Talk:Ami Horowitz

Could you please remove lies in this page

Trump never mentioned terrorist attack in Sweden. Also you lie about nogo zones not existing while Horowitz interviews 2 police officers that use that term. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaIgeQXQgI#t=7m15s Please stop embarrassing Wikipedia with your bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.19.8 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump never said terrorist attack, that is correct.

Horowitz claims about no-go-zones are totally false. There is no such places in Sweden. I live in Sweden, I work at a law firm, my wife is a prosecutor and I know a few cops. I know that it is bullshit. Those areas would be considered low crime areas in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The policemen who was interviewed says Horowitz edited the interview by altering his questions so it seems their answers mean something else. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/RMr2W/poliserna-i-filmen-som-trump-talade-om-vi-star-inte-bakom-det-har-al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.37 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the detectives in the video use no go zone, not just the Horowitz (unless it was audio editing) it is impossible that it was deceitful clipping of the video. Also your personal opinions and knowledge are irrelevant.

Not true that Trump 'falsely implied' that Sweden had a terror attack on the 17th of Feb. The statements that Sweden has 'no-go zones' are controversial but it is not a certain fact that there are no such zones. 'Muslim no-go zone' is a different subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarkerik (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please insert a reference to the interview with the two Swedish police officers, where they reveal that the questions showed on TV where not the same as the ones they were answering during the interview: http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/swedish-police-featured-in-fox-news-segment-filmmaker-is-a-madman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.176.237 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Again the police officers use the term no go zone when they do reply to an answer. I find it hard to believe that you can ask somebody a question that will cause them that nonexistent thing is real. Listen to timetagged Youtube link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.94.248 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Asking different questions

On thing I noticed about this guy is he definitely feeds his subjects loaded questions to get answers to prove his points. He's not a journalist but more of a propagandanist. Some of his creations have positive intentions yet others are designed to produce his desired outcomes. In a recent video he asks white students at Berkeley University whether requiring IDs for African-Americans causes problems for them to vote. He then doesn't go and ask African-Americans the same question to compare the two views on this idea. Instead, he uses different questions and interviews African Americans in urban areas to create his desired out. This one production of his is definitely propaganda rather than journalism. The video can be see on his account on youtube. 118.174.200.12 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Fanpov etc

I've flagged this as WP:FANPOV and others. The tone is too chatty for my liking, with too many homely little quotes, and too promotional (I'm not saying that was the intent). The "UN Me" section is particularly bad for that. All that section really needs is that first sentence. The rest could be ditched with no loss, and in fact the overall article would be improved by becoming more succinct, allowing emphasis on the core facts instead of providing a lot of superfluous "personality" stuff.

And I can see hardly any point at all in the "Writings" section. When I see "Writings" in this context, I generally expect to see books, or chapter-level contributions, or at very least significant (in the opinion of the wider community) articles. But in the main, this "Writings" section is a commentary of a few HuffPo articles of Horowitz. It would have been sufficient (albeit still overstated) to say that "Horowitz has published several articles in online magazines such as the Huffington Post"

Also, the lead's assertion that Horowitz is a "media personality" needs WP:RS otherwise it's just WP:OR. And even if WP:OR were permitted, I'd dispute that in this case it's even very good WP:OR; if Ami is to be identified as anything, surely it would be as a Filmmaker, as is stated is his occupation? Being a "media personality" typically suggests a lot more activity than he has yet shown. Regardless, Filmmaker or Media Personality or anything else for that matter, we need some WP:RS.

in fact, unless some solid sources can be found, overall I think the whole thing is barely if at all escaping WP:NOTABLE and could be a deletion candidate. The fact that Horowitz has made films, or written on Huffpo etc, or appeared on TV does not entitle us to assert that he is a filmmaker, writer, or Media dude. Some reliable source needs to draw the conclusions for us to then cite. (I have made films, written for places, and been on TV, but I'm not any of the things being said of Horowitz and I would strenuously oppose anyone creating an article about me until I as a topic warranted it). What *might* help the WP:NOTABLE is if the cutesy quotes and fanpov stuff were fixed, thereby reducing its length, and the whole thing made more succinctly factual. Horowitz is not *entirely* unknown, after all, so it's not a foregone conclusion this is definitely failing WP:NOTABLE. But there must be thousands more just like him who do not (and should not) yet have WP articles about them. In fact, I suspect there are tens or even hundreds of thousands like him in all but the fact that he's gone to the trouble of making a website and doing some self promotion. Of course neither of those is a bad thing -- in fact, more power to Ami for doing it. But an opinion, the ability to articulate, and the motivation and skill to bolt the two together into a growing media presence do not in themselves make for notability.

As it stands, I reckon this article is too much about too small (for now, anyway) a topic, and it needs agressiveley pruned at very least, if not deleted entirely. Other than the tags, I've left it untouched to allow time for discussion here, hopefully to avoid the latter of those options. Sleety Dribble (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this. I had worked on this page years ago and could certainly take some time to review the page. I undoubtedly would have been more wild with the edits back then. I will take another look now and see what I can trim down. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't done more on this front, but I couldn't find the time and now the page seems to be undergoing significant overhaul. I think I will stay off the page until it calms down, and then I can try to clean it up if its still a problem. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What on earth? "The fact that Horowitz has made films... does not entitle us to assert that he is a filmmaker..." Yes. Yes it does. He makes films, therefore he is a filmmaker.90.246.196.6 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Many errors in text!

Not true that Trump 'falsely implied' that Sweden had a terror attack on the 17th of Feb. The statements that Sweden has 'no-go zones' are controversial but it is not a certain fact that there are no such zones. 'Muslim no-go zone' is a different subject and is not mentioned by Ami Horowitz. Last sentences should be deleted, the sources are not correct. Snarkerik (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore no-go zones are not fake news, ABC Australia had a segment where the cops told them at a certain point they would have to go alone since cops can't enter certain areas. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias showing... Is there a way to escalate, since they locked the page after I tried to edit the lies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.94.248 (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

The page suggests "Ami Horowitz made false assertions..." That is the opinion of the writer. I suggest editing to state "Ami Horowitz made assertions..." Sled48 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and will change. We can't state in Wikipedia's voice an opinion that which is someone else's. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources support the notion that his assertions were "false" then Wikipedia should reflect that. To omit that his assertions were false per reliable sources, is to side-step Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, Trump never said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden. That's synth. Then, Horowitz has videos of him being attacked, and there are videos from ABC Australia where the same thing happens. It would not be correct to label his assertions as categorically false. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The section did not read "every word uttered by Ami Horowitz about Sweden ever is false". It read "Horowitz made numerous false assertions about Sweden" which is supported by the reliable sources cited for the claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I would be OK if you put in "allegedly false assertions." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we go by reliable sources or not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But you're not saying that "RS said the assertions were false." You are saying that "Horowitz made false assertions." That is not allowed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. And if that was your purported concern, you would rewrite the text to "RS said the assertions were false." But even that would be nonsensical. We don't create false equivalences between crackpots making indisputably false claims and reliable sources using the best available information to correct those claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No-go zones are not a fake claim. Even the Swedish police has reported on them. They are not zones, where police can't go, but rather zones where the police are not willing to go voluntarily. ----85.23.43.189 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Please change first sentence of paragraph two: Horowitz came to prominence in February 2017 when President Donald Trump falsely implied on the basis of a Horowitz interview on Fox News that there had been an increase of violence in Sweden committed by refugees on 17 February 2017.

This sentence uses and adverb that is solely based on opinion not fact. Wikipedia contributors should not use polemics and unverifiable hearsay. Pfkhuber (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is atrocious editing. The statement is false according to all reliable data and sources. Yet, you go ahead and remove accurate descriptions by reliable sources, and leave the false remarks in without correction of any sort. Per WP: Truth matters[1]: "Our articles would look ridiculous if, for example, the article Sun opened with "According to NASA scientists, the Sun is the star at the center of the solar system." At some point someone made an evaluation of the truth of that claim, and decided that it was factual enough to say it Wikipedia's voice." You don't even bother to add "according to all available data, this is false" or something along those lines which would solve your alleged problems re: attribution with the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

As this article is currently written, it's promoting falsehoods and misleading readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep the focus on the man, not the controversies.

This is a biography. Let's treat it as such. In other words, let's not load it up with side issues. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Swedish incident content

This is about the swedish incident content removed by user:BeenAroundAWhile. He removed it because it was too long for biographical purposes. I agreed in part (too long), but disagree that the content should be removed (b/c importance to political discourse in the United States). I left a comment on his talk page, and reinstated a modified version of the content. Please discuss future direction. Test35965 (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sjö:? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome

Sir Joseph The opening sentence states that the documentary "covers crime by Arab and African immigrants in Stockholm and elsewhere in Sweden". Neither the JTA nor the Radio Sweden sources state that. (Also, as I previously wrote, the JTA article is linked to the Daily Mail, which is not considered as a Wikipedia RS. If the editor is synthing directly from the documentary itself, that is OR.

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

As such, the entire paragraph needs to be deleted until a suitable sourced opening sentence is written. The Kingfisher (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems extreme, but anyway, as the author of that sentence, I just found a source and rewrote the sentence to match it: it now says that the documentary "covers the effects of Muslim immigration in Sweden, including what Horowitz says are increased crime rates.". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

*Not extreme, Wiki policy.

• Your source, The Washington Post's "Monkey Cage" is an op-ed and not a RS. Why not use their phrase "a video propaganda piece released by Ami Horowitz"?
• Will be deleting unless properly sourced. The Kingfisher (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Calling it propaganda is a violation of NPOV. I agree with Korny O'Near, it's fine as is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think opinion pieces in reliable sources can be valid references for factual information like a date of birth, or the topic of a documentary. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, if it is in addition to another RS and the op-ed has a semblance of NPOV, which I tried to subtly point out, but Sir Joseph took my rhetorical question literally. The other two RSs don't support the edit. I have an idea for a compromise, but I will wait until the 24 hours has lapsed. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, why did you revert this edit instead of just changing the word "released"? I thought the goal was to improve articles. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your question is. He didn't air it on YouTube, YT videos aren't aired, and FoxNews didn't release the videos, he did. Therefore, it was released on YouTube and aired on FoxNews. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

My original edit had it being released on YouTube and FoxNews.com (not Fox News, the cable network as you wrote), so released was fine. Yes, something airs on YouTube... that is the accepted lexicon today, just as something airs on Netflix. No longer need to use term "streaming". Frankly, the original edit that you reverted was fine, that he released it on FoxNews.com and YouTube, giving context to the time frame. And, yes, if it can be released on YouTube, it can be released on FoxNews.com, just as a film is released in many theaters across the country. The Kingfisher (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Was it even aired on Fox News, by the way? It was discussed on Fox News, and they put it on their website, but I don't know if it was ever shown on TV. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You guys are playing telephone. Sir Joseph mistakenly read Fox News when, in fact, I wrote FoxNews.com. Now you're questioning if it aired on Fox News, which is a different story altogether. As I wrote above, it was released at the same time, December 2016, and Sir Joseph has just added his own OR to the article. I suggest that he self-reverts his last edit. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, Ami Horowitz didn't release it to FN, FN just replayed it. I don't know why you have this need to bring Fox into it, but they just replayed Horowitz's content, he didn't do it for Fox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please direct me to your RS that supports your WP:OR that Horowitz "released" the doc on YouTube.

• Please direct me to your RS that supports your OR that "Horowitz didn't release it to FN, FN just replayed it".
• Please direct me to your RS that supports your OR that "Fox News subsequently aired" the doc. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To jump in here again - this CNN article calls the documentary a "YouTube video", which I'd say is good enough evidence. I still don't think Fox News ever aired it, and I don't think the documentary should be described as having been aired or released on either Fox News or FoxNews.com. It could well be that someone at Fox News just sent Horowitz an email asking if they could put the video on their website, and he said "sure". Korny O'Near (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The question isn't if it was on YouTube (we have the link), rather I am challenging your verbiage "released". Also, I'm sorry, but your thoughts as to whether someone emailed Horowitz and asked him if they could put it on FoxNew.com is not relevant. FoxNews.com is an RS and the doc was published on December 14, 2016. If you want to challenge that the doc was published on FoxNews.com, please be my guest. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

what's wrong with released in YouTube?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing if you have an RS to support it. The term comes from film release which implies when it was first made public. As of now, nothing supports that it was released on YouTube. Thus, the correct statement is what I originally wrote, that is supported by RSs, and you reverted: "... Horowitz aired a 10-minute short documentary Stockholm Syndrome on FoxNews.com and YouTube..." The Kingfisher (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RSs supporting "aired" on YouTube and FoxNews.com.

Sir Joseph, your good faith edit here was wrong when you wrote that YouTube videos "aren't aired". The following RSs will hopefully end this discussion that a film/video/doc can be "aired" on FoxNews.com, YouTube, and other websites: Los Angeles Times 1 and 2, Fox News, New York Times 1 and 2, ''Chicago Tribune, Billboard, Times Record News. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a silly conversation to have. I'll admit that some people have referred to putting a video on YouTube, or another website, as "airing"; and I'll admit that the lines between "aired", "published", "posted" and "released" have gotten highly blurred in this age of online videos and video-on-demand. But I believe that "aired" still generally implies that something is only shown for a specific period of time (as in "airs on 8 PM on Tuesdays"), as opposed to being put online and being viewable indefinitely. And "published" (as in "published by FoxNews.com") still generally implies that there was some financial agreement involved - which may or may not be true in this case. Why not just call it "posted" or "released", and avoid unnecessary ambiguity? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Silly", yet you revert and promote thoughts and beliefs not based on policies or RSs. There is no ambiguity because I've supplied accepted RSs to support the edit. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many citations you provide - "aired" or "published" will always be a less-clear description of Horowitz's actions than "posted" or "released". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. You you reverted me here and Sir Joseph reverted me here when I used the word "published". Are you now suggesting that it is acceptable to write that "Horowitz released his 10-minute short film on FoxNews.com and YouTube..."? The Kingfisher (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Released/published" and "FoxNews.com" are two separate issues. I can only speak for myself, but I think there's no evidence that the video's presence of FoxNews.com is the result of any work on Horowitz's part, so saying that he released/published/did anything else with the video on FoxNews.com is potentially incorrect. He clearly did actively release it on YouTube, though, since it appears there under his own account name. (And CNN calls it a "YouTube video".) Korny O'Near (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Add an apostrophe and your argument is irrelevant: "Subsequently, in December 2016, Horowitz's 10-minute short film was released on FoxNews.com and YouTube..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not ideal, because now you're forced to use the passive voice - because the fact remains that we know who uploaded it to YouTube (Horowitz, or someone working for him), but we don't know who uploaded it to FoxNews.com, or in what context. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You must stop your synthing and OR, and start editing based on RSs. You can assume and conjecture all you want about who uploaded what to where, but it is irrelevant to this article. You stated that this is a "silly" conversation, yet you continue to push semantic discussions about these "postings". You wrote: "...we don't know who uploaded it to FoxNews.com, or in what context." What does any of that matter? It wouldn't change the story if Joe Blow uploaded them. This is not about how or why this film is posted where it is, it is about the content of the film itself. Even if you wrote that Horowitz himself posted the film on FoxNews.com and you had a supporting RS, I'd most likely revert it based on the fact that it is irrelevant to the article. This discussion has run its course. The Kingfisher (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by synthing and OR, but you're right that this discussion has gone on long enough. I just edited the article with wording that will hopefully satisfy everyone, and we can all move on. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH, WP:OR.
• The article is about Ami Horowitz, not the film. If you want to write an article about the film, then you are free to go into the minutia detail of which you are so focused. It is enough to write that in December 2016, the film aired, was released, or was posted on YouTube and FoxNews.com.
• No reason to change the chronological time frame.
• You've entered the area of WP:DE. The Kingfisher (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting strange. yes, I know what synth and OR are, but I don't see their relevance here. Of all the things to criticize my edit for, "it has too many details" is a strange one - my edit added a whopping 157 bytes. There are currently four paragraphs on Stockholm Syndrome - if you think that's too much information, why not reduce some of them instead of just re-ordering the existing information? And yes, there's a reason to present it out of chronological order - in a section about a film, it makes sense to have the film itself be the subject of the first sentence, instead of some random publicity interview about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What is your obsession with separating YouTube from FoxNews.com? The Kingfisher (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Obsession" is a strong word, but you can see above for all my thoughts on the matter. Since we're already asking each other questions - what's the deal with admonishing me about the fact that this article is "about Ami Horowitz and not the film", then adding a bunch more details about the film? Some kind of weird joke? Just a lack of self-awareness? (I guess I could ask the same thing about you citing "edit warring" as a reason to revert me.) Korny O'Near (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not making myself more clear. I meant that if this were an article about the film, there would be different sections (synopsis, history, critical reception, etc.), which is more appropriate for minor details such as it was posted on YouTube and two days later on FoxNews.com (even though, as I stated, I don't understand the importance or meaning of it). Obviously, details about the film and Horowtiz are fine, but you seemingly focused on details that are outside of Horowitz, and were not germane to the film itself. Unless I'm missing something, writing that it first posted on YouTube then two days later posted on FoxNews.com seems redundant, unless, of course, it is relevant and important to set a time frame for a particular event or occurrences.

With regard to this edit, I understand that you are trying to structure this as a standard film summary (as I mentioned above: synopsis, history, critical reception, etc.), but it is not. The making of the film and the contents of the film are blurred and intertwined. In your order, you mention that he was attacked, but Horowitz first discusses it in the Fox News interview. That alone should place the Fox interview first. Then you decided to place the controversy regarding the interviewed policemen before Horowitz's interview.

Especially because the film leads to Trump and an unsourced "firestorm", this entire section should be in chronological order. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It seems like, before YouTube or anything else, we need to decide on whether this section should be about Stockholm Syndrome or about something like "Ami Horowitz's experiences in and statements about Sweden in 2016/17", with Stockholm Syndrome just a component of that. It's a little tricky, since the stuff outside of the film itself has gotten a lot more publicity: first when he was attacked while filming, then of course the Donald Trump statement, which was only indirectly about the film. Nevertheless, I think it makes sense to make this section about the film, since everything flows from that; and because it's in a section called "Stockholm Syndrome", which is itself in a section called "Writing/producing/directing". If you wanted this to be about "Horowitz in/on Sweden", you'd have to rename some sections, and probably rearrange a bunch of content - and my guess is that it would come out more convoluted anyway. I think the documentary is the perfect framing device for all this content, even though it leads to the content being slightly out of chronological order.

By the way, when you revert my changes, you're reverting a bunch of spelling fixes and so on, which is not good. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this section is convoluted because, as you point out, it follows the writing/directing/producing format. I see two options: (1) stay in this format (under the same Stockholm Syndrome heading) and create other sections, such as Sweden and Interviews. I'm not crazy about this because there will be a lot of redundancies. (2) Create one section Sweden, then place everything under that in chronological. This is my choice as we can continue adding without having to reformat, and it keeps it in a natural (and neutral) time frame.

• I'm sorry about reverting your spelling fixes, I know the feeling. I learned the hard way. May I suggest that when you are dealing with controversial content, or content with a history of being reverted, that you first make your small fixes, then make your more serious edit with a probability of being reverted on a separate edit. This way, the most that happens is you're reverted, but you don't lose your fixes. I always try to make separate edits for that reason alone. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, there's a third option: call the section "Stockholm Syndrome", make it about the documentary, and fit everything in there, per my edit. That seems like the easiest option. I see you just created the "Sweden" section. Personally, I think this looks quite awkward, but I'm curious if anyone else has an opinion on it.

It's interesting to get editing advice from somebody who's been doing this for... two months, I guess. Here's another possibility: don't mindlessly revert serious edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it's coming to a point where an ANI discussion might be the next thing. There should not be a section called Sweden. That is firstly undue in this article. The subject of this article is Ami Horowitz. His documentary focusing on Sweden should be in the same place as all his other documentaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Subsections

Per this revert, adding subsections is within policy and isn't "overkill" for larger topics like this. The main reason that I created the subsections was to make sense of the hodgepodge order that you established, which also seemed UNDUE. (1) You placed the intro section about the film (released in February 2016) first, but then you also added the section about the policemen's and cameraman's versions in the same section, that came out after Trump's comments. (2) You placed the pre-film news discussion on Fox Business News (Sept. 2016) after the cameraman and police. (And you consistently refer to it as "publicity", when you have no supporting RSs and when it was news being reported about crime, rape, etc.) (3) You then placed the information about Trump. As I tried to compromise previously, either we should make it chronological order, or follow a more traditional format of sections and sub-sections. As it stands with your edit, it is foolish and makes no sense to jump all over the place. I'm fine with sub-sections and chronological order within each section. That makes most sense. However, if you want to remove sections, I'll start pushing toward placing the entire section in chronological order. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's... dial the tone back a little, shall we? Calling the chronology a "hodgepodge" is a bit much - we're talking about one paragraph here that's out of order chronologically, and I don't think it makes for confusing reading. Have I "consistently" used the word "publicity"? I only remember using it once, and that was in an edit summary. (Not that I think there's anything wrong with the word - publicity tours for documentaries and non-fiction books tend to be about the subject of those things.) As for putting the whole thing in chronological order - if you think that makes more sense, let's continue the discussion about it. Presumably that means you think it should go back to being a section called "Sweden". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that calling something hodgepodge is really ramping up the tone, but that aside, it wasn't one thing out of chronological order, it was....five:

1) Dec. 14, 2016: the film, with elements that were first discussed on a Fox News show on Sept. 30, 2016 (that's two out of order)

2) Feb. 23, 2017: police and cameraman (that's three out of order)

3) Sept. 2016: the Fox News show (that's four out of order)

3) February 2017: the Trump affair (that's five out of order)

Regarding "publicity", you referred to it twice: above and here (when you called it "random publicity tour".

My belief is that: (1) if it is under a new section (for now known as "Sweden"), then it should be in chronological order, and (2) if it stays in the same format that Sir Joseph wants, then it should have sub-sections. There are actually two different topics at play: Trump and the media "firestorm" (that will soon be deleted), and the questions of the film's accuracy. Those should most likely be separated by subsections, which makes me think that this entire sections should be under it's own heading (such as "Sweden"), with the film as one of the sections. One other very viable option is to keep the film section as is, and deal only with issues regarding the film (police, accuracy, etc.), and Trump and everything else in its own minor section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the ramping up of the tone was with the word "foolish", and just the general sense of what I would call wikilawyering. Okay, so I also used the word "publicity" in the talk page - I don't think I need a citation for my talk page comments. :) I didn't really understand your chronology listing - the Tucker Carlson interview didn't take place in September 2016, if that's what you were talking about. As for splitting up - we're talking about five paragraphs altogether, which I think flow together pretty well, so I didn't think it's really necessary. But maybe I just missed your point about chronology. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it is five or 50, if the paragraphs don't belong together. Trump's entire section is based on an interview, not on the film itself. I think the sections hold up much better with subsections. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The amount of content does actually matter a great deal when deciding whether to break up content into sections - see MOS:BODY: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Also, I didn't understand your reference to Trump - your section subdivision didn't do anything to separate that content (i.e., three sentences' worth) from other content that's directly about the documentary. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Police

I have serious problems with this section:

Two policemen who were featured in Horowitz's film said that Horowitz edited answers and questions to misrepresent them. Two cameramen involved in the project later concurred, after reviewing the raw film, that the footage had been unethically edited to misrepresent the subjects. Horowitz denies it, but refused to show the raw material.

• Nothing shows me that DN.Kultur is WP:RS. Rather, it is completely WP:UNDUE and POV-pushing, considering that the source wrote: "The segment featured the xenophobic filmmaker Ami Horowitz, maker of an alarmistic [sic] movie about Sweden."
• Radio Sweden definitely does not appear to be WP:RS, as it doesn't seem to have any original content and it is just reporting what other media said, in this case, DN.Kulur.
• Where are Horowitz's responses? That is a serious WP:NPOV violation. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The deletion is completely uncalled for and based on faulty assumptions. DN is a major newspaper with a good reputation. SR is the public radio, also with a good reputation. Both are, without doubt, RS. The SR interviewed AW, as the text and the soundtrack shows, so it's not correct that they only repeated what others wrote. And for your last question, how come you are not satisfied with the last sentence and the responses within the sources? I'm reverting the deletion. Sjö (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

The article claims Ami is a "documentary filmmaker". This is dubious considering the fictional content of his films. it is also unsoucred. Why not change it to something uncontroversial like just "filmmaker"? The text "he was filming in a no-go zone" in the Stockholm Syndrome should be "in an alleged no-go zone" as it isn't an actual no-go zone. The text "a new documentary" should be "a new film" as it's dubious if it can be described as a documentary. // Liftarn (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Added two RSs to "documentary filmmaker". Hopefully you don't have a problem with the NYT and Huffington Post as RSs.
• He described areas in which he filmed as "no-go zones" on Fox. He didn't describe them as "alleged no-go zones". There is a link to no-go zones where one can read all they want as to whether they exist or not.
• Added citation needed to Showdown Wisconsin section. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it? Huffington Post is not considered a reliable source, but NYT will do.
  • The text is unclear. I expanded it to make it clearer.
  • // Liftarn (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Horowitz's statements about Sweden

Writing "Horowitz's statements about Sweden in the film and in subsequent interviews have been disputed by Swedish authorities and criminologists, and various news organizations and fact-checkers" is WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOR.

• There are no counter points giving neutrality.
• Section is too big giving UNDUE and inflated with WP:RECENT
• Writing "Horowitz's statements about Sweden" means all of his statements about Sweden have been disputed by the listed entities (that alone is UNDUE and NPOV)
• WP:PROPORTION

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

• The source for the fact-checkers states: "The Fox News report Trump appears to be referencing is a segment on Tucker Carlson Tonight, in which Carlson interviewed Ami Horowitz, a filmmaker who traveled to Sweden to report on the alleged negative impacts that refugees had in the Nordic country". [Emphasis mine] As such, "appears" discounts this as an RS, which makes "fact-checkers" WP:NOR. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to give the same space to minority viewpoints as the mainstream view so your idea that it is somehow undue is incorrect. The article says "Horowitz denies it" so his view is also presented. The article says "It was speculated that" and it is sources, so no problem there. // Liftarn (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been determined that it is a minority view; regardless, simply adding that Horowitz denied it does not allow a laundry list (Swedish authorities and criminologists, and various news organizations and fact-checkers) coupled with details about the police and then others who confirm. Pick and choose.

• WP:UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space".
• WP:PROPORTION "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news". [Emphasis mine]

I'm trimming it so that it is balanced within the scope of the section and article. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to balance it, you should add sources that say that Horowitz is right and the fact-checkers are wrong. Also, I think the paragraph is DUE, given the attention the film received after Trump's comment. Sjö (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That is not how balance works, just unloading a list then expecting other editors to counter. There must be due wight given in the context of the article and the section. The attention given falls under WP:RECENT. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

At least three editors now — myself, User:Bobfrombrockley and User: Sjö — have reverted part or all of User:The Kingfisher's clearly POV edits. There is no consensus for the extreme overdetail, the speculation and the WP:SYNTH. Per WP:BRD, he is long overdue to achieve consensus on this talk page. No consensus for his edits has been achieved. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition to WP:NCRIME requiring RS citing and not one partisan's unconfirmed claim about gang-rape, etc., Horowitz's quotes in that regard were cited, without timestamp, to this link, which appears not to play on either Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't include speculation (like you wrote in your edit comment), but we do report speculation by others when it has reached WP:DUE. I still think that the connection between Stockholm Syndrome and "Last night in Sweden" should be mentioned, but I won't edit war about it. That said, it's clear to me that Kingfisher's edits are very POV. E.g. using "claimed" for statements from persons s/he disagrees with, and like you I think that the removed text was overly detailed, especially the amount of text given to explaining Ami Horowitz' position. Sjö (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that it was too overly detailed for the balance of the article and the section, but my edits were primarily in balance to what was UNDUE. Claiming two policemen, then two cameramen, then simply stating that Horowitz refused to show his film was obviously UNDUE and POV-pushing. (It is interesting that the cameraman stated that he reviewed the raw footage, but he did not show it to the newspaper to back his statements, but that is OR and irrelevant.) The more details that get placed will have to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see calm discussion, and I would ask that given the evidently sensitive nature of this section that the least contentious thing to do would be for editors to reach talk-page consensus before additional edits are made to it. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source saying the cameramen refused to show the raw footage it could go into the article. // Liftarn (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

And I see that despite a sign of collaboration and collegiality that The Kingfisher has reverted to contentious editing here. It's clear that he has no interest in contributing neutrally to this encyclopedia but is only here to push a partisan political view and WP:FRINGE claims. I'm very disappointed. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Tenebrae: You spite edited an article of which you never edited, reverted months of edits and editors, then proclaimed, per BRD, that all edits after yours should be discussed in Talk. Your arrogance is unmatched. No, per BRD, you were reverted so you should discuss in Talk. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No fewer than three other editors undid your inappropriate edit there. All of us as well as an admin (as noted on your talk page) are justifiably concerned about an editor who does not appear to be contributing constructively to Wikipedia and has been pursuing partisan WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FRINGE edits, disrespecting an WP:RfC, filing a frivolous WP:ANI, and generally acting in a WP:DISRUPTIVE manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your entire rant has zero comment to this article where you have disrespected BRD and CONSENSUS. It is not FRINGE to counter UNDUE. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Kingfisher, I seriously recommend that you take a deep breath. Stop citing an alphabet soup of policies, guidelines, and essays that you barely understand as weapons against editors who are all far more experienced here than you are—and by all means, stop quoting them at length. (Trust me, we know what they say. And if we don't, we know how to find them.) If it seems like all of Wikipedia is ganging up against you, reconsider the wisdom and soundness of your position. Why doesn't anybody agree with you? (Hint: It's not a left-wing conspiracy.) Maybe you're not making your argument as clearly as you think you are. Or maybe you've made a very clear argument, but other editors have raised valid objections that you haven't listened to. I can assure you that if you keep it up, your behavior editing BLPs is going to lead to a request for enforcement of the ArbCom sanctions against you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Authorities dispute" graf

Fair enough that this graf should be discussed. I would say that since much of what the filmmaker says depends on his personal claims rather than independent third-party sourcing, and since his views appear to be considered WP:FRINGE, that a graf of this sort belongs in the article — though unless the cited sources are speaking specifically of Stockholm Syndrome, this should be a section unto itself that would also include any similar official authorities agreeing with him. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you continually insert your personal opinion that Horowitz's comments are WP:FRINGE. The crime statistics proving whether Sweden is or isn't the rape capital of Europe is generally debated between the Left and Right, not one small fringe element. There are enough reliable sources [2] [3] to back Horowitz's "claims" that it is. Therefore, writing "Horowitz's statements about Sweden in the film and in subsequent interviews have been disputed by Swedish authorities and criminologists, and by news organizations and fact-checkers" is blatantly WP:NPOV. I tried to balance the statement writing, "Many of Horowitz's statements about Sweden in the film and in subsequent interviews have been disputed". However, MShabbaz considers this "whitewashing" and he thinks the long version is an "accurate summarization". Where is the counter to this UNDUE? Writing that Horowitz denies the claims about his editing and that he "refused to show the raw material" without giving the context of his refusal is also NPOV. Writing that both cameramen reviewed the footage when the RS states that only one of them reviewed the footage is WP:OR. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, no outlet aside from Fox and other right-wing media takes Horowitz's YouTube videos as serious, objective reporting. That makes him WP:FRINGE. And I'm surprised at your unnecessarily personal tone when I supported the principle behind your most recent edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no personal tone, just a comment with regard to you referring to Horowitz's views as FRINGE. But thank you for clarifying that you consider FOX News as "fringe" and unabjectivve reporting. Is that backed by Wikipedia? It was nice that you supported my edit, but you were actually supporting my edit that supported your edit. Hopefully we can all get on the same page moving forward. Thanks. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's well-established that Fox News is partisan right-wing media. In any case, separate from this, a news network can't report independently on a video that the network runs as part of its own news reporting.

And it turns out I was hoodwinked. I took The Kingfisher at his word and was trying to be scrupulously fair, so I advocated discussion about the removed material. But it turns out The Kingfisher was lying: I never removed that material. Here's the edit in question: [4]. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you cry about personal attacks and yelling at you then you write that I was "lying." Classic. Your WP:CIVILITY is running thin. This was the edit that I meant where you removed material that editors worked on for months. However, the edit that you referred to can be considered part of that package. What am I missing here? The Kingfisher (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, per your edits and my null edit, please show me where I specifically wrote that YOU removed MShabbaz's edit? If you can't find it, you may want to strikeout the section where you called me a liar. The Kingfisher (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

At 18:13, 2 June 2017‎, your edit-summary read "Reverting to Tenebrae's edit." Your edit removed the graf "Many of Horowitz's statements about Sweden in the film and in subsequent interviews have been disputed by Swedish authorities and criminologists, and by news organizations and fact-checkers." In my most recent edit before that, at 17:58, 28 May 2017, that graf was still there. So your statement was factually incorrect.

Incidentally, I never used the word "lied." "Hoodwinked" means "fooled." An error on your part could have fooled me just as much as a lie could. Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say or imply.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae:

• My statement wasn't "factually incorrect" because it should have been clear to you that I reverted everything to your first ever edit in the Horowitz article. My edit summary ("Agreed. Want to start discussing content, do it in Talk...") spoke directly to that edit summary ("...per WP:BRD take it to the talk page"). Nevertheless, you should have WP:AGF and gotten clarity before you accused me of "lying" and that you got "hoodwinked" by me.
• After I requested that you strikeout where you referred to me as a liar, you wrote: "Incidentally, I never used the word "lied." "Hoodwinked" means "fooled." An error on your part could have fooled me just as much as a lie could". Per Oxford Dictionary, "hoodwink" is to "deceive or trick"; per Merriam-Webster, it is "to deceive by false appearance". You were wrong that hoodwink means "fooled" or that it can simply be caused by an "error".
• You said that you never used the word "lied" and for me not to put words in your mouth that you "did not say or imply". What were you saying and implying when you wrote, "But it turns out The Kingfisher was lying"?
• Per WP:IUC 1(c) and 2(e), I suggest that you strikeout where you wrote that you "got hoodwinked by The Kingfisher" and that I was "lying". The Kingfisher (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're correct; I did say "The Kingfisher was lying." I missed it in my haste. I apologize. The point remains, however, that no matter what "should have been clear to [me]," you claimed I made an edit I did not make. I believe you should apologize for that.

Your Merriam-Webster lawyering notwithstanding, in any sort of common parlance whatsoever, "hoodwinked" means "to fool" — which is a form of deceiving. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology and the strikeout. However, you are wrong (again). I never wrote that you made an edit that you didn't make (and specifically with regard to MShabazz's edit). I wrote that I edited to your edit, which I did. It was to your original edit. You just mistakenly assumed that it was to another edit. NOWHERE did I write that you made any particular edit that you didn't make. If I did, show me those words.

In other words, "notwithstanding" the English language. Regardless, context is everything. Had your editing AGF, maybe, but using hoodwinked in the SAME sentence where you accused me of "lying", it is obvious that you meant that I was purposely trying to hoodwink or mislead you. Your spin isn't working and you should do the right thing and strikeout hoodwink as well. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not the one torturing the English language. Per "hoodwink" at Merriam-Webster, one definition is "to dupe." To dupe means to fool. And whatever you call it, it comes down to this: You edit summary said, "Reverting to Tenebrae's edit." Your edit removed the graf "Many of Horowitz's statements about Sweden in the film and in subsequent interviews have been disputed by Swedish authorities and criminologists, and by news organizations and fact-checkers." In my most recent edit before that, at 17:58, 28 May 2017, that graf was still there. So you did not, in fact, revert to my edit, since my edit included that paragraph. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh (2X). Interesting how you only wrote the word "dupe". It followed the line: "to deceive by false appearance" and preceded the line, "people who allow themselves to be hoodwinked by such promises", meaning such deceitful or purposefully misleading promises. For the last time, you used it in the same sentence where you accused me of "lying", so your meaning and context was clear.

You're having an extremely difficult time following the bouncing ball, so this is my last attempt to give you clarity, and a draft outline for when I report you:

• On 2017-05-19, before you ever edited this article, I made this edit, deleting these words: "by Swedish authorities and criminologists, and by news organizations and fact-checkers".
• After our edit-warring on Gisele Bündchen, you followed me to Adam Corolla, to Dennis Prager, and then here, where on 2017-05-27 you made this spite edit, your first edit in this article. The wording about the fact-checkers was obviously not in your revert.
• Subsequent to that edit, there were seven more edits, including MShabbaz's edit where he reverted my 2017-05-19 edit, placing back the wording of the fact-checkers.
• On 2017-06-02, I reverted everything back to your original edit, including MShabazz's edit. The editors who had been editing here for months (if not longer), understood the edits and timeline. There was only one editor who didn't follow, didn't look at the edits, didn't understand, and then became hysterical, felt "hoodwinked", then called me a liar: Tenebrae.

Maybe you could have followed what was happening if you weren't so busy editing how many edits you have in Wikipedia. I'm finished with this thread. The Kingfisher (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks here, your attempt at telling me what I meant after I've explained to you with dictionary definitions, your bringing in extraneous issues unrelated to here, and your pretzel logic other than to say your edit summary read, "Reverting to Tenebrae's edit." And what you reverted to was not my edit. Rather than attacking me, it might not be a bad idea to consider what at least one admin has told you on your talk page about your behavior and your edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae here. Your edit summary with "Reverting to Tenebrae's edit" was inaccurate and misleading since your edit didn't revert to any of Tenebrae's edits. I was also misled by the edit comment, as I think that any editor that assumed good faith on your part would be. Sjö (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

At least two editors here disagree with The Kingfisher, yet he just made the same edit with the same misleading edit summary here. The Kingfisher is being willfully disruptive, and if he continues, this will of necessity result in admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede

The lede should of course cover the incident in which Horowitz is most notable for and which comprises the most substantial part of the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the text that Snooganssnoogans restored highlights what AH is best known for and because of that is within WP:LEDE. Sjö (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include this information in the lede. I am going to note the title of the documentary rather than just describing it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: other than your opinion WP:YESPOV and WP:OR, can you provide WP:RSs supporting that "Horowitz came to some prominence after the release of his 10-minute documentary Stockholm Syndrome"? Consider that his film, "U.N. Me", was reviewed in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, Variety, and the New York Daily News, not to mention his numerous interviews on Fox News and elsewhere.

If the statement can't be supported by some reliable sources, it needs to be removed.UberVegan🌾 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

conservative filmmaker vs. right-wing filmmaker

Sources support both descriptors, conservative and right-wing. From my search, seven RSs support "conservative" and four support "right-wing". Because "right-wing" is more controversial WP:BLP and more RSs support "conservative", I suggest the latter. Here are the RSs found on both sides:

Conservative filmmaker

1. The Hill (Note: The headline used "right-wing" while the body read “Conservative documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz..."
2. New York Daily News “conservative filmmaker Ami Horowitz…”
3. Chicago Tribune “conservative filmmaker Ami Horowitz”
4. New York Post "conservative filmmaker Ami Horowitz"
5. New York Times
6. The Daily Tar Heel "Conservative filmmaker Ami Horowitz"
7. CNN Business “A conservative filmmaker wanted…”

Right-wing filmmaker

1. The Hill (Note: The headline used "right-wing" while the body read “Conservative documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz..."
2. CNBC “right-wing filmmaker Ami Horowitz”
3. Newsweek “Right-wing documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz”
4. The Forward "right-wing filmmaker Ami Horowitz"

--UberVegan🌾 23:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not use both? A "conservative right-wing filmmaker". // Liftarn (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Go with "conservative", then. I'm not aware of any real difference between the two terms - certainly not compared to "left-wing" vs. "liberal", which can mean very different things, especially outside of North America. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Video of outfit change

@UberVegan: why have you continued to blank this content?:
"It’s unclear how long the videos took to create, or what edits were created. Horowitz does change outfits between the two parts of the video."

References

Edit summary: yes, direct quote, but you can't be lazy and simply make edits by placing quotation marks on copyrighted material. the previous edit was WP:OR

And again with: sorry about wp:pa. did not say that it was a wp:cv; considering the numerous quotations on the single paragraph, these two sentences seem MOS:QUOTE

It is unclear how long the videos took to create or how they were edited, but the video shows that Horowitz wears different clothes between the two parts of the video.
:Edit summary: rm edits not supported by sources
That's three reverts in just a few hours and you still haven't discussed the issue on the talk page. Orville1974^talk 00:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please show me my "three reverts in just a few hours"? --UberVegan🌾 05:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Article should not credulously present Horowitz's videos as accurate

The only video Horowitz has made that has garnered substantial attention and independent verification by RS (the Sweden video) showed that he made false claims about the subject, with numerous people involved in the video (both shown on camera and behind the production) saying that the videos were deceptively edited and that the people in the video were misrepresented. The Wikipedia article should not credulously report on the other videos he has made, which have only obtained coverage by local news outlets, in op-eds and low-quality sources, all of which just defer to what Horowitz shows them rather than independently verify the video contents. The analogy would be for Wikipedia to credulously report on the claims made by James O'Keefe productions (which some RS have fallen for) when independent verification of his videos have failed to substantiate their contents. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The page already references in the lead and in the video's section the accuracy of that one video, aside from the fact that most of those sources are regurgitated from one or two (questionable) sources.

Regardless, please provide the Wikipedia policy that backs your assertion that his videos should not be written about, even when backed by accepted RSs, because the accuracy of one video is in question. Will your unique take on protecting Wikipedia's entegrity extend to all pages, including those on the left? For example, if someone is convicted of perjury, will their page now go through your self-described filter? (See: Bill Clinton.) I also noticed that you haven't been removing everything from Brian Williams's page. By the way, if RSs show that Michael Moore manipulated a video, are you ready to remove everything from his page as well? I'm just wondering. In any case, your efforts to protect Wikipedia are admirable. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Severe leftist bias

Please review sources cited in this fragment of an article. The overwhelming majority of the sources cited are far left publications with clear bias against the subject of the article, the former president, and virtually all non-leftists. Several of these sources have been sued for publishing incendiary, false "facts". NY Times and CNN are examples of strongly leftist publications that have well established histories of misleading the public and flat out lying. These are no longer reputable sources and should not be trusted under any circumstance. 2601:602:CE00:72D:9D:5DC4:5A6E:CFD7 (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)