Talk:David Horowitz

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019
2600:6C50:7D7F:E109:9821:4F2D:3116:2384 (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC) well he was born June 30th 1937
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The requestor of this change is confusing one David Horowitz with the other. The consumer advocate was born on June 30th, 1937. Sbelknap (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of edit
I had earlier removed an WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE citation and its associated content. Daily Wire is on the WP:RSP list as generally unreliable. The Daily Wire citation was used to support a claim that I was unable to find on any RS without leading right back to Daily Wire and a series of other deprecated or unreliable sources. What a rabbit hole! Interestingly, the Breitbart article says they contacted VISA who denied the claim of blacklisting the David Horowitz Freedom Center (and another article said VISA contacted Breitbart) which is probably why I couldn't find any RS to replace the GUNREL citation.


 * The Daily Wire article is based off a Jihad Watch article (deprecated) and a Breitbart News article (deprecated & blacklisted).


 * A WorldTribune.com article makes the same claim, but they don't have a Wikipedia article of their own (not notable?) and their About Us page says they are a co-op, content partners with 7 other agencies, including WorldNetDaily (deprecated), Breitbart (deprecated), and The Washington Times (no consensus, but deemed marginally reliable), so I would kick WorldTribune.com to the curb.


 * The Christian Broadcasting Network article which another editor added recently is also based off the Daily Wire and Jihad Watch articles.


 * A TNEagleForum blog post gets their stuff from Jihad Watch.


 * SPLC.News (not to be confused with SPLC) got their material from Breitbart.

The rabbit hole is all just circular reporting — and I'm getting dizzy!

So in all, it's a nice gossip story, but if it is true and can be reliably sourced, it really belongs in the David Horowitz Freedom Center article and not in David Horowitz (a BLP article) because it's about the organization, not the man. To include it in the DH article is WP:COATRACK. (It is in the DHFC article, but that issue is for another day.)

As I drafted this explanation, I see someone else has removed the two non-RS sources from this article, along with their content, which is what I was planning on doing. Maybe this time it will stick. Platonk (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Right and Far Right, and incorrect
The following excerpt from the intro makes whoever wrote it look silly : “president of the right-wing David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC); editor of the Center's far-right website FrontPage Magazine”. For those who don’t see it, the Center is right wing but the website somehow is far right. First, it’s not “far” right, with that term taking on sinister connotations among those who use it. The website is pretty much garden variety conservative and the description should be excised entirely with the first adjectival use of “right-wing” serving for both Center and website. Unless someone objects, I will do so.
 * While not "incorrect" (in the sense of "not factual"), it is awkward, so I have deleted the description of the website in the lead, in favor of this sentence with myriad refs in this section #David Horowitz Freedom Center:
 * Horowitz is the editor of the Center's website FrontPage Magazine. It has been described by scholars and writers as right-wing, far-right, Islamophobic, and anti-Islam.
 * Does that work for you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It’s better, though I would say “critics” rather than writers and scholars, since it implies that the ones that do say this are dispositive. I’d also put the descriptions in quotation marks. It’s important that this be descriptive rather than tendentious and hostile, as decent encyclopedias are supposed to be. Sychonic (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Anti-black
The statement "he has supported anti-black movements" sounds ridiculous. It should be removed, or, at the very least, supported by a citation. If a movement opposes, say, reparations, it is highly controversial whether this effort is "anti-black." 71.245.188.249 (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)