Talk:David Horowitz/Archive 1

Conservative not Neoconservative

David Horowitz says he is not a "neoconservative," he labels himself a conservative, though the definition of "conservative" has never been defined (he would not be under Russell T. Kirk's standards).

Horowitz has adopted the tactic of suggesting that "neoconservative" is an antisemetic term, though it has been applied to nonJews. "For the record, I am not a "neo-conservative" (unless the label is intended to mean -- as it sometimes is -- that I am a conservative who is a Jew)."[26].

If someone has said they are not a neoconservative, how can you prove what they belief in otherwise? 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it.99.151.173.137 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul or the Muslim Student Assn?

Just curious if anyone thinks that the little section on his criticisms of Ron Paul are worth keeping in this article? It's entirely too current-event focused -- is anyone going to care what Horowitz said about Ron Paul five years from now? Jkp1187 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or the criticism portion for the Muslim Student Assn, it seems like this is a recent event and not relevant of being permanently placed in an encyclopedia article.

Bias and Objectivity

I remember in many public discourses by David Horowitz he uses name-calling/epithets against perceived enemies such s Liberal bias,Islamofascist et cetera, isn't this blatant academic misconduct?, not befitting of academic objectivity and seeking to endeavor to maintain an non-inflammatory stance? By comparison Norman Podhoretz uses similar name-calliing devices in his writings. Is this objective for academics in campus? Provide samples in the article. --220.239.179.128 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism from Peter Steinberger

[27] This is a hyperlink to a transcript of Peter Steinberger's debate with Horowitz at Reed College.

Among other things, Steinberger argues: - That Horowitz proclaims himself (in his novel called 'The Art of Political War') a "Political Warrior" who will do anything for the his chosen political agenda, and therefore cannot be trusted as an intellectual. - That Horowitz' 'Academic Bill of Rights' exempts right-wing college's from it's tenets, but forces left-wing colleges to tenure right-wing professors with affirmative-action style legislation.

Worth looking at and, in my opinion, including in the article. --Heyitspeter 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. despite my usernames specious similarity with Steinberger's first name, I have no affiliation, and am, in fact, a separate entity. :)

Other David Horowitz

There is another David Horowitz (http://www.fightback.com/about/davidbio/bio.html) who is famous for consumer advocacy. At least, I think this is a different David Horowitz. I just want to let the editors know, and hope this is the correct place to do it.

The non-neocon David Horowitz had a TV show called "Fight Back!" in the 1980s, in which he'd expose unsafe or poorly-performing products and helped consumers fight back against corporations. He'd frequently assist them in returning products, getting refunds, etc.

Well, the external link you've provided doesn't work. You're welcome to create a page entitled David Horowitz (consumer advocate), though. Thanks very much, Meelar 00:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well this one works: (http://www.fightback.com) I don't know what happened to that last link. In any event, I don't want to start a new page until I can confirm that these are different guys..

They are definitely different people. I'm familiar with Horowitz the conservative, and I assure you he's not the same guy. Here are pictures:

David Horowitz the consumer advocate: http://www.fightback.com/images/home_images/top1.jpg

David Horowitz the conservative rabblerouser: http://www.hamilton.edu/Levitt/images/horowitz.jpg

I added a little entry under David Horowitz (consumer advocate), but a search for plain old "David Horowitz" comes up with the conservative guy...

--- How about a disambiguation page for this topic?

Added up top.--Dejitarob 06:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Back out of CPS's changes

I backed out CPS's changes. Changing "became" to "claims to have become" made the sentence incorrect and clunky, and I don't see any reason to doubt his claim that he did indeed become disillusioned (whether such disillusionment was justified or not). Also, "social activist and writer" is a more accurate description than pundit—many of his activities count as "activism" as opposed to just writing or appearing on talk shows, which is how I would define a "pundit". —Chowbok 15:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External Links

These are the edits I've proposed:

• I originally deleted the frontpagemag link because it wasn't external; I've since created "See also" subheading for internal linking.
• The Larkin-Horowitz page has sufficient exchanges on the ABR debate, so there's no need for the extra links to Larkin's other essays.
• If the remaining links are to be incorporated into the main article, they should at least be academic/journalistic in background. I can't be one to judge which pages are factual and which aren't, so I'm leaving them and re-ordering them into pro- and anti-Horowitz camps. My vote is for the Nation, Reason, Counterpunch and maybe Disinfopedia articles to remain and scrap the rest. --Pastricide 03:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't need another internal link to Frontpagemag, it's already linked in the first paragraph.

Regarding the other links, I don't see much overlap between them. We generally try to avoid multiple links to the same domain, so we should pick the more notable Counterpunch entry (I vote for the Rooij article). But the Mediatransparency link covers funding, which the others do not in as much detail. The Reasononline article is relatively short and it again covers the ABR, so it might be removed. The Mediamatters link is actually to a list of articles about Horowitz, they appear to cover him extensively and so we should keep that. The Campus Progress discusses the ABR, but it goes beyond that, covering in great detail other aspects of Horowitz's campus activities. The Disinfopedia article is long, but rather clumsily-written (dang those wikis).

I'm not sure why you set a limit at so-called academic/journalistic websites. The Frontpagemag doesn't qualify in either category, for instance. -Willmcw 06:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I mean't Media Transparency should stay, not Disinfopedia. I would also propose one Counterpunch entry, though I haven't decided which yet. And I didn't mean to imply that Mediamatters should be scrapped, since it contains a list of articles and is not a link to a separate essay (like Reason and the Nation, etc).

Frontpagemag is included specifically because it is affiliated with Horowitz, not necessarily because of its journalistic merit. I'll have to figure out what my standards are for defining such academic/journalistic merit; some of the frontpage site is over the top. But the frontpage link under External Links is a fairly straight bio, and I don't have a problem with it. --Pastricide 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. I certainly didn't mean we should exclude a listing of Frontpagemag, just that, by comparison, it is not an academic/journalistic website either. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Conservative", "neo-conservative", or "far right wing"?

Neither the term "conservative" nor "neo-conservative" seems to fit this man. "Far right wing" would be more accurate, though I realize there's no easy, neutral noun form for this.

The preceding unsigned comment was added by ?

- who's asking?! This said, neo-conservative seems fine and doesn't necessarily exclude Horowitz, or anyone else, being 'a far-rightwing neo-conservative.' The 'neo' means the people in question shifted from (far) left to (far) right during their political careers.

If the discussion finds it worthwhile to included various political identities it might prove of further educational benefit to apply such labels to organizations with known sympathies. In particular The Southern Poverty Law Center can accurately be described as leftwing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobholmgren (talk • contribs) 04:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

It is inaccurate to characterize David Horowitz as conservative in the generally accepted sense of the term. He is a neoconservative, lobbying for foreign wars, big government controls, and other parts of the neoconservative agendaRobatsu 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He isn't a "conservative" or even an "American". He has no loyalty to the US, only to I$rael and the rest of his tribe. He is a Jew, nothing more, nothing less. 11/10/09

Your obvious Anti-Semeticism aside, he claims this:

"For the record, I am not a 'neo-conservative.'" So unless you know him better than he does, I'd say he is not. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tightened, Removed Repetition, Added Sources

I tried to tighten this article because it was flabby and way overblown. Keep in mind frontpagemagazine.com is a blog: every rant does not need to be linked to and recorded in an encyclopedia. He's a guy who is long on opinion, not exactly a rare commidty in the blogosphere. This article is still too long. Newsworthy is one thing, pumping it with blather is another. Michael Powell at the WP wrote a pretty good analysis of DH a few years ago. I'll try to dig it up. skywriter 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to delete the following because it is merely blogging, another example of everybody's got an opinion. This one is not linked to anything and contains spelling error. Anyone feel strongly about keeping it?

Controversy

Horowitz responded to the August 7, 2005, death of ABC News anchor Peter Jennings with an August 8 post on the Moonbat Central weblog, titled "Peter Jennings Sympathies for the Devil," in which he wrote:

• Peter Jennings is dead, may he rest in peace. Lest we forget, however, while he was alive Peter Jennings did considerable damage to the cause of civilization and human deceny [sic] by his sympathy for Jew-hating terrorists and their supporters.

Media Matters for America and Al Franken of Air America Radio criticized Horowitz for his statement.

skywriter 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one had responded then it might have been just more blogging in the wind. It is the response from others which made this statement noteworthy. We can fix spelling errors. -Will Beback 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the Jennings section, Will Beback, is not that it is extant. It is that it lacks content, another mirror of DH bloviating. To say x, x and x "criticized H. for his statement" leaves out the content of whatever criticism there was while repeating the attack on the dead man. skywriter 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV problems in skywriters purported attempt to "tighten" the article

I am new to wikipedia, so I am not completely aware of the proper procedure for edits and stuff yet, but the article seemed to have quite a POV, reflected in:

a.) emphasis on hyperbolic comments/controversial statements made by Horowitz rather than his general political philosophies.

b.) criticism is heavily embedded throughout article rather than just in criticism section, and much of it is linked to left-leaning sites i.e. mediamatters, which have compiled lists of his more controversial statements and articles critical of him, but whos heavy inclusion precludes a neutral summary of his work.

c.) Opinion of African Americans title is misleading and suggests that he holds a blanket opinion towrds all people with dark skin, and if someone wonders what that opinion is, the exaggerated associations with white supremacists and selective quotations from his reperations article are clearly intended to leave no doubt that Horowitz is racist. Opposition to aff action is not inextricably linked with racism. From my understanding, the reparartions article was intended to provoke dialogue and prove a point about free speech and political correctness on campuses. If so, then then discussions of the article should be put into context with this objective.

d.) Skywriter describes the Horowitz's objection to what he percieved as a distortion of his writing in the article published by the Southern Povery Law Center as an attempt to "suppress" it. There are better ways to describe protesting a percieved misrepresentation of ones work than as an attempt to suppress it.

@@ The unsigned note above is by anonymous user 70.174.149.29.

This article is short on facts and long on opinion. 70.174.149.29 changes have beeen reverted because they are advertising opinion already available on the subject's blog. There is no precedent for blog opinion to be mirrored in an encyclopedia. Biographical facts should be added as time allows. I further shortened an already too long article. skywriter 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problem

What is the issue here. From skywriters edit comment it would appear that he believes that the page is biased towards Horowitz, although I am kind of incredulous of that, considering the controversies section is five times larger than the life and career section. I agree that the article is unsatisfactory and would like to make some changes, but some additional feedback from others would be helpful.

Zanksta 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I write this as I listen to "The Professors" author David Horowitz on C-SPAN2. I found the wikipedia entry to be a very helpful and seemingly objective description of Mr. Horowitz. In these times, radical polemicists need to be revealed as such, and wikipedia performes that service admirably. My thanks to the author(s) and editors. jeroboambramblejam

No. Wikipedia's role is not to help the people "in these times" to help reveal "radical polemicists." It is not a news source. It is not a blog. It is a free encyclopedia that is open to editing. That being said, like other controversial subjects, we shall leave the Criticisms in a brief, but strong and summarizing section, and not as the major section. That way it stay NPOV. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

More Cleanup

I've done a little cleanup, tightening, readding material that mysteriously vanished, and removing that statement about Peter Jennings since no one seems to know what Media Matters and Al Franken actually said. However (perhaps I should preface this by saying I strongly disagree with a lot of Horowitz's beliefs), I still think that the article is lacking in context, i.e. a description of what his philosophies actually are; I think previous versions before skywriter's edits attempted to do this, although in such a nebulous manner as to make it of little use. Perhaps some quotes from his autobiography or other books would suffice? I've noted the section as a stub in the interim. Gershwinrb 23:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep controversy in "Controversy and criticism"!

Controversial POV statements such as Chip Berlet's have to stay in the "Controversy and criticism" section. Keep them out of the intro! --Varenius 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Life and career

I originally came to this page to check on biographical info, since I had been wondering when Horowitz became a right-winger and whether it was a gradual thing or a sudden transformation. The article was a disappointment, since it basically didn't cover that information at all. There's basically no coverage at all from 1974 to 2001, and what it does cover is pretty sketchy.

This section really needs work - it seems like so much attention is paid to the many present-day controversies surrounding Horowitz, that basic things, like a coherent biographical sketch, have been left wanting. I've have come across a very good source for biographical information here. Yes, its from Horowitz' FrontPage site and hence is a biased source, but contains a great deal of useful information nevertheless. He also has an autobiography "Radical Son" and a book of essays, "Left Illusions", covering his move from far-left to far-right. There's plenty of source material to build a decent biography, if someone wants to do this. (I'm busy with other articles at present.) Peter G Werner 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Charges of hypocrisy re: calling someone a "self-hating jew"

I am removing the text:

[Horowitz]..has drawn charges of hypocrisy after he labeled Noam Chomsky and George Soros self-hating Jews, which is the Jewish equivalent of the Uncle Tom slur. [28]

The cited source doesn't contain the words Noam, Chomsky, George, or Soros nor any form of the word hypocritical. The only place the word self-hating is found is in the title. I read a good part of the citation and found nothing that overtly charges Horowtiz with being hypocritical. If I'm missing it, I apologize, and request you respond here with the exact location of the hypocrisy charge in the text. Thanks. Lawyer2b 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is hypocritical that David Horowitz, of all people, would call someone else a "self-hating Jew". Remember, this is the guy who said, in an interview with Chuck Baldwin, that "And I grew up in a community that was part of a vast international conspiracy, just as the anti-Communists said it was. It was orchestrated from Moscow, funded by the Kremlin and it had treason in its heart."

Nice way of attacking your own people, David. And you said George Soros is a self-hating Jew? Oy vey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He was talking about being from a communist household, not a jewish household you dolt. Moscow was run by the Jews? Oy Vey is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.159.224 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article was disorganized and poorly written in a large part. I expanded on his early life, which was neglected, and shortened various anecdotal references to certain appearances and opinions. The quotation section was also way too long, with several quotes from the same essay - this piece is linked to and can be read if people are interested in more of his thoughts. Also, the page seems to have undergone a spamming effort by the Revolutionary Worker at some point, which I took care of. --TJive 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a considerable amount of criticism of the subject, a separate criticism section would appear warranted. -Will Beback 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Berlet/SPLC matter down to a criticism section and restored another bit of sourced criticism. -Will Beback 06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it to reflect what is actually argued and added a relevant source. Any thoughts on the general organization of the article? --TJive 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is well organized, as it mostly maintains a chronological flow. Section headings might be moved, changed, or omitted, but the underlying text is decent. -Will Beback 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent editing over criticism material.

I moved the following material from the criticism section to the "activism on the right section":

David Horowitz has proclaimed that the United States is fighting a war and "the aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists." He stated that the employees of the New York Times are among the enemies in this war, and then linked this statement to the Front Page Magazine recommending it as a "proposal for action." Such tactics are to find the home address and telephone number of the latest enemy and then publish it on the Internet,accompanied by impassioned condemnations of that person as a Grave Enemy, a traitor, someone who threatens all that is good in the world. Front Page contributor Rocco DiPippo, known to Horowitz, publishes the names, telephone numbers, and addresses on the Internet, of all enemies deemed worthy for "proposal of action.” It has happened in the past that those who were the target of this genre of demonization campaign that included publication of their home address were attacked and even killed.

1) I moved it because I can't see any criticism in it. As far as I can see, it simply summarizes something Horowitz supposedly does without criticisizing it.

2) I removed the last sentence as it seems to be unnecessary implication that the people who Horowtiz targets will be attacked and killed.

3) I also requested citations for the rest as they would seem necessary.

If someone disagrees with my take on the situation, please explain so here. Unfortunately this material has been subject to a lot of editing without discussion (or consensus) which I would like to avoid. Thank you. Lawyer2b 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite my request for a discussion, User:Pf5 0i moved this material back to the criticism section without even so much as an edit summary to explain why. I ask again for an explanation as there is no mention of any criticism of Horowitz in this material. Lawyer2b 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The same request goes to User:68.230.157.65 who moved the material back to the criticism section. Lawyer2b 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this article while researching David Horowitz, his activism and his literary output.As Peter Werner states, it is lacking some important details. For instance, Horowitz co-authored two NY Times bestsellers with Peter Collier; a biography of the Kennedys and another of the Rockefellers. He also co-authored a biography of the Roosevelts.Horowitz is a very complicated political luminary and facts like the aforementioned should be worked into this article to portray that. Also, as Mr. Werner implies, it is important to describe in detail Horowitz's dramatic transformation from leftist activist to conservative activist.

I edited the section in activism currently in dispute.( I'm new to Wikipedia protocol and have since signed up for an account. My official Wikipedia handle is now "Digger101.")Yesterday(?) I inserted this paragraph: "David Horowitz has proclaimed that the United States is fighting an internal war and "the aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists." [6] He stated that the employees of the New York Times are among the enemies in this war and then recommended a "proposal for action." Horowitz's "proposal for action" was a link to Front Page contributor Rocco DiPippo who proposed that in retaliation for the New York Times's publishing of classified security programs and security details involving government officials, readers should investigate Times reporters, editors, photographers and executives. He then posted the publicly available addresses of Times publisher Arthur 'Pinch' Sulzberger and Times photographer Linda J. Spillers on his personal website. DiPippo's action caused an uproar among some leftwing bloggers." I think my paragraph accurately and non-judgementally describes the event itself.

I also removed Lawyer2B's paragraph: " David Horowitz has proclaimed that the United States is fighting a war and "the aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists." [13] He stated that the employees of the New York Times are among the enemies in this war and then recommended it as a "proposal for action." Such an action is to find the home address and telephone number of the latest enemy and then publish it on the Internet,accompanied by impassioned condemnations of that person as a Grave Enemy, a traitor, someone who threatens all that is good in the world. Horowitz "proposal for action" was linked [14] to Front Page contributor Rocco DiPippo and Horowitz associate, who publishes the names, telephone numbers, and addresses on the Internet, of all enemies deemed worthy for "proposal of action.” It has happened in the past that those who were the target of this genre of demonization campaign that included publication of their home address were attacked and even killed." I removed the paragraph for the following reasons:

1) It is a verifiably innaccurate description of the event. In the blog entry relating to the'proposal for action,' Horowitz did not refer to those he views as internal U.S. enemies as "Grave Enemy,someone who threatens all that is good in the world."

2) As far as I can tell, Rocco DiPippo is not "an associate" of Horowitz, but an online columnist, one of many who contributes to Horowitz's Front Page website. I also contacted DiPippo by telephone ( he lists his phone number on his website (www.antiprotester.blogspot.com) to inquire about the 'proposal for action' and regarding the nature of his relationship with David Horowitz. He said that he met Horowitz once at a college event and spoke briefly with him. According to him, other than that his relationship with Horowitz involves submitting articles to Horowitz's Front Page site for consideration of publication. If you look at DiPippo's website, it appears that rather than publishing the "the names, telephone numbers, and addresses on the Internet, of all enemies deemed worthy for "proposal of action," he posted the addresses of two people: Arthur Sulzberger, the NY Times' editor and Linda J. Spillers, a NY Times photographer onto his website. Lawyer2B's paragraph paints the inaccurate picture that DiPippo's online role is one of a lister of peoples addresses, when a visit to DiPippo's website factually indicates that he is a right wing blogger and minor pundit.

3)Another problem with the disputed paragraph is its last sentence. It represents a form of editorializing. For instance, to conclude a Wikipedia entry on Chemistry would one write, "Mixing chemicals together has been known to kill people"? It's pointless, unless one is attempting to form a judgement in the reader's head, which seems to be the case regarding the disputed Lawyer2B paragraph.

For the sake of accuracy, I suggest that my paragraph remain in 'Activism,' since Horowitz's 'proposal for action' is clearly an activist activity. I further suggest that Lawyer2B's paragraph be eliminated entirely, since it contains editorializing and provable inaccuracies. I look forward to seeing this article once again open for edits since I can substantially contribute to it in a factual, dispassionate way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.157.65 (talk • contribs)

User:68.230.157.65 or User:Digger101, first let me say thank you for responding to my request for a discussion. I think we are both confused but are actually in complete agreement. Let me start by making it absolutely clear that I didn't write the paragraph you identify as being "mine". I happen to agree that paragraph seems to attempt to "form a judgement in the reader's head" and it should be replaced by your much better objective description of the event. I am in further agreement that your paragraph should be in the "activist" section as opposed to the "criticism" section for the simple reason that it contains no mention of criticism directed at Horowitz. This is the same reason I believed the original paragraph should be there as well. Hope that's cleared up. Unfortunately, I still think we have to be concerned with the number of "one-edit editors" (see list in next section below) who do not seem to be interested in discussing things. P.S. if you place four tildes "~~~~" in a row at the end of your edit on the talk page it will insert your user name and a date/time stamp like this: Lawyer2b 06:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sociopath" used as descriptive adjective in first sentence?

Replaced with "activist," and also evened the number of neutral and anti-Horowitz links to eight apiece; one link to a Counterpunch.org article is enough. I think it's time to lock this page to keep it from being further vandalized by axe-grinding ideologues. Longshot1980 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Something very strange is going on. Over the last few days a series of users (most with non-sensical user names) have been editing the same material (see my post directly above yours.) What is especially strange is that none of them have a single edit to any other article except the one they did here.

• User:Cream10 -- has two edits to this article.
• User:Axon009
• User:Vbnc
• User:Vssd
• User:FUx989
• User:Pf5 0i
• User:TzdPl
• User:P4Ua0y
• User:4*6
• User:KxMhdj7
• User:Xb5fWQD

What is frustrating is they seemingly refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. I'm not sure what to do about this. Lawyer2b 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a sustained assult by some disgruntled individual. It should be reported as an administrator incident. The article itself should be protected, by an administrator, from editing for a while. --Ben Houston 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. I posted a message on User talk:Will Beback, since he edited the article recently, but have not heard from him. Lawyer2b 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Add User:VnGt1v6 to the list.

Criticism Section

I fail to see any criticism cited in this paragraph:

David Horowitz has proclaimed that the United States is fighting a war and "the aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists." [13] He stated that the employees of the New York Times are among the enemies in this war and then recommended it as a "proposal for action." Such an action is to find the home address and telephone number of the latest enemy and then publish it on the Internet,accompanied by impassioned condemnations of that person as a Grave Enemy, a traitor, someone who threatens all that is good in the world. Horowitz "proposal for action" was linked [14] to Front Page contributor Rocco DiPippo and Horowitz associate, who publishes the names, telephone numbers, and addresses on the Internet, of all enemies deemed worthy for "proposal of action.” It has happened in the past that those who were the target of this genre of demonization campaign that included publication of their home address were attacked and even killed.

If none can be added, I think it should be deleted.

--Gerkinstock 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I too cannot find any criticism of Horowitz in the paragraph, however, (with the noted exception of the last sentence) it seems to reasonably describe a tactic Horowitz used. Citing the lack of criticism, I removed the last sentence and moved the rest to the "activist" section. Unfortunately, it was moved back to the criticism section (with the last sentence added back) without any discussion by a series of editors (see above subject) who seem bent on editing without consensus. Lawyer2b 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Four suggestions:

1) the phrase "the tendency of social conservatives to advocate sodomy laws" obviously needs a simple edit

I don't see anything wrong with that phrase. What do you see wrong with it? Lawyer2b 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By golly, you're right. I misread the sentence. It's fine as is. Thank you!Dicksonlaprade 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2) The third paragraph under "Activism on the right" ("Viewing the political atmosphere of many universities. . . . copies were destroyed and confiscated by protesting campus groups") is problematic at best. The external link is to an article of DH's arguing against slavery reparations. There is no link supporting the assertion that universities refused to sell him ad space in campus papers or that campus groups destroyed these papers. Unless such evidence is forthcoming, this para needs rewriting

Did this on 7/31; sorry, forgot to do edit summary. Dicksonlaprade 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

3) No mention is made in "criticisms" of false stories of campus bias which Horowitz has spread--e.g., the Colorado college student who was given an F supposedly for refusing to argue that Bush was a war criminal, the Al-Qloushi story, and the Penn State biology teacher who supposedly showed Fahrenheit 9/11 right before the 2004 elections (see MediaMatters for the first two, and this Inside Higher Education piece for the third.

Did this on 7/31. Dicksonlaprade 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the section discussing these stories goes on a little too long relative to the length of the article as a whole. I suggest streamlining them and perhaps combining them with the section on #4 below, i.e. make a consolidated, concise section on credibility issues. --Varenius 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of a way to make these paragraphs more concise, and I welcome any suggestions. I wanted to put three prominent, well-supported examples of debunked stories to show that this is a credibility issue, not a mere matter of one or two trivial factual errors.

It seems to me that the credibility issues which I address belong under "Criticisms"--that is, I see "criticisms" and "credibility" as belonging under the same head--but if you have a different idea on arrangement, it might be worth trying. Dicksonlaprade 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

4) No mention of the Free Exchange on Campus dissection of Horowitz's book The Professors, which details dozens of quotations taken out of context, unsubstantiated claims, and other problems.

See my comment under #3 above. --Varenius 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, not sure that a separate head needed for credibility, not sure what that would look like, but you're welcome to give it a whirl if you think it would enhance the utility and readability of this entry. Dicksonlaprade 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I plan to begin adding these items starting July 27 or 28 if there are no objections. Dicksonlaprade 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All done! Dicksonlaprade 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I like David Horowitz a lot, but any reasonable criticism having citable sources should be included. Expect me to challenge anything that doesn't.  ;-) Lawyer2b 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do! Whatever I add I will try to cite very thoroughly.Dicksonlaprade 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of text from "Activism on the Right" Section

User:Dicksonlaprade removed the following text from the article:

Viewing the political atmosphere of many universities as intolerant of such ideas, he went so far as to purchase, or attempt to purchase, advertising space in school publications in order to get his views and arguments across. Many of these offers were denied, and at some schools whose papers carried the essay, copies were destroyed and confiscated by protesting campus groups. [29]

I think it's good material and should be in there. Can you explain why you removed it? Lawyer2b 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I explain this a bit under point two in the previous section. Basically, the text is not bad, it just lacks an external link verifying its claims. The link which is provided merely talks about DH's anti-reparations views--not the alleged refusal of advertising space and subsequent destruction of copies of school papers. If anyone has one or more credible links which support this story, I have no problem reinstating the text. Dicksonlaprade 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I found sources when I noticed it was missing but I wasn't sure if that was the problem. If you would, put something in the edit summary explaining why it was removed. That way I can be step ahead.  ;-) Lawyer2b 16:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Still a little new to Wikipedia, occasionially forget to do summary. Will try for improvement. Cheers. Dicksonlaprade 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it good material to say that the USA is an anti-white racist country despite the fact that the USA is more than 80% white? There is not a single law that discriminates against whites anywhere in the world, certainly not in America. He is repeating what is clearly Ku Klux Klan/Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist/Fascist propaganda. The only reason he is not identified as such is because he supported some New Left causes in Britain and America in the 1960s. This makes him a neo-conservative. Someone born in 1965 with the same views would be called a racist/White Supremacist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on Peter Jennings' Death

I removed this because it was a trivial item and appeared to be inserted simply to make Horowitz look bad. If you feel otherwise, 66.109.176.233, justify including it here. --Varenius 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Associations and Affiliations -- good section idea, poor material!

I axed this section because, like the Jennings section I discussed above, it consisted solely of a trivial item that appeared to be an attempt at guilt-by-association. This is a good idea for an article section, but only if serious material is put there. --Varenius 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved, predominant subject of name. —Centrx→talk • 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

David Horowitz (conservative writer) → David Horowitz – The conservative writer is the primary meaning of “David Horowitz”. DLJessup (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Neutral. I proposed this move when I found out that the move of this article from David Horowitz was disputed. I am neutral on the issue of whether this article is the primary meaning of “David Horowitz”, but, if it is, then it clearly preempts my proposed move of David Horowitz (disambiguation) to David Horowitz. — DLJessup (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Looking at the depth of information of the three articles at the disambiguation page, it seems like a good idea. Although, I don't know if a strong case could be made for one being more notable than another. - Sam 07:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral but if the move fails the article should be under David Horowitz (writer). Adjectives are not necessary here and in this case it is Geographic POV. -  AjaxSmack  05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism Section Needs Streamlining

The criticism section is really getting too long -- it's the largest in the article, which is arguably creating an unbalanced emphasis for the piece as a whole. I suggest we try to streamline and consolidate it a bit. Only material that directly deals with criticism of his ideas or significant actions should be included. For example, I just removed a few lines regarding claims of copyright infringement for a photo used in a book. If this even qualifies as "criticism," it is too trivial to be worth including. The worthwhile material could also be condensed further. --Varenius 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of that is my fault. I added more details to the responses to the criticism to balance the section which also lengthened it. Feel free to edit/trim what I added as you edit the section as a whole. I only ask that wikipolicies (esp. those regarding criticism and POV) be followed.  :-) Lawyer2b 21:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What you added makes for a nice balance, so much so that I'm actually a bit loath to start trimming and disrupt it. Keeping the section this long would be fine if we added more material to the rest of the article. I'm not able to take that on, but perhaps someone else...? --Varenius 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Joel Beinin Lawsuit and cleaning up the criticism section

The criticism of Horowitz is to be expected given his often times radical views on the issues. The same can be said of Pat Buchanan or George Soros. Varenius, could you please elaborate why you removed the Joel Beinin lawsuit from the criticism section? That seems highly relevant to me and even more so in the light that Horowitz has already been accused to plagiarism in a different instance. This may be a pattern. Perhaps we should move his plagiarism/copyright infringement allegations to a single section to help clean up the criticism area. Does that sound agreeable?--Saintlink 07:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, for those who don't know what we're talking about, here's the removed Beinin section:

In March 2006 Stanford University professor of Middle East studies Joel Beinin filed suit against Horowitz for copyright infringement regarding the usage of a photograph which he used in the pamphlet Campus Support for Terrorism.

I'd argue this is not relevant for two main reasons: 1) the lawsuit is over violation of a photo copyright in a book cover graphic, which has no implications for the validity or originality of Horowitz's claims; 2) As the reference provided makes clear, Beinin is suing the publisher and not Horowitz himself. Even if Horowitz heads the publishing company (which isn't clear), unless there is evidence that Horowitz personally chose the graphic -- and chose it knowing or having good reason to suspect its copyrighted status -- it's very difficult to justify considering Horowitz personally responsible and thus the direct target of the lawsuit. Because of this, I don't see the relevance of this material.

As for having a section on plagiarism claims, I have nothing against it in principle, but I think it would have to contain issues of greater significance than this one with Beinin.

Also, so that this is clear, I certainly agree that there should be a criticism section, but think that it shouldn't become so extensive that it starts to overshadow the rest of the article. This is supposed to be a general article on David Horowitz, not a catalog of all the criticisms directed toward him or every minor misstep that takes place within his sphere. If people decide creating the latter is important, it should be spun off as a separate criticism page instead of being done here. --Varenius 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear and detailed explanation. I agree that with controversial figures it is very easy for the con to outweigh the pro, however there seems to be a wealth of information on Horowitz. If it starts to get too slanted I suggest we start trimming the fat like what you did with the lawsuit. Thank you for taking the time to describe your reasoning.--Saintlink 06:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandinista junta

The Sandinistas are referred to as a "junta" in this article. "Junta" implies that the Sandinista government in Nicaragua seized power in a coup. Actually, they were democratically elected (in one of the most heavily monitored elections in world history---an election in which there was an astonishing one international election observer for every three voters). One again, Wikipedia caves into the right-wing's distortion of history.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. I've fixed the reference you highlighted. Thanks for mentioing it. Let us know if there are other problems, or be bold and fix them yourself. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"One again, Wikipedia caves into the right-wing's distortion of history." Haha whoa i guess both sides say the same thing, but with different POV's. Haha i thought Wikipedia was liberal this time of year? 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" or not?

This article is slightly confusing; in the introduction Horowitz is referred to as a "Neoconservative" yet later in the article it states he considers the term a smear. Isn't "conservative" sufficient? I've changed it to read the latter, although if there's a good reason for calling him a neoconservative (i.e. he refers to himself as one) then by all means change it back. Edders 14:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following quote: "I have written a book with Jacob Laksin about universities called One Party Classroom. Among other things, the title highlights the fact that so-called liberals have purged American faculties of conservative voices. It has been the most successful witch-hunt in American history." — The Threat at Home. Asteriks (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Treason?

"Horowitz appears to have openly admitted he committed treason against the United States. Ramparts, a magazine he was editor of, had acquired classified intelligence information from a former NSA operative and had published it, eventhough one of their own staffers, who had formerly served in Army Intelligence, had judged the information to be truthful, and refused to work on the story, and Horowitz knew this prior to the publication of the Ramparts story. Horowitz also sought the advice of a prominent Constitutional scholar before publishing it, who had explained to him the best methods of avoiding prosecution for this act of treason.[39]"

I think that this paragraph should be removed, unless further research can be found to clarify and support this assertion. It is copied and pasted from the site it is sourced from, which is itself a wikipedia-like user-edited site and is not an adequate source on its own. It is poorly written and incoherent to boot.

I don't have the book with me, but David Brock's book The Republican Noise Machine refers to this, as well. Just look up Horowitz's name in the index and the passage in question should cite the original source. Dicksonlaprade 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, duh, publishing classified material is certainly NOT treason. Treason in these United States is very narrowly defined V. Joe (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms -- corrections of fact, NPOV, unintelligibility

I'm pretty new to this, but after reading through the wiki policies on boldness I went ahead and addressed some of the problems I had first put up for discussion, without response. I've been doing it iteratively, and intend to continue modifying this explanation freely until someone responds.

The article contained several demonstrable errors of fact. First, under "Criticisms questioning Horowitz's 'liberal bias on campuses' evidence" the sentence "Horowitz also claimed that the student appealed her grade and was later given a "B" on the exam." appears at the end of the first paragraph. Following the link given one finds "In fact, the student told us that the “B” grade was her final grade in the course, while the exam grade was indeed an “F”. She had been able to raise her [nb: course, not exam] grade through the appeals process...".

Also, the formulation "Whether the story is true is unclear" is one of several weasel word edits introduced by Bdprime Nov 14 2006. The previous version (introduced circa Aug 3 2006 by Dicksonlaprade as one of "three prominent, well-supported examples of debunked stories"? -- see prior discussion section) was indeed partisan, so the weaseling was an improvement, but the only reason I know about this story is from this article, so one can figure this out for oneself by following the links provided: it seems "clear" to ME that Horowitz got it fundamentally right. He provides the text of the final exam as reconstructed (possibly deceptively) by Professor Dunkley and "Make the argument that the military action of the US attacking Iraq was criminal" is typical of every one of the four questions in that it requires the student to argue some variation of a leftist theory. If his April 21, 2005 refutation is itself unrefuted at this date (otherwise, please provide a citation) then... well, let me put it this way. "Whether the story is true is unclear" is a mealy-mouthed way of implying that Horowitz's claim was dubious. One shouldn't have to look at the source material to see that it's the criticism of his story that's more dubious.

"Forced" was not alleged by Horowitz in the provided citation of his "Farenheit 9/11" accusation. "Had no evidence it actually happened" is insidehighered's spin on Horowitz's admission he couldn't get corroboration from his source. Not false, just spin, but a more NPOV formulation was available.

"The facts underlying [the al-Qloushi] story are disputed" is another weasel. He didn't "supposedly [get] a failing grade" -- he GOT an "F". Maybe he deserved it. Or maybe Professor Woolcock was edging into Professor Dunkley territory in contributing to placing his student in the position where his entire grade (in a Jr College foundation course) would be based on his sucess in advancing criticisms of the writing of the US Constitution with which al-Qloushi was profoundly unsympathetic. Anyway, I expanded the stub so that the Wikipedia reader can at least see what some of the issues are and can decide for himself whether it's a justified criticism of Horowitz that he gave al-Qloushi a platform in a he-said,he-said situation.

A factual error was contained in the "Criticism" section, where it was stated "In his open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, Horowitz first asserted that he was only referring to the fact the slavery exists in Arab and 'black African' countries today...". Follow the link. Horowitz says nothing about slavery anywhere today anywhere in his letter.

Also, the paragraph began, ungrammatically, "Berlet's piece quoted Horowitz as 'blamed slavery on ‘black Africans … '". Surely the author meant "Berlet accused Horowitz of saying he 'blamed...'". And if you are going to repeat the canard you need a link to the Salon article or the ad that excerpted it where Horowitz allegedly did this. What he actually seems to have done is say black Americans shouldn't get reparations from non-black Americans partly because slavery was partly a black and Arab enterprise. Simply repeating Berlet is to compound Berlet's misrepresentation. ... I haven't run down the Salon link (again, no prior knowledge -- mostly just bringing the text into line with the citations) but did clarify accusation and rebuttal.

Before I took a hack at it the "Early Life..." section had a sentence I couldn't parse at all. "Horowitz came to believe that the widespread resistance to the notion that any such uprising against governments viewed as undemocratic and tyrannical could be legitimate or popular, so long as the governments were of the left, Horowitz began to contemplate a complete abandonment of his deeply-held views, to which he ascribes a fundamental level of religiosity." A few paragraphs thereabout were generally pretty incoherent and I revised for clarity with no further fact-checking or additional info (and I'm not happy with the result -- it's just slightly less bad), but I couldn't figure how to salvage anything of that sentence.

I kept the info about "Convert Cadre", since I don't know any better, but it seems to me a really obscure bit of trivia. No mention of it on Horowitz's site at all that I can find. Citation needed? I corrected the publication date of "Radical Son" from 1998 to 1996 per [30].

Repeating Peter G. Werner, above, there is a lot of WEB ACESSIBLE Horowitz bio material in [31] and [32], and I'm considering adding it as an external link. It's on the frontpagemag site, which has an external link already, but it's existance is not obvious. And for someone looking for concentrated and extensive biographical material ON THE WEB I don't see anything comparable. If there's something of comparable depth but with a contrary POV that would be nice to have too, but given that the bio part of this article is so threadbare I think this article needs to point to it.

The first line of the article identifies Horowitz as "a writer for the conservative magazine NewsMax". Isn't it true that newsmax, like jewishworldreview, gopusa (and others?) just picks up some of his frontpagemag columns?

Andyvphil 12:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC) et seq (and before I registered, Andyvphil 76.21.45.87 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) et seq)

reverting "Bias and evidence"

On 17 Jan 2007 PatriotBible added a section "Bias and evidence" to the Horowitz crit section that is mostly content-free. Lesseee.. Franken referred to Horowitz as "guest racist"(2001, I think). Horowitz put up a picture of Franken stamped "racist" and said he would remove it or justify it only if Franken apologized. That was 2004 -- it's still up, and there's some evidence that his justification would be than Franken would call anyone a racist who had Franken's lily-white hiring policies (pace Peter Schweizer). Brock (MediaMatters) said Horowitz was at least "insensitive" and quoted (apparently approvingly) a response to Horowitz's ad against reparations saying it was a "racist polemic". Horowitz replied that Brock was repeating slander. Brock replied that Horowitz was a "proven liar", with a list, in the only citation PatriotBible provides.[33] Ok, that's the roadmap. If PatriotBible or anyone else wants to write it up, feel free. Or if he wants to research any of Brock's allegations and write it up, same comment. Looking at his list of contribs (and his Wiki-name) it's clear that what caught his attention was Brocks' allegation that Horowitz "lied" in saying liberals saw born-agains as dangerous fruitcakes. [34] Doesn't sound like a "lie" to me -- sounds like my ex-wife in fact -- but in any case addressing the allegation involves more than quoting Brock calling Horowitz names, so I'm reverting this version. Andyvphil 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit more explanation: PatriotBible, if you agree with Brock that Horowitz "lied" in saying PBS-watching liberals see born-agains as dangerous fruitcakes you need to give an NPOV account of the controversy, if any (is Media Matters/Brock the only critic on this point? - you need to establish WP:N) not just quote Brock calling Horowitz names. I think Brock's evidence is pretty weak, in that his two polls are off-point (Dems can both "believe in God" AND think born-agains are wackos, and Black Dems are not primarily PBS-watching liberals) and WP:NPOV means you need to address the issue in sufficient depth to give the reader some idea what the facts are. I reverted your edit not because I don't want you to address Brock's criticisms, but because I want you to address it EITHER in greater depth or not at all (if it's not notable). Andyvphil 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

In the footnotes, "Southern" in Southern Poverty Law Center is misspelled as "Sothern". I do not know how to fix this, but someone should do so. ---Charles 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've fixed it. For the future, the text of footnotes (also called "references") is actually hidden in the section where the footnoted reference occurs, not in the footnote section where it appears. It can be edited there like any other text. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Would someone like to go through the references and use {{cite web}} etc on them? Once that's completed, I think the article will be ready for Good Article nomination. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Family Life

Many of the other Wikipedia pages include information about the family lives of those covered in the wiki articles. I noticed that the Horowitz article omits facts about his marriages and children. Is it considered by the wikipedia community inappropriate and/or irrelevant to include such information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Frederick (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article states that"Horowitz's second marriage to Sam Moorman also ended in divorce." But the first marriage ended when his wife died. So I do not understand the "also" in the sentence. 2001:558:6045:103:3D9A:4EA7:AD9F:BC9F (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Media Matters

Just to explain, I think it is important to note that Media Matters is a partisan political organization when noting their criticism of David Horowitz. Their affiliations are documented in their Wikipedia entry, but someone reading this article who does not know of the organization (I didn't till I clicked the link) might get the impression that they are some sort of neutral watchdog.--216.227.122.72 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're simply poisoning the well, I've removed it. Again. FeloniousMonk 04:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Israel?

What is Horowitz's relationship to Israel besides that he's Jewish? It's clear from his writings that he is very opposed to Hezbollah and Hamas, but I think knowing more about the Israel-link might help paint a better picture about who he is?

Fine, Mr. anonymous, maybe you find sources for these links, register at Wikipedia, and report the links in this article. --Edoe (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Brothers

David Horowitz has also a brothher called Anthony Horowitz known for the Alex Rider Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.202.35 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Horowitz is no relation of David Horowitz. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"fagist"?

An agnostic and an outspoken "fagist" Is "fagist" a term that he uses to describe himself? A Google search for (Horowitz fagist) or (Horowitz fagism) returns no relevant quotes. Why is the word fagist wikilinked to the misspelled "Homophobiea"? The implication that "fagist" means homophobe seems unlikely, as he speaks out against homophobia.--87.162.29.17 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Life?

There is no mention of Horowitz's family life or children. He had a daughter who died in 2007 and published a memoir... Thoughts?

V. Joe (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to be bold and add something? I wasn't aware of that.—DMCer™ 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MM Book criticism, External LInks

I removed the following (not what's in the brackets, [Horowitz has also come under fire for material in his books, particularly The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.] For example, the liberal group Media Matters for America claims that only 48 of the 100 (not 101) professors listed were criticized for in-class behavior and activities, despite Horowitz's claim that he makes "a very clear distinction between what's done in the classroom" and "what professors say as citizens." The book is not entitled, "The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in The Classroom," by the very title, it's discussing academics, so this particular criticism strikes me as not notable for inclusion (combined with the fact that a self-proclaimed opponent).

Secondly, this article's external links are out of control, as tagged per WP:EL. Many, many are dead, and links such as "Youtube clip of Horowitz attacking Ron Paul supporters," and "Media Matters entries on Horowitz" (dead) generally aren't appropriate for WP:BLP or any other article that isn't primarily about those topics. There doesn't need to be 10 links criticizing the subject of this article. Would the same be appropriate for every politician's article? I think not. We should hold all to the same standard. I've revised the section.—DMCer™ 05:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive linkage to FP opinion

I have extensively edited this article tonight to return to find that DMCer has returned many excessive links to the FP website on various of this subect's opinions to this article. I believe this to be bloviating. This is a biographical article that is extremely short on fact and biography and way long on opinion. DMCer, would you please explain why you are skirting WP policy with excessive reliance on the subject's opinions lifted from his website? Skywriter (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't strike me long on opinion at all, actually. Your mischaracterizing my edits, as you can clearly see that I've added many other sources. Looks like six out of the 64 sources are from Horowitz via FPM, many of those six are citations for sentences that read along the lines of, "Horowitz states...," (not "Horowitz is" or "Horowitz has done this"), and are accompanied by other sources for the same sentence. Also, and you don't have to do this, but it'd be helpful if you used consistent reference formats (as so far, I've gone back and labeled, titled, etc. each one of your editions).—DMCer™ 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

When material appeared elsewhere beyond the subject's website, I used the alternate sourcing. You have re-added FP links, along with the subject's opinion about Kosovo and Clinton. This is a BLP. Why is Clinton or Kosovo relevant?

I am getting the sense that you have WP:OWN issues with Horowitz and its related Categories. Years have gone by with nearly no true biographical material added to this BLP. Finally, I come along and do the research and begin to add material and it becomes immediately apparent that you could have added this material all along and did not. And yet, twice you decide to make the biographical material inconsistent by adding dates for a website that you first cite as unreliable and then turn around and add it to the article, making the section inconsistent and ugly for the reader. I find your actions inconsistent and I am wondering why you are taking such an aggressive interest in adding a date to one of his marriages and not any of the others? What does this add to the biography? Are you just picking a fight to be contentious or is something else going on here?Skywriter (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No ownership issues here. Horowitz is an activist, among other descriptions. "Speaking out" is what activists do. Therefore, speaking out against the Kosovo War stikes me as being quite appropriate for an "Activism on the right" section, and you'll find similar situations in many other BLP articles. If I have re-added sources, it's not like I removed yours (NNDB being the exception). There are simply more now (aside: I find the "cite" button, courtesy of the refToolbar to be really helpful for quick source formatting). Wikipedia consensus determined that NNDB is unreliable, esp. for WP:BLP — which I linked to in the edit summary. I have nothing against it, and it is often informative, but unfortunately it can't be used to legitimately cite this biography. I forgot to replace the dates the first time, which was an oversight on my part. I understand it must've looked nit-picky to save the version, then go back and add the date to the infobox — but you provided the information in the first place, I just made it more visible. As I stated, I don't dispute the marriage span, which is why I went back and made sure it was there after having left that out in my initial revision. You are correct that I haven't edited this article a lot, and my edits have picked up when you began contributing, but that's a benefit of the wiki. Different contributions raise different thoughts to editors, and the discussion (like this one) shifts (hopefully) to how to improve it. You can see that by and large, I added numerous sources and left the bulk of your contributions intact. I think this is a constructive discussion and the article is better for it.—DMCer™ 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: I don't know why you feel so strongly that the "Sam Moorman (m. 1984–1985)" shouldn't go in the infobox, but considering it seems to be the standard on these featured bios, among others, would you object to my adding that back in?—DMCer™ 05:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do object (1) based on your earlier objection to using that source as unreliable; (2) because it makes the bio box look inconsistent; (3) because it goes into the weeds about one marriage and not three others. (If you feel strongly that the dates of his marriages and divorces be added, find them all, using WP:RS, and add them, not just one date based on what you have said is notWP:RS.) Please build some trust here: don't argue on one day that a source is not reliable, then on another, that it is. There is plenty of opportunity to add biographical detail that tells the reader something about the subject, based on WP:RS. So far, this biography is overloaded with the subject's opinion and not biographical detail. In my experience with your editing, other than this instance of source inconsistency, you have re-added his opinion on Kosovo. And that was after I had gone through and cleaned up the article. The subject's random opinion is rarely germane to an encyclopedic article that is biography, and in this case especially--in light of there being more than half dozen articles on this subject's activities and opinions. Skywriter (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already addressed why I do not believe this article is overloaded with opinion at all. I've also stated why the marriage date, even if there needs to be a source next to what was previously supported by an unreliable one, doesn't necessarily have to be removed b/c it isn't controversial or defamatory. I'll leave this minor issue alone for now.—DMCer™ 17:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, not to belabor my point, but you're repeatedly complaining about adding opinions (which, as I've stated I don't believe to be an issue here). You seem to have done the same thing here, where you add, Horowitz wrote, "I had started out in life as an idealistic young man much like Sarah, but if I am going to be honest with myself, I lacked her generosity of soul." I hope we can shift towards a more constructive discussion, instead of focusing on such non-issues like this.—DMCer™ 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You complain that Horowitz is directly quoted on the subject of his latest book on a matter that reveals something about himself (rather than railing about how much he hates other people)? And you're arguing that quoting him directly is somehow unfair or out of bounds? I think it tends to humanize him, makes him sound less like someone whose heart is filled with hate. Given your objection, I will take it out. Skywriter (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

43 references to frontpage blog?

This is excessive. Wikipedia does not link to blogs and here we link to 43???. FP may call itself a magazine but FP is, like Daily Kos, a blog and nothing more. We don't link to Daily Kos or to Buzzlfash (or we shouldn't) I intend to strip this article of the many references to the FP blog. The material can be moved to Wikipedia:BLOG where it may belong.

Comments? Skywriter (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like these are links to articles he's written used to establish his views. Maybe the article shouldn't rely on these primary sources so much but it doesn't matter whether Frontpage is a blog or a magazine or whatever.Prezbo (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is this is a biography that is long on opinion and short on biography. Skywriter (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a student sent to a therapist??

I have removed the student's name but note that it continues in sourced articles. This is a real violation of privacy and I don't think this example should be in Wikipedia at all. That the student is identified by others, including by Horowitz apparently, can harm the student later in life, particularly in his ability to find work. I'm going to think about this further but I believe this bio can get along without this example. Comments? Skywriter (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The line ending in footnote 29 makes no sense. It follows a story about the PA assembly and then jumps into an event at UC San Diego. The previous content was apparently deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.104 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WTF wikipedia?

"...combatting leftist indoctrination in academia."

Jesus, mind putting quotes around that? We're trying to be impartial y'know.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, why is the Southern Poverty Law Center used in articles when articles are suppose to be NPOV?

Let's get this taken care of sooner than later, thanks.

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Islam

He's an activist, in regards to this subject. So I changed the title. He's making efforts to direct and promote political/theological change through advertising, protest, campaigning. It's just the factual description.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

He constantly emits non-stop islamophobic bigotry. He's a constant source of hate speech, lies, and demagoguery.108.131.26.222 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

An anti-Semitic troll

Keep a watch out for an editor with this IP address: 72.89.213.250. Who wrote quote "David Horowitz is a Zionist kike" JamesMNCT (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

KingHiggins, if you want to change "journey" to "shift", it's up to you to get consensus for that change. Otherwise the wording stays as it was. Please see WP:BRD. (By the way, I didn't mean to revert you without an edit summary when I made this edit. I clicked on the wrong button). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think that identifying his change in ideology, or persuasion, as simply a "change" would be the simplest solution. Prose is nice where non-controversial and precise but this still an encyclopedia and sometimes you have to settle for boring and literal. GraniteSand (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite fatuous to suggest that "journey" is somehow a controversial word. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's alright but it does carry the insinuation of progress which, I suppose, could be characterized as a subjective commentary, in this context. It's also rather out of place for an encyclopedia. Do you have a problem with "change"? GraniteSand (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense. A journey means moving from one place to another - one can make a journey to prison or a journey to hell. Would that be progress? I think I see the problem here. Editors who don't like Horowitz want to remove "journey" because they think it portrays him in a positive light. It doesn't actually portray him in either a positive or a negative light. Leave it as it is. "Change" is a trivial term to use. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't like the word, I can't think of a better one. Journey conveys a sense of great distance traveled over a prolong period. I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator, unless we can find a more literal word that does the same. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to be hostile. I'm not up in arms about it, I was just adding my two cents since you brought it to the talk page to, I had assumed, talk about. GraniteSand (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Transformation" would carry much the same sense as "journey", but it would also sound stupid. There isn't a better word. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over American Betrayal

Why is this section even hear - it seems to have little to do wi Horowitz? Some effort is require to make out the connection, as well as to fully understand it all - it's poorly written. - 101.168.127.237 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Horowitz was merely the editor of the online magazine that published Ron Radosh's article on American Betrayal. The controversy is fully discussed on Diana West's article and to a lessor extent on Ron Radosh's page. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of relevant information from the lead

Froglich is disruptively removing relevant, properly cited information from the lead, as seen here. In reply to Froglich's bizarre edit summary ("We don't need a half-dozen different ways and euphemisms to note the guy is a conservative in the lede when once will do. Keep the lede professional looking"), I will observe that nothing that was removed in his edit was a "euphemism" and that his preferred version of the lead does not look more "professional." There is nothing inherently "professional" about removing information that explains why someone is significant from the lead of a biographical article. The purpose of the information about the organizations Horowitz founded or lead is not, of course, simply to state that Horowitz is a "conservative." It is to describe the activities and agendas of those organizations, thereby explaining why it matters that Horowitz founded or leads them. In my judgment, the fact that Discover the Networks "tracks left-wingers" and that the self-stated goal of Students for Academic Freedom is to combat what it calls "leftist indoctrination" in academia is particularly relevant and useful information. You have no business removing it, Froglich. Kindly stop. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Manual of Style. The lead of an article is about its subject, not for wallowing in details of associated creations (i.e., "...without being overly specific"). There's plenty of room in the rest of the article for that, or the relevant articles for DtN, etc.--Froglich (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that Froglich’s edits do look cleaner and to the point. The previous edit mere adds that he does what a conservative activist does: fights “leftist indoctrination” writes about “left-wingers” etc. One can assume that his conservative organizations are critical of leftism and read the details in the full article. I also tend to stuff too much into the lead so I never would have notice it but the terse lead is an improvement and yes more professional. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's stupid to pretend that the activities of an organization someone founded don't concern him. Obviously, if someone founds an organization, and the organization does certain things, that reflects on him, and it's appropriate to mention it. The information Froglich is intent on removing is not overly specific by any means; it is quite basic information. It's equally stupid to say that one can simply "assume" that Horowitz's organizations do certain things: someone already familiar with Horowitz can of course "assume" things, but the lead is meant to explain things to people unfamiliar with the subject, and they can't necessarily be expected to assume anything. What I'm seeing here looks like an effort at censorship. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling another editor "stupid" multiple times (as a covert ad hominem defense of violations the encyclopedia's article-writing rules) while completely ignoring what they've just explained isn't a good idea.--Froglich (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I called nobody stupid. I suggested that the ideas that certain editors have about how to edit this article are stupid, and so they are. Though it's difficult to explain this to people who don't want to hear it, it's quite possible for smart people to have stupid ideas. Also, if you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I didn't have any one editor in mind; I was referring both to you and to Jason from nyc. I suggest you quit with the over-sensitive complaints and try addressing what I actually said. It's you who has ignored the substance of what I've said, rather than vice versa. You asserted that the longer version of the lead violated the encyclopedia's rules, but to me that looks like only another case of seeing what you want to see in the rules. You are removing basic information that should properly be in the lead, not excess detail. You are also repeatedly making a change that has been rejected by other editors and which you know that you don't have consensus for; I have simply reverted the article back to the way it was before you started doing that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag added

As it becoming obvious that a small group of contentious editors intend to continue to flagrantly violating the Manual of Style, I've affixed a Neutrality tag.--Froglich (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your repeated assertions that the material you are removing violates the manual of style. I'd be interested only in a proper argument that it does. You haven't made any such argument. I note that this is not the only article where you're using "it violates the manual of style" as an excuse to get rid of material that you dislike or disagree with for whatever reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've changed out the general NPOV tag with an MoS tag related to issues with leads. Perhaps this will help in focus contributors in that this is just an issue of varied opinions on copy editing, not a dispute about intent or bias in content. GraniteSand (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There obviously is a dispute over intent and bias in content here. Claiming otherwise helps nobody. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, huh? Froglich made edits based on the logic that the previous lead was in violation of the MoS. You reverted those edits claiming that the lead was not in violation of the MoS. That sounds like a disagreement over the MoS to me. The only way that doesn't sound like an MoS disagreement is if there are unspoken suspicions of conspiracy and bad faith at work here and I haven't seen that, nor have I seen a credible body of evidence to back up such a claim. GraniteSand (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Froglich made edits for which the stated rationale was that the manual of style was being violated. Judging from his behavior at other articles, that's his standard line for getting rid of material he doesn't like. Look at his behavior at other articles and judge for yourself. I think the conclusion to be drawn is indeed obvious, but if you want to stick your head in the sand and deny it, I can't stop you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You have failed to explain why the article is not neutral. I removed the tag. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as a drive by comment, the introductory paragraph by Froglich [35] is cleaner, more neutral and more encyclopedic than the current version. Why would the article use the pejorative "left-wingers" without attribution to someone? The article doesn't begin by calling Mr. Horowitz a "right-winger." Also I believe blanding out the language makes the article appear more neutral, "recounting one's ideological journey" verses "describing one's transition." The latter appears more neutral. The introduction shouldn't appear to be written by admirers or detractors of the subject. Eudemis (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the disagreements are sufficient to add a neutrality tag. I agree that Froglich's change reads better. Is there any information removed that belongs there? TFD (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that some editors seem to think that something automatically becomes "more neutral" as a result of the removal of relevant information? The comments I'm seeing here don't seem to amount to a justification for removing the information JzG removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say it was more neutral, I said it read better. I have read the neutrality policy and do not see how it relates to this discussion. What relevant information has been removed? TFD (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I had Eudemis's comments in mind when I said that some editors seem to think that removing relevant information automatically makes an article more neutral. "Reads better" is a lousy excuse for getting rid of relevant information. As for what information was removed, I presume you're capable of looking at the revision history of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we discussing this edit? I might tweak the intro slightly (the phrase "tracks left wingers" seems odd and inappropriate), but I don't see how removing significant information and context adds value to the introduction. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the edit in question (or one of the edits, since several identical changes were made). I agree that the information in the lead could be worded differently, but no one has given a convincing rationale for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much material by Horowitz

This article is marred by its overwhelmingly reliance on quotes by Horowitz: what he says about himself, and about any of the many issues that he wants to write about. This has been a longstanding problem in the article, as may be seen from comments above going back to 2006. There are almost no sources that evaluate him, his writings, his foundations, etc. Much of the material by him should be deleted, in favor of editors looking for secondary sources that discuss him and his influence, if any, on American political writing, etc. Quoting his comments on al-Jazeera in a YouTube interview is not any better than quoting his own words as published in far too many places. Look for what others say about him; use secondary sources, not just his take on the world. Parkwells (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It might be a problem getting sources, particularly neutral sources that are not critiques of Horowitz. The article quotes A Radical Son a lot, but in that Horowitz seems to be trying to rewrite his past, saying that he was dubious about the Left from the beginning. It really doesn't seem to be a very reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Israeli thought police

Horowitz's Freedom Center as well as Daniel Pipes "Campus Watch" just serve the purpose to act as an pro-Israel thought police by spying on "liberals" and intimidating anyone who is not willing to follow them. It is this kind of thinking that can be labelled as "Blockwartsmentalität" in German. A "Blockwart's" job in Nazi Germany was to spy on his neigbours and report anything suspicious to the Gestapo. The entire system of fear and intimidation of a possible opposition was the other face of the medal besides constant brainswashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:59:E7E:1B01:341B:9F6B:91C4:3378 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The New Leviathan

I don't know how to edit it, but would like to point out that there is an important book which isn't showing in his bibliography: "The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.75.67.158 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Support for Donald Trump?

This article on Breitbart, authored by Horowitz himself, seems to show support for the proposed policies of presumptive Republican nominee for president Donald Trump:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/13/horowitz-donald-trumps-speech-game-changer/

At the very least, Horowitz is in support of the policies, so one can add this to the wiki. Does this mean that he is in support of the candidate also?

DaDoc540 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You need a secondary source. I believe he, or his organization, can't support candidates and keep their tax status intact. However, he clearly is enthusiastic about Trump and savages Trump's Republican critics. Here are possible secondary sources: [36] [37] Jason from nyc (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Horowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102084415/http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/it-s-islamo-fascism-awareness-week-coming-to-a-campus-near-you.html to http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/it-s-islamo-fascism-awareness-week-coming-to-a-campus-near-you.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=ca5cfcde-651b-45d1-b93a-dff2f3912525
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202173700/http://media.www.gwhatchet.com:80/media/storage/paper332/news/2008/04/21/Opinions/Inside.Our.Pages.Jake.Sherman.An.Ad.Certainly.Not.An.Endorsement-3337362.shtml to http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2008/04/21/Opinions/Inside.Our.Pages.Jake.Sherman.An.Ad.Certainly.Not.An.Endorsement-3337362.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814181219/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/jumanah-imad-albahri/ to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/jumanah-imad-albahri/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories

Shouldn't the Category:Counterculture of the 1960s be added? But I see that, "Ramparts" and "Hinckle" also don't have this tag.--80.157.2.254 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

'Muslims and universities' section

Vice regent, can you find better sources for the material you added? Advocacy sites, opinion pieces, and student newspapers are not good enough, especially for a BLP. Drrll (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The material concerns an ad placed in a student newspaper, and other on-campus activities. Therefore student newspapers, especially those at large universities, would seem appropriate sources. I agree though that opinion pieces are not suitable sources for facts. However this matter has been reported in mainstream newspapers too. Can you fix it rather than deleting it?   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the student newspapers. AFAIK it was just reported once in mainstream newspapers. I'll restore it and see what I can do to fix it. Drrll (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I can. I myself am having second thoughts about the notability and reliability of the material. It seems a big controversy involving universities (and the Muslim community), but not something you're likely to see in more holistic news sources (like CNN).VR _talk 08:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing these edits, I would appreciate some feedback regarding my sourcing and neutrality. I cite material from large University newspapers here because it seems appropriate considering the topic at hand:

Horowitz has deemed the majority of Muslims to be radicals, and according to the Columbia Spectator newspaper, Horowitz claims "between 150 million and 750 million Muslims support a holy war against Christians, Jews and other Muslims."

At the University of Massachusetts Horowitz made numerous comparisons of Muslims to Nazi Germany, calling the Islamists worse. “Islamists are worse than the Nazis, because even the Nazis did not tell the world that they want to exterminate the Jews.” Horowitz also said “there are good Muslims and bad Muslims just like there were good Germans and bad Germans” and “The Palestinians are Nazis. Every one of their elected officials are terrorists.”

During a speech at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Horowitz accused students wearing green in support of the schools’ Muslim Student Association of supporting Hamas, and students wearing Arab Keffiyehs of honoring Yassir Arafat and terrorism.

Horowitz is also reported by Hussein Ibish to have published on his website: Arabs do nothing on impulse, Muslims have no allegiance to their countries, [and] their only allegiance is to Islam, that’s what they have been taught since birth that’s all they know, Muslims have no borders”

In the same television program Horowitz claimed that the Prophet Muhammad called for the “extermination of Jews,” without offering any evidence to support his claim.

Horowitz also states that he supports the “creation of a Palestinian State in Jordan” in opposition to international law's “two state” model

Horowitz, through his David Horowitz Freedom Center, funds Jihad watch, paying Robert Spencer $132,537annually. Spencer according to Conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, is an “Islamophobe” and has been labeled by Nation magazine editor Robert Dreyfuss “An extremist, right-wing anti-Muslim rabble rouser.”

Horowitz has also directed campaigns such as “Islamofascism Awareness Week“, which brought leading anti-Muslim critics to more than a hundred college campuses in October 2007.

In one Fox appearance, he linked Muslim student associations on college campuses across the U.S. to the “terrorist Jihad against the West”: “The point here is that there are 150 Muslim students’ associations, which are coddled by university administrations and treated as though they were ethnic or religious groups, when they are political groups that are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of the terrorist jihad against the West.”

On an Al-Jazeera broadcast, Horowitz states “The Muslim Students Association pretends to be a religious organization while it is really an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood…Hamas and Hezbollah.” He then quips that “he has had many encounters with this [MSAs and the Muslim Brotherhood] and that is how my views are correct…they need to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as a terrorist organization for me to leave them alone…”

On an appearance with Neil Cavuto of Fox News on August 15th of 2006, Horowitz stated that: “there are 150 Muslim student associations on universities in the U.S., created by Hamas and funded by Saudi Arabia…they [the Muslim student associations] are Wahabbi, Islamists, and basically support our enemies.” Horowitz doesn’t provide proofs to substantiate these allegations.

Viola Clay (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Viola ClayViola Clay (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your proposal here first. I didn't have time to respond earlier to it.

Would you remove your long addition, then break it up into smaller pieces for discussion here? Overall, it's too much material to add at once (it ends up taking about 20% of the article text). Plus, the material should be distributed into different sections / sub-sections.

Many of the sources aren't sufficient for a biography of a living person. Youtube clips aren't valid sources, nor are opinion pieces (except to state the author's opinion).

Some of the material could remain if properly worded. Drrll (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that YouTube videos aren't valid sources 99% of the time, but this is a video from a reliably source in which the subject himself is participating. Thank you for your other suggestions.

Viola Clay (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Viola Clay

Thanks for removing your addition. If you could bring up portions of it below, then we could discuss them more in depth. As far as the YouTube clips, you might want to reference the actual news programs and transcripts of the relevant shows. Even then, it's best to include a reference from a secondary source to supplement the primary sources to establish that the clip is newsworthy. Drrll (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it to be quite difficult to find transcripts for the fox news videos- even though they are on youtube, it's fox news; the only secondary sources I can find are from personal blogs, can you help me find a search engine for news program transcripts? Thanks, Viola Clay (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Viola ClayViola Clay (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but have you searched for a key phrase used in a video using Google? Fox News publishes transcripts of some programs and they are searchable using Google. There is a database available (Lexis-Nexis) that lets you search for nearly every Fox News transcript, but you either have to pay for access or use an institution with access to it (such as a library). Plus, you won't be able to link to the transcript since it's a paid database. If you do get access to Lexis-Nexis from a library, etc. it should be easier to find secondary sources that reference the videos, since L-N has new stories from hundreds of news sources.

Will Beback, are secondary sources required when using primary sources such as news program transcripts in a BLP? Drrll (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hearkening and obeyance!

A TV news show story is a secondary source, just like a newspaper article. A transcript of that show is still a secondary source, just like a scan of a newspaper is still a newspaper source. Whether that original source is reliable is a separate question. Some TV broadcasts are opinion pieces, including those on Fox News. Editorials and other commentary aren't always used as sources. It has to be looked at show by show.   Will Beback  talk  11:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL

I realized after I wrote what I did hear that a news transcript was a secondary source. I guess the pertinent question is whether a quote from a long newscast can be picked out and used without another reliable source making note of the quote. As an example, one thing proposed above is using "On an appearance with Neil Cavuto of Fox News on August 15th of 2006, Horowitz stated that: “there are 150 Muslim student associations on universities in the U.S., created by Hamas and funded by Saudi Arabia…they [the Muslim student associations] are Wahabbi, Islamists, and basically support our enemies.” BTW, I'm pretty sure that Neil Cavuto's show is a news show, giving the opinion of Horowitz on the show. Drrll (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So are you all saying that I need new primary sources? It sounds from the above that the places where I cite TV sources such as the above Neil Cavuto excerpt is alright. I'm at a loss for primary sources; I haven't (and most likely will not) read any of Horowitz's books... I cannot get a clear statement from his primary source examples; television broadcasts do show his character, even with their (the videos) splicing and through "information digging."

I have broken up the article into two sections: "activism on the right" and "Muslims and universities". I'll post activism on the right first (forgive me if this is the wrong sub-forum) and after you all scrutinize it, I will post the Muslims and universities section.

Activism on the Right

Horowitz, through his David Horowitz Freedom Center, funds Jihadwatch, paying Robert Spencer $132,537annually. Spencer according to Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, is an “Islamophobe” and has been labeled by Nation magazine editor Robert Dreyfuss “An extremist, right-wing anti-Muslim rabble rouser.” Horowitz is also reported by Hussein Ibish to have published on his Frontpage Mag website: Arabs do nothing on impulse, Muslims have no allegiance to their countries, [and] their only allegiance is to Islam, that’s what they have been taught since birth that’s all they know, Muslims have no borders” In the same television program Horowitz claimed that the Prophet Muhammad called for the “extermination of Jews,”without offering any evidence to support his claim. Horowitz also states that he supports the “creation of a Palestinian State in Jordan” in opposition to international law's “two state” model

best, Viola Clay Viola Clay (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I did not reply to this before you posted this content on the main article. I think some of the sources are questionable (e.g. loonwatch.com) and primary sources like YouTube must be used with caution. Also, it seems gratuitous to specify somebody's salary. I am not opposed to this information being included in the article but I think it should be written in a more neutral tone, with better sources, and shortened significantly. –CWenger (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi all- Loonwatch just shows Horowitzs 990 tax form, which is an actual, factual, bonafide document. I wouldn't use a source like this unless it was neutral in its presentation. A 990 is about as neutral and transparent as it gets. I don't see any problem, and I would like a second opinion on this portion of the edit. It should be known that Horowitz finances Jihadwatch. For my sources regarding the Riz Khan show, I link to al-Jazeera as a secondary source to back up the primary; as an accredited, international, news source, how much more neutral can one get than al-Jazeera? If I switched around the primary with the secondary sources would that make things better? This is actually Horowitz speaking on Riz Khans show. This edit, in my opinion, is very neutral, these quotes give credence to Horowitzs character, as they are direct statements by him, and professional journalists (albeit abrasive in nature) opinions of his character through his work. ThanksViola Clay (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting how much Horowitz pays somebody in the article. There are obvious implications there that detract from the article's neutrality. Again, the rest of the additions I can support, as long as they are shortened. Otherwise, I think it is undue weight. –CWenger (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Here is my latest (and hopefully final!) edit to the Activism on the Right section of Horowitzs page. I have shortened the article and taken out the amount that Horowitz pays Robert Spencer. please let me know what you think. -Viola Clay

Horowitz, through his David Horowitz Freedom Center, funds Jihadwatch, paying Robert Spencer for the sites upkeep and continuation.

Horowitz was reported on a television appearance at the Riz Khan Show to have published on his Frontpage Mag website: Arabs do nothing on impulse, Muslims have no allegiance to their countries, [and] their only allegiance is to Islam, that’s what they have been taught since birth that’s all they know, Muslims have no borders” In the same television program, Horowitz claimed that the Prophet Muhammad called for the “extermination of Jews,”

Horowitz also states that he supports the “creation of a Palestinian State in Jordan” in opposition to international law's “two state” model

I would appreciate it if I received a response by tomorrow (within 24 hours of this post), after that I'm going to assume this is an OK edit and post it Viola Clay (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130121095713/http://aaup-ca.org:80/Larkin_abor.html to http://www.aaup-ca.org/Larkin_abor.html

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Communism etc

I removed the reference to his parents' Communist Party membership from the introduction, but was reverted by Rms125a@hotmail.com who thinks this is "incredibly important". I don't agree. It's important enough to be mentioned in the article, but a whole sentence in the introduction is unnecessary. They left the party when he was 17. They probably did influence him, but many people joined the New Left without having Communist parents. This undue emphasis is mirrored in the body of the article. There is more information about his parents than his career as a leftist. It's as if his leftist period was foisted on him by his parents.

I also don't the leftist period should be buried in the third paragraph of the introduction. It is one of the things he is famous for.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

His parents' ideological orientation is elemental to understanding Horowitz and their own subversive behavior is sufficiently extreme so as to merit mention in its own right. There is nothing UNDUE here.

"It's as if his leftist period was foisted on him by his parents" -- I agree it probably was although this is SYNTHESIS.

Anybody else out there have an opinion? Quis separabit? 22:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

He was still a leftist in his 30s, writing a biography of Isaac Deutscher. I don't think you can put that all on his parents, particularly as they left the CP when he was a kid. I agree their membership should be mentioned in the article, but not in the introduction. I'm not sure what you mean by subversive behaviour. The introduction talks about in the Great Depression, which was before he was born. This really is undue weight. There were many people radicalised in the 1960s and 70s. But Not Everybody's Lucky Enough to Have Communist Parents. Though many are. We don't mention this in the introduction of articles about a great many people, for example: actor Daniel Day-Lewis, British comedian Alexei Sayle, or Australian politician Lee Rhiannon.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

His parents' ideological orientation is elemental to understanding Horowitz and their own subversive behavior is sufficiently extreme so as to merit mention in its own right. There is nothing UNDUE here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.232.60 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2017

"Subversive behavior," ha ha. Communism is a ideology, for goodness sake. We're neither the thought police nor McCarhyists, here to highlight BLPs' parents' "subversive" beliefs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218163553/http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=5 to http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218004730/http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2324&Itemid=40 to http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2324&Itemid=40

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Writing on the Right

Why has my edit in Writing on the Right been removed two times. There must be a mention of the Black Book as his current work on the series is there reason that he writes essays so seldom. Also footnote 20 says "The Black Book of the American Left, p. 155". Wrong. The The Black Book of the American Left is a multivolume set. Which volume is being referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.201.40 (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't answer the first question, but as to the second, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. When it comes to biographies of writers and such, we need to be careful to only include works that have some independent indicia of noteworthiness; otherwise, such articles often end up reading like bibliographies with obscure, non-noteworthy works. Even worse is when non-noteworthy works that haven't even been published get included; that can make the article content read as promotional. In due time, Horowitz's upcoming book may be published and reviewed or otherwise make the news, at which point adding it to his biography would become appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)