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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Why was the word immigrant scrubbed and replaced with alien? Can this be reverted? Jake453 ( talk) 09:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lou Dobbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“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)
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
it is not a conspiracy theoryis 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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
"It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking."
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sbelknap ( talk) 01:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Giving air time to somebody does not make Dobbs a conspiracy theoristSo 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.
he is generally in favor of legal immigrationSee 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?
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)
Dobbs opposed increasing this furtherIs 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-Semiticcomes 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
Sbelknap ( talk) 06:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)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 [1]
Sbelknap ( talk) 19:36, 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. [2]
Sbelknap ( talk) 20:07, 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. [3]
For reasons that are not immediately obvious, the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered a reliable sourceFor 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?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.
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)
Sbelknap ( talk) 05:55, 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. [10]
Sbelknap ( talk) 06:01, 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. [11]
Sbelknap ( talk) 06:16, 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. [12]
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)
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)
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)
References
No need for 9-yr old comments. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
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: /info/en/?search=Owl_Club_(Harvard). 209.17.40.39 ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lou Dobbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Truth is hard to extinguish, but some will do their damnedest. Mhg1234 ( talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lou Dobbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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:
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lou_Dobbs&diff=1033746855&oldid=1033744712
It should be restored. soibangla ( talk) 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Need to remove editorial opinion phrases such as "False conspiracy theory", need neutral statements for disputed claims.
Your unwillingness to look does not make your claims true. Let's get you start with a few sources:
-- Calton | Talk 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
and
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Why was the word immigrant scrubbed and replaced with alien? Can this be reverted? Jake453 ( talk) 09:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lou Dobbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“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)
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
it is not a conspiracy theoryis 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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
"It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking."
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sbelknap ( talk) 01:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Giving air time to somebody does not make Dobbs a conspiracy theoristSo 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.
he is generally in favor of legal immigrationSee 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?
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)
Dobbs opposed increasing this furtherIs 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-Semiticcomes 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
Sbelknap ( talk) 06:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)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 [1]
Sbelknap ( talk) 19:36, 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. [2]
Sbelknap ( talk) 20:07, 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. [3]
For reasons that are not immediately obvious, the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered a reliable sourceFor 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?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.
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)
Sbelknap ( talk) 05:55, 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. [10]
Sbelknap ( talk) 06:01, 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. [11]
Sbelknap ( talk) 06:16, 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. [12]
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)
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)
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)
References
No need for 9-yr old comments. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
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: /info/en/?search=Owl_Club_(Harvard). 209.17.40.39 ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lou Dobbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Truth is hard to extinguish, but some will do their damnedest. Mhg1234 ( talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lou Dobbs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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:
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lou_Dobbs&diff=1033746855&oldid=1033744712
It should be restored. soibangla ( talk) 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Need to remove editorial opinion phrases such as "False conspiracy theory", need neutral statements for disputed claims.
Your unwillingness to look does not make your claims true. Let's get you start with a few sources:
-- Calton | Talk 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
and