Talk:Lou Dobbs

I have removed several biased or offensive articles on this talk page that have no relevance to the improvement of this article. Please refer to the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines before posting to see what is and is not considered acceptable. Thank you and remember to be bold when editing Wikipedia! ~~~~ Wizardry Dragon 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Remember

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

Bias

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

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

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

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

Edit

Pro-Dobbs statement edited:

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

Anti-Dobbs statement removed:

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

Ambiguous statement moved here for now:

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

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

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

---

Lou Dobbs Watcher revised

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

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

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

---

Removed Dobbswatch.com & Opinion Journal

The ip 216.254.126.222 and 65.213.7.6 belong to the user redwolfb14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not add content or create pages that exist solely to attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. If you have a valid point, make it in a nonoffensive manner. Please remember the ettiquite guidelines and try to keep it civil. Wizardry Dragon 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please be aware that the critical links section includes a link i've never debated in any form or fashion. The two links in question are the Dobbswatch.com link and the opinion journal link. --Redwolfb14 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this unnoticed vandalism?

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

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

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

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

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

---

Merlinus Last Word

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

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

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

Objective statements about Dobbs' program keep getting removed

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

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

Do you mean this line?

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

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

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