Talk:David Horowitz Freedom Center

Discover The Network(s) redirected here
The "Discover the Networks" wiki page was just deleted without redirection, so I've put it in the context of the other DHFC programs to allow a meaningful redirect. Andyvphil 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really confusing - trying to find information on discover the networks, and got redirected here, and all the content seems to have vanished. I had to mess around and find a history page
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discover_the_Networks&oldid=100858961 - none of that content is here. I am not sure why this page was deleted - should this stuff be added back into this article??--Boscobiscotti 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you like. Here's the AFD: Andyvphil 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Discover The Network(s)
It doesn't just list left-wing individuals and organizations. It also lists libertarians, paleoconservatives, and generally anyone Horowitz thinks is criticizing Bush. Check out his DTN entry on Lew Rockwell or Karen Kwiatkowski. Harvestdancer 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't (yet) examined the entries you mention but I've modified the text to reflect H's explanation that he includes allies of the left wing, e.g. Jihadists as allies of left-wing "anti-imperialism". There was a DTN article (not a very good one, but a platform where distictions like this could have been made without overweighting DHFC) that someone put into AfD as "non-notable" and an admin decided (wrongly, I think) that that the consensus was indeed to delete, leaving an orphaned redirect or two and no "Go" target.So I added a quick-and-dirty list of DHFC's "programs" here... Thanks for your correction. Andyvphil 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The current wording is inadequate. Nobody thinks libertarians are left-wing.  Libertarians are included in the network.  The description makes it sound as if those in the network are left wing. Harvestdancer 15:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Harvestdancer, with your latest insertion of "libertarians" as a target of DTN you write, "Kwiatowski AND Rockwell, because neither are conservative - that's the yardstick, whether or not they are conservative." And in your comment above, "...generally anyone Horowitz thinks is criticizing Bush." This is simply wrong. The DTN article on LewRockwell.com (Rockwell himself doesn't actually get an entry) makes it clear that Lew Rockwell makes the list not because he is radical, anti-conservative, or a Bush critic, but because he criticizes the American government as "facist", i.e. evil in a way that is very similar to the perspective of, say, Michael Moore. And Kwiatowski, who is closely associated with Rockwell, is quoted as seeing the Iraq intervention as "imperialist". These two make the list because DTN sees them as sharing the left's "anti-American" perspective, and far from viewng libertarians as the enemy, DTN is at pains to describe Rockwell several times as "self styled libertarian" or similar. By comparison, the Objectivist Yaron Brook, who is radical, anti-conservative, and anti-Bush, does not make the list. In fact none of the individuals pictured on the jump page are libertarians, and Horowitz's explanaion of his categories  makes no mention of libertarians. Indeed, of the 1186 individual entries ...do ANY other than Kwiatowski style themselves libertarians? Thus your insertion of "libertarians" is insufficiently precise and gives undue weight to two entries which are there, as I said, NOT because of their libertarianism. Andyvphil 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he describes those libertarians who have aroused his ire as "self styled" libertarians, as if to imply that Lew Rockwell isn't really a libertarian! He's trying to imply that those libertarians that make the list are actually liberals or left wingers when they clearly aren't.  Just because DTN isn't NPOV doesn't mean that this rather unusual fact should be left out of this article. Harvestdancer 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear what we're taking about, the DTN description after your last edit reads:
 * "*Discover the Networks...- A database of organizations and "activists for leftwing agendas and causes -- egalitarians, socialists, and opponents of American 'imperialism'",[4] with a Java applet to display their interconnections in graphic form. This description can include non-leftwing allies of the left, e.g. Jihadists, certain anti-Iraq War activists, libertarians, etc."
 * ...and what I'm trying to point out is that Kwiatowski and Rockwell are included because they are the catgegory "certain anti-Iraq War activists", namely those who oppose the Iraq war in the role of "opponents of American 'imperialism'", not because of their libertarianism, "self-styled" or not. I would argue that Rockwell is referred to as a "self-styled" libertarian not because of some analysis of his libertarianism which excludes him from the category, but precisely to indicate that his position on the Iraq war is idiosyncratic among libertarians and that libertarians are not generally thought to be members of the Networks. I don't think this is significant enough to mention in a short description of DTN, but what is really unacceptable is that the article imply DTN targets libertarians in general, which I've pointed out before is simply not true. In the interests of comity I'm trying to get you to make the edit, but I won't leave the sentence in its current form if you don't change it. Andyvphil 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mr. Rockwell's position on the Iraq war is shared by a majority of libertarians. It's not idiosyncratic, it's representative.  DTN doesn't know enough libertarians to target them, but Rockwell and Kwiatowski have been enough of an annoyance to Horowitz to get noticed. Harvestdancer 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another libertarian, of sorts, listed on DTN: Justin Raimondo. Associated with Murray Rothbard. But seen by DTN as "facist", not libertarian. Just so you know I'm keeping an open mind on this question, not merely polemicising... Andyvphil 11:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

true position of the center
There is information to be added, and it will be. The publications and press releases of this organization has in turn been used as a RS for a number of other questioned WP articles & this is currently being discussed on WP:RS. DGG 07:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuff to add
Dropping these here from my !vote on the AfD. Will parse later unless someone beats me to it. --Nuclear Zer0 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside source about the Freedom Center, quite biased, but should work.
 * Story about the Freedom Center backed incident in Pennsylvania.
 * State Police Network run down of on the Freedom Center.
 * AFT article criticizing Freedom Center's funding.
 * Tuscan Tucson News article.
 * Sounded from your mention that the DHFC had a run-in with the State Police, but I see it's just a directory entry. Minimal contribution to notability, but despite Hipocrite and Disavian that was never in serious doubt. Someone had to point that out, though, and thanks for chiming in (before I did). On the DTN AfD I felt very much like a one man band. I was right, but it didn't look good. If the closing Admin is unreasonable nothing will help except taking it to the next level (maybe). I didn't know why the Italians took a special interest in DHFC but now that I'm looking at source I see it's a misspelling. I've taken the liberty of strikeouts -- if that's not ok, undo. No time for more now. Andyvphil 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tons of stuff on Media Matters. link and link2 Will look through it all soon. - FAAFA 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Parking a cite, here:. A mention of CSPC imprint "Second Thoughts Books" seems worth digging up info on. Maybe other things. Andyvphil 13:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links listed by NuclearUmpf have gone dead. Andy's The Nation source is still up. In general, the article has too few secondary sources and needs major work.  Will Beback   talk    01:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
An editor is edit warring against 2 editors and this will not be tolerated. It is important to observe WP:BRD. "Far right hate group" does not belong in the lede. It fails WP:MOSINTRO and WP:LABEL.– Lionel (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree also there is a source misrepresentation as a book don't say "self described"--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The only edit warring is the edit warring by user:Lionelt who pushes far right views in multiple articles including this one. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, not on self-published material, like user:Lionelt inserted into the article. There are notable reliable sources, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, describing this organisation as far right. We do not only describe controversial organisations with their preferred terms, because that is not a neutral point of view. You are welcome to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. (I also note that User:Lionelt engages in Canvassing in this discussion) JonFlaune (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about sourcing and here is the policy which proves it: WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". You are also wrong about canvassing. Per WP:CANVASS Shrike falls under "concerned editors". In fact practically everything you just wrote is incorrect. – Lionel (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is on my watchlist this the reason I have reverted your edits as problematic--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you cannot use a self-published source to state as fact that this organisation is "conservative", because that is a fringe point of view. Mainstream and highly recognized sources such as the Southern Poverty Law Center regard it as a far-right hate group. Let me quote the part you omitted from ABOUTSELF:
 * "so long as
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"

The only thing the self-published source can be used as a source for, is their self-description, which is not the same as the lead sentence stating it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. The exceptional claim that a group considered a hate group by mainstream sources is merely "conservative", is unduly self-serving. For a comparable article, see English Defence League. It's not like the Nazi Party would get to dictate how they are described in Wikipedia, so you have misunderstood something completely. JonFlaune (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that an organization is not this or that just because they claim it, User JonFlaune massivly violates NPOV by using strange blog and related web-sites. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, Hatewatch published by the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a "blog" per the definition of blog employed by WP:RS, nor is it a "strange blog". The only thing that massively violates NPOV is to only include the views of this controversial organisation, and no mainstream views whatsoever (compare: English Defence League), making the article into a puff piece. JonFlaune (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are WP:CONSENSUS against your view.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim "only thing the self-published source can be used as a source for, is their self-description" is completely false. Is it possible that you are referring to SPLC and Hatewatch as "mainstream sources"? I almost laughed out loud when I read that. You have not even attempted to address my concerns related to WP:MOSINTRO and WP:LABEL. Your counterpoint to ABOUTSELF shows a lack of comprehension of our policies. For 2 days nothing you have added to this discussion has been substantive. To wit you have been nonresponsive. I agree with Shrike that we have consensus. – Lionel (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You canvassing doesn't constitute a consensus. You appear to be an utterly disruptive editor with a lacking understanding of NPOV. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, not as self-presentations, and are based on reliable secondary sources. You have not cited any valid concerns in this discussion, only your strange idea that the article should be written from the perspective of the organisation itself. JonFlaune (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you "laugh out loud" at the Southern Poverty Law Center, I find it very telling. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for fringe views. JonFlaune (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one was canvassed I came to article before user:Lionelt also a secondary scholarly source was brought.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also please read WP:NPA, discuss content not editors.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is an exceptional source for right-wing hate groups. Every uninvolved editor at WP:RS/N agreed it can be used with attribution. Ignoring that here is simply not an option. I'll be restoring that shortly. You cant just remove whatever you dislike. The SPLC is eminently qualified for the topic.  nableezy  - 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a solid and credible record in its particular area of specialization (it might not be reliable for things outside that topic). AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but the cited source is SPLC's blog - as it says right at the bottomn "THIS IS A MODERATED BLOG. THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER (SPLC) ENCOURAGES USER COMMENTS ON BLOG POSTINGS, BUT THESE COMMENTS ARE THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS POSTING THEM AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE SPLC." All Rows4 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This wasn't from a user comment. The notice is about comments that follow the the actual post, not the actual post.  nableezy  - 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The post itself is from a blog. If you look at List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, you'll see it is not actually listed as such in the "official" SPLC listings. All Rows4 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not say that SPLC says that this organization is a hate group. But your quote above remains inapplicable to the actual source, as it is not a "user comment" to the post that calls the "Freedom Center" a far-right group, it is the post itself.  nableezy  - 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All Rows4 -- there are actually some exceptions to the blogging policy... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that section. It reads "newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals" - SPLC is neither a newspaper, a magazine nor a news organization - which of these exceptions do you think applies here? All Rows4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was consensus at RS/N that the SPLC is a fine source for this. That should be the end of it.  nableezy  - 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * we're not discussing the SPLC here, but a blog in their web site. Was there a discussion specific to the blog? All Rows4 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are discussing an SPLC blog, not some random blog they host on their website. And yes, this specific source was bought to RS/N. See here.  nableezy  - 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

POVish description

 * "Jihad Watch (or Jihadwatch; also Dhimmi Watch) — blogs and articles criticizing Islam and Muslims."

This isn't acceptable unless the DHFC people admit to criticizing Muslims just for being Muslim (and no other reason), and so almost certainly needs to be rewritten... AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly is acceptable if properly sourced. // Liftarn (talk)
 * That depends on what the source is (i.e: op-ed vs. news article), and on the notability of the view. Not everything automatically belongs in an article just because it can be sourced. Uncle Lucas is a Founder (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not everything, but as the core of DHFC is the hate of Muslims it should certainly be included in the article. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Is there any reliable source that they're as hateful as Carlos Latuff?? In any case, such allegations would belong in the proper place in the article, not in the overall summary of activities. AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are far more hateful as they are a hate group while Latuff is an artist with a passion for equal rights. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Whose alleged "passion for human rights" somehow leads him into twisted bigotry towards Jews, as documented in that far-right ultraconservative publication "The Guardian": http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/18/israelandthepalestinians-pressandpublishing, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/09/independentvoices etc. Hope he enjoys his $4,000 dollar prize awarded from Iran for being an anti-Jewish bigot: International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohh, a cartoonist won a prize! Well, what's your point and what does it have to do with this article? // Liftarn (talk)

The "editor" Liftarn keeps vandalizing this article to conform to a far-left extremist/Muslim point of view that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Liftarn should be advised to review and follow said policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.57.249 (talk • contribs)

Edit warring over quote-marks, "alleged", Islamophobia template
The "editor" Liftarn keeps vandalizing this article to conform to a far-left extremist/Muslim point of view that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Liftarn should be advised to review and follow said policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.108.168.130 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what policies you think I've violated? Perhaps you should read up a bit on WP:VERIFY perhaps. We use facts from reliable sources rather than someone's personal truthiness. Also WP:ABOUTSELF applies where DHFC is used as a source about themselves. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Your Swedish Judeophobic far-left extremist Web sites are not reliable sources. I cannot believe that Wikipedia allows brainwashed Communists like yourself to edit. You are just as bad as Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.108.168.130 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, check the WP:Help desk and WP:RS to discuss further edit and reliable sources.--Mr.Goblins (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole edit war seems semi-pointless (though if the "Islamophobia" template is to be so large and intrusive, it should really be a bottom-of-the-page template, not a side template...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but template design is not really something that should be discussed in this article, but in the talk page of the template in question. However, like other extremist groups we should use wording to make it clear that it is how they describe themselves and not an universal truth. If it's done with quotes, use of "alleged", "according to themselves" or some kind of other way it's not that important. // Liftarn (talk)

RfC
An 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)

Navigation template removed
has repeatedly and unmotivated removed the navigation template. Please explain your actions here before doing it again. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Per WP:BURDEN the onus is on you. To justify the the inclusion of material.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * , .  nableezy  - 16:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the opinion of those think tanks is important at all?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * lol. The SPLC, one of the most respected anti-discrimination organizations on the planet, is not important at all?  nableezy  - 21:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That it is an islamophobic organisation is already proven beyond reasonable dubt. What we discuss here is of and if so where the navigation template should be placed. // Liftarn (talk)

What's with the huge "islamophobic" banner on this article?
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to provide a neutral point of view. I am interested in what is going on with Islam - after all, it does seem to be instigating a large number of conflicts around the world, some now quite close to my home. So I look through the various articles here on Wikipedia to find out more. But what I don't need is some kind of self-appointed thought police instructing me that what I am reading is "islamophobic". Actually I resent being told what to think. I make up my own mind thank you very much. I don't care if you think you're 'Left' or 'Right' or just an overweight pimply onanist, hows abouts whoever the self-appointed Light of Righteousness here is who put up that prejudicial piece of propaganda, just go on and remove it again. Thank you. Stringybark (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You have User:Liftarn to thank (see above). I've pointed out several times (above and at Template_talk:Islamophobia) that given its size, it's more suitable for being a bottom-of-page template than a sidebar template... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Article needs expenses and compensation data
In 2013, the Center paid David Horowitz $525,631 in salary. This and other relevant financial information can be found on their 990 Tax form hosted by GuideStar.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on David Horowitz Freedom Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613224727/http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org:80/ongoing-programs/ to http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/ongoing-programs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061024154657/http://freedomlaw.com/IRFpre.html to http://freedomlaw.com/IRFpre.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

VVD funding
The following content was recently added by and deleted by  (after minor modifications by me):

What's the basis for the deletion? This content is about the Horowitz center, supported by a reliable source, and written in a neutral, straightforward manner, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, I fully support inclusion. This is well-sourced, and was noted in the NY Times - although the Times said that the Center gave $125,000 in 2015, and $25,000 in 2016). Neutralitytalk 01:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The source is an opinion article written by someone who opposes Horowitz, not reliable, and whether Geert Wilders is "far-right" or not is disputed (see Talk:Geert Wilders).--Oxbird (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit war. There is nothing suggesting that the source is an opinion article, and certainly the assertion that so-and-so gave money to so-and-so isn't an opinion. The Intercept is a reputable outlet; it is often cited by other reliable sources; the author is a professional journalist; and a source isn't unreliable simply because it's biased. I take no opinion on whether Wilders is far-right since I haven't researched the matter. I would be fine with removing "far-right." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is not an opinion article but a news article that cites Dutch official sources. There is no reason whatever to exclude this information. Zerotalk 08:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * More mainstream media sources.about a drop in US funding since 2015The Washington Postthe Chicago Tribune Doug Weller  talk 10:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with and  that the argument that Intecept report, and NY Times report, are NOT opinion pieces. Thus I have re-posted with both Intercept and NY Times links.

Oxbird was a sock, see Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo. Part of a huge sockfarm, worth taking a look at for future use. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

SPLC Mention
I noticed that in the criticism tab, it describes the SPLC as being far-left. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic, especially for an organization as mainstream as the SPLC? Hooded-wanderer (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That was from a POV edit from the day before yesterday, which I just reverted. Thank you for noticing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is hardly mainstream! Hob's edit addresses the concern adequately, in my opinion. Characterizations of entities that have their own WP articles seems excessive. That's a general observation. A specific one is that it is confusing and probably redundant to describe DHFC as both right-wing and far right in the same sentence.--FeralOink (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)