaborate plot is, was, and always has been a conspiracy theory, and anyone who ever believed or espoused it is a conspiracy theorist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. Birtherism began with Illinois politician Andy Martin as a campaign strategy for attacking Obama. It came to prominence when Mark Penn, a Clinton operative, wrote a memo about it during the 2007 Democrat primary campaign, (although the strategy was not used by Clinton's campaign). There were many stories about birtherism in the mainstream media over a prolonged period of time. It was not until the Obama's long form birth certificate was released that birtherism became a crackpot theory. Are you claiming that all the journalists who covered the birther story are conspiracy theorists? Dozens of these stories were in liberal media. Singling out a conservative journalist that you don't like who covered a story that many other journalists covered and using the pejorative term "conspiracy theorist" is unfair. Using pejorative terms based on subjective criteria like "supported" or "promoted" violates WP:BLP. Dobbs never said he was certain that it was true, AFAIK. Try the "shoe on the other foot" approach. Would you accuse Mark Penn of being a conspiracy theorist? How about the many liberal journalists who covered this story? This is not the place to grind axes. Its an encyclopedia, not a place to express your political preferences. Sbelknap (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thus far, you have failed to find consensus for your suggested edit, and have been reverted. Trying to do this without consensus never leads to a good end. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Dozens of these stories were in liberal media...How about the many liberal journalists who covered this story? You mean the reporting on the birtherism phenomenon, as opposed to promoting birtherism? soibangla (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Birtherism was a creation of the Democrats and the Liberal Media. Sbelknap (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It matters not who started it, this article does not assert Dobbs did. Dobbs promoted it. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lots of journalists covered the story. They did this because it was of interest to their audiences. The only difference between Dobbs covering the story and other journalists covering the story is political viewpoint. Covering a rodeo doesn't make one a cowboy. Covering birtherism doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist. Sbelknap (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Covering birtherism doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist". Mr. Dobbs promoted, supported, and advanced the conspiracy theory of birtherism, as supported by the citations in the article. He did not merely "cover them" in the role of a responsible journalist (a profession that he is actually...not). As this is becoming a circular discussion, and all editors who have opined here oppose your suggestions (user "Edit5001" has been topic-banned). I think it may be time to pack it in, as they say. Zaathras (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If what Zaathras wrote here were accurate, I would agree with him. However, what he wrote is inaccurate. This is not a circular discussion, as nobody has addressed my query. No editor has provided a link to the single source that you consider the best reliable source that Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist. Single. Best. Source. Go. Sbelknap (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, whether this other editor is right or not isn't even that interesting to me--what bothers me is that you seem to think that this RfC is some way in which you can force other editors to answer you question. It is not. So please drop that line (Zaathras, I advice you to just ignore it), before I or another admin blocks you for harassment. BTW this is an RfC, albeit a very poorly formed one, so these remarks will not be regarded very highly by whoever closes it. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This RfC...

This RFC doesn't even seem to have registered properly, where's the poll to vote and explain our positions? Edit5001 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• That is not even the biggest problem with the RfC: one can simply add that. However, an RfC needs to present a well-formed question, concise and to the point, with specific points that editors can respond to in a focused and relatively small section. We do not have that. Moroever, Jdcomix, if you are going to try this again, please make sure that the actual problem you pose is phrased neutrally and free of errors, and that policy is correctly applied. You say, for instance, "What's the point of mentioning an AP article that says that he was supposedly a "publicity nightmare"? The only reason this is here is to attack the subject of the article, which is not only a NPOV violation, but is also a BLP violation." That an "attack [on] the subject" is the only reason that text is in there is problematic (with AGF, for starters), and if the claim is well-verified (the AP is a reliable source) and the language not degrading, it is not a BLP violation (no admin would call that a BLP violation, I'm pretty sure). RfCs are simply not the right tool for wholesale, sweeping changes, which is why I removed the RfC tag: no one in their right mind would know how to close what has quickly become a free-for-all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have gone so long without checking this....yeah, this was doomed from the start. Sorry about the inconvenience! Jdcomix (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

References

Can someone fix the archiving?

No need for 9-yr old comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it. Jdcomix (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Link in Early Life

The 'Owl Club' reference is linked to an organization in South Africa which is incorrect. The Harvard Final Club of that name has a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owl_Club_(Harvard). 209.17.40.39 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the link for now, thanks. Not sure that South African "Owl Club" is all that notable, the writing is bad and flowery, citations sparse. So perhaps the Harvard one will become that article title someday, but that's for another venue to discuss. Zaathras (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Remove "conspiracy theorist", it is opinion and almost slander. Labeling a current and respected public figure a "conspiracy theorist" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. 2601:C2:A00:165:9D88:B316:8308:3AF6 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Nah, Wikipedia is not censored. There are multiple sources to support this statement so simply because you think it is slander (which it is not) it's not a reason to remove it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I said almost slander. I read every thread attached to this article after I submitted the edit. This entry is clearly a lost cause. It’s a shame Wikipedia can’t be an objective place because some seek to push an agenda. I’m sure the sources you’d cite me are fountains of truth, but thanks for the very eloquent “Nah”. As you are Canadian I understand that you don’t grasp how free speech works or what actual censorship is, despite your government’s propensity for it. Wishing you the best, hope you enjoy your semi-totalitarian state. Mhg1234 (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The most interesting content on these politically-tinged articles is often in the edit comments and threads on the talk page. Here, we have a naked assertion without a citation that Lou Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist. This seems to violate WP:BLP, yet when challenged no supporting citation is provided. This is an excellent demonstration of one particular type of pathology of the content of these wikipedia articles. Sbelknap (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The article contains extensive citations for his promotion of, among others, Barack Obama birthplace conspiracy theories and George Soros conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The term "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative, carrying the implication of mental illness. There is no evidence that Lou Dobbs is mentally ill. This characterization is clearly unfair and in violation of WP:BLP. This sort of thing is an emergent property of wikipedia, and is a pathology of the mechanism by which wikipedia works. Much can be learned by studying the edit comments and the exchanges on the talk pages. Eventually, this information may be useful for repairing this serious flaw in wikipedia. Stay well, friend. Sbelknap (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Truth is hard to extinguish, but some will do their damnedest. Mhg1234 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"

Someone added a citation needed tag to the first line of the lead which describes Dobbs as a "conspiracy theorist". The body of the lead extensively documents Dobbs's conspiracy theory peddling, which includes but is not limited to birtherism, George Soros conspiracy theories and Deep State conspiracy theories. Is a person who promotes conspiracy theories not a conspiracy theorist? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, the term conspiracy theory has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. There is no cited source that defines the term "conspiracy theorist". Do you have a reliable source for your proposed definition of the meaning of "conspiracy theorist"? Is there also a reliable source that concludes that Lou Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist? Elsewise, the use of this term "conspiracy theorist" violates WP:BLP, and according to the wikipedia guidelines ought not be used here. I propose that the term be removed from the article. Sbelknap (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I started discussions on the BLP[2] and Fringe theory noticeboards.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Dobbs as prone to peddling conspiracy theories [4] and cover his advocacy of conspiracy theories [5] even beyond those this article already includes [6]. The moniker "conspiracy-theorist-in-chief" was applied to him as long ago as 2009. (The right-leaning Washington Examiner describes Dobbs as "the rumpled conspiracy theorist who hosts a show on Fox Business Network" [7]. The Examiner is yellow-flagged at WP:RSP, and I'd be uncomfortable relying upon that alone, but it's still a data point.) Applying the term "conspiracy theorist" does not mean that Dobbs is mentally ill; it's just describing how he makes his living. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like an open-and-shut case. And a short perusal of the article, reading of some of the weird shit he believes in, shows that the reliable sources who call him that are right on target. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources cited in this article that assert that Lou Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist. That is simply not true. As per WP:BLP, citation of a reliable source is needed. If there is one, please provide it. Sbelknap (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The article cites multiple sources that detail Dobbs' promotion of conspiracy theories. Additional sources have been provided in this discussion, and still more exist (e.g., [8]), going back more than a decade (e.g., [9]). He promotes conspiracy theories; ergo, he's a conspiracy theorist. One description is shorter, but there's no daylight between them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A high school physics teacher talks about theories of physics, but that doesn't make them a theoretical physicist. Most people would consider a conspiracy theorist to be a person who creates conspiracy theories, not a person who talks about them. Sbelknap (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of inventing conspiracy theories de novo being a necessary part of the definition. [10] (Nor does the analogy to physics teachers vs. physicists really help. If anything, it makes the prospect of a clear dividing line rather blurry. Actually, a lot of what theoretical physicists do is talk about existing theories of physics, or make small modifications to them.) And Dobbs doesn't just discuss conspiracy theories, he boosts them to the world. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary a theorist is "One who theorizes; a theoretician." Sbelknap (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I won’t comment on content at the moment, but Sbelknap, your argument is a pretty classic example of a non-sequitur. The sources are clear that he promotes conspiracy theories. The only question is how to word it per NPOV. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Simply talking about conspiracy theories doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist. Otherwise, you would be a conspiracy theorist. Where is a supporting citation that describes Lou Dobbs as a conspiracy theorist? Sbelknap (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I rather deliberately didn’t make such a claim, or say I would support it in Wiki-voice. My point was that he could easily be described as promoting conspiracy theories, or even a prominent promulgater, thereof. I agree that describing him in wiki-voice as an outright conspiracy theorist is somewhat nebulous, given his long career and the wording in RS. But policy-based support for the former is pretty much a given. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I propose that the term "conspiracy theorist" be expunged from the lead. I also agree that it is reasonable to describe Lou Dobbs as covering/reporting/discussing/promoting/promulgating conspiracy theories is reasonable to have in the body of the article. Precise language TBD. Sbelknap (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Not only he has been describes as such in multiple RS, but he claimed/implied himself that the "theories" X,Y,Z were true, "theories" which are known to be false. Therefore, yes, this should be said in WP voice, just as it would be for notable Holocaust deniers. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The most interesting content in politically-charged articles is often in the edit comments and talk page. Sbelknap (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs has like Dan Bongino and Sean Hannity known that the FBI was in on illegal FISA court mission to spy on Trump. Not a theory, AG is prosecuting this and the media won't report on anything that vindicates Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.5.183 (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if that were true, and it's not, or if you had provided any evidence, which you didn't, it has no relevance here. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"proponent of legal immigration"

None of the sources support calling Dobbs a "proponent of legal immigration". They do support the previous wording, which said "opponent of immigration, conspiracy theorist" (As per the version which was restored by NorthBySouthBaranof), which was changed with the edit summary "Fixed typo". The current wording is an obfuscation of the actual, accurate description. I would change it but am unable to edit the page. Perhaps another editor could make this change? NonReproBlue (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Incredibly biased

Not curated by a neutral writer at all. And now it’s a locked article so misinfo is being carried without accountability. Please, Wiki, do better. SpartB (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change something, you need to say what. General whining never helps in Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your baseless claim has been made many times on this page and refuted at length every time. The irony is that the folks complaining about a lack of neutrality wear their ideology on their sleeve. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

In the Immigration section, please change this sentence:

Dobbs has also falsely claimed that "illegal aliens" were a third of the total prison population in the United States.

to read

Dobbs has also falsely claimed that "illegal aliens" were a third of the Federal prison population in the United States.

and replace the tertiary source for this claim that is currently provided (a Washington Post article) with this secondary source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190817162125/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html

which is the source the Washington Post article itself cites as the reference for its quote--which is actually a misquote, as you'll see by comparing them.

(Just to be clear, Dobbs' claim is false either way, but as a matter of policy we only call people out for what they actually say, not for what they're misquoted as saying.)

Thanks. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This content is properly sourced and is not "propaganda"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lou_Dobbs&diff=1033746855&oldid=1033744712

It should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, I've reverted to your version. That these conspiracy theories are false has been amply and exhaustively demonstrated by countless reliable sources, and isn't open for debate. If the IP SPA continues edit warring, just ping an administrator to deal with the disruption. There's no need to repeatedly indulge someone who is quite clearly ideologically editing against policy like this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

POV phrases

Need to remove editorial opinion phrases such as "False conspiracy theory", need neutral statements for disputed claims.

I disagree - the fact that the conspiracy theories around the 2020 election, and specifically those relating to voting machines, are false is well-documented and unanimous among mainstream reliable sources. We state facts as facts and this is a fact, whether you like it or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The justification you made here couldn't be a clearer admission of your violations of Wikipedia:NPOV. Voting machines have been fraught with controversy for decades, especially among Democrats, until the aftermath of 2020.

These claims are "disputed" in the same way that there is a "dispute" about whether or not the Earth is flat. No reliable sources claim that there is any truth to the notion that the 2020 election was marred by massive fraud, voting machine related or otherwise. Failure to reflect that unanimity would be a failure to adhere to a neutral point of view. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes at the end. Squeakachu (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please cite the reliable sources which support your claim about voting machines in the 2020 United States presidential election. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I made no such claim. The claim to prove is that Lou Dobbs used "false conspiracy theories." You are the ones making it, and have the burden of proof. But just for fun I googled voting machine controversies. Here are a few of them. This one from October 2020 is interesting, before voting machine fraud became impossible and those claiming otherwise were suddenly flat-earthers: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54378961. This is another interesting one written in 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/755066523/cyber-experts-warn-of-vulnerabilities-facing-2020-election-machines. And, of course, there's the 2004 election in which it was widely believed that George W. Bush was elected due to hacked voting machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies. I'd add that I'm confident in my memory of 2004 that there was never a coordinated campaign to add wikipedia edits about such claims being "false conspiracy theories" at that time or ever since, until this past November. 97.119.99.113 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there have been concerns about voting machines over the years, just not in this election. CISA said "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,"[11] and Trump fired the director Chris Krebs days later, followed by Trump attorney Joe diGenova saying Krebs should be executed. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This response isn't making the point you think it's making. The idea that any concerns over voting machines suddenly became unfounded in November 2020, a month after being considered by the same people to be a major potential problem, strains credulity. 97.119.99.113 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

When potential issues arise, vendors and officials don't just stand there doing nothing, they resolve the issues. And that's why few if any issues arose in this election. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Another laughable response. If I ever get around to it, I may try to learn how to navigate the arbitration process on Wikipedia. But it seems like this community is purely involved in aggressive gatekeeping and propaganda, and has no interest whatsoever in producing objective content. From where I stand, I suspect there might be incentive problems with Wikipedia's funding model that make this kind of outcome unavoidable. 97.119.99.113 (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x56O4G8VsiA soibangla (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to look does not make your claims true. Let's get you start with a few sources:

• Goba, Kadia (November 4, 2020). "Donald Trump Is Lying About The Early Election Results". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on November 4, 2020. Retrieved November 4, 2020.
• King, Ledyard (November 7, 2020). "Trump revives baseless claims of election fraud after Biden wins presidential race". USA Today. Archived from the original on November 8, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2020.
• Haberman, Maggie; Corasaniti, Nick; Rutenberg, Jim; Feuer, Alan; Thrush, Glenn; Gray, Kathleen (November 19, 2020). "Presidential Transition Live Updates: Trump Invites State Lawmakers to White House in Bid to Subvert Election". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved November 23, 2020.</ref>

--Calton | Talk 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

and

• Fichera, Angelo; Spencer, Saranac Hale (November 13, 2020). "Bogus Theory Claims Supercomputer Switched Votes in Election". FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on November 15, 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2020.
• "Repudiating Trump, officials say election 'most secure'". AP NEWS. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on November 15, 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2020.

Another misreading of my rather obvious point. "My claims" are not what you appear to think they are. Your citations here have no relevance to whether the statement under discussion is NPoV. 97.119.99.113 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The citations are exactly relevant; they demonstrate that we're following the policy. That you don't understand this, and choose to invoke the word "NPoV" in some sort of misguided True Scotsman gamble is irrelevant. While I think you know exactly what you're doing, if you continue down this route, you'll only demonstrate that you lack the requisite competency to edit here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

With the understanding that I'm wasting my time arguing with an incurious partisan idealogue, I'll go ahead and spell this out anyway. The claim is that "false conspiracy theory" implies that it's definitively, provably false that voting machines were hacked to influence the outcome of the elections, and that this claim is so obvious it doesn't require any citation, and is the neutral point of view. None of the links provided have anything to do with this, as I've already said to you and the several other partisans here about 5 times. 97.119.99.113 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

First, let me rebut you a bit. I'm not a partisan; not only do I not belong to any political party, my political beliefs don't conform to any specific ideology. Secondly, this shouldn't be an issue in which "partisanship" has any part to play. Facts, thankfully, are still facts, independent on your political beliefs. The only people who typically allege these sorts of things are those who hold fringe views that aren't supported by reliable sources, and thus feel "ThE TRuTH!" is being suppressed.

My personal interest in these articles is primarily predicated on keeping out misinformation, disinformation, and fringe views. This is how we keep Wikipedia reliable. And thus, this is also Wikipedia policy.

Lastly, article introductions don't typically cite references. Or rather, they very rarely do so. The references are contained further down in the article body, and/or at the dedicated article which describes the concept, person, or event in question. That these claims are false is voluminously cited, referenced, and backed by reliable sources at the articles devoted to this. An editor also kindly supplied the references you asked for, and you replied that they're no longer "relevant". Anytime your so-called "concerns" have been responded to, you've shifted the goalposts somewhere else. You're citing policies without truly understanding them, and then personally attacking people and calling them names based on your inability to get your way. "NPOV" on Wikipedia does not mean what you claim it means, and the encyclopedia isn't written the way you've said it is. You're titling at windmills. I think you've sufficiently demonstrated that you're either WP:INCOMPETENT or, (and I think this infinitely more likely), WP:NOTHERE to actually build an encyclopedia. You're here, quite obviously, to insert fringe views into an article. Or more accurately, to soften the language in order to subtly whitewash the factual statement. Either way, you've demonstrated yourself to essentially be a disruptive single-purpose account, and we won't loose any sleep over calling you out on it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Came back here to see if there was any actual response to my point other than personal invective and accusations. Looking like no. Who's really WP:NOTHERE, I wonder? 97.119.99.113 (talk)

We're going to label clearly debunked conspiracy theories as false, yes. We're not going to help you water it down, in order to make it seem like they're credible, which is the only possible reason for someone to make such an edit suggestion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)