Talk:David Horowitz/Archive 2
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Freeknowledgecreator in topic Why is the SPLC characterization of Horowitz included?
 | This is an archive of past discussions about David Horowitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Recent edits by Truth Not Fiction
Hi Truth Not Fiction, please do not edit war; rather, discuss any content disputes here. I have reverted your additions of extended quotes/viewpoint content about Horowitz because of the undue weight you gave to non-independent and self-serving sources.
- Part of what you added was an unnecessarily long quotation of Horowitz himself. We don't want to suppress Horowitz's own views, but we need to trim them down to the most pertinent and encyclopedic points to avoid turning our article into his soapbox.
- The other part of what you added reads as a rebuttal by the Thernstroms against independent criticism--but the problem is that the rebuttal was pulled out of context (it was about his book, not about Horowitz himself) and did not disclose that the Ternstroms actually wrote the preface to the book, so they are hardly independent.
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/20070609093751/http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2308&Itemid=52 to http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2308&Itemid=52
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201225909/http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-earl-haynes-and-harvey-klehr/was-harry-hopkins-a-soviet-spy/ to http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-earl-haynes-and-harvey-klehr/was-harry-hopkins-a-soviet-spy
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 03:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Recent Edit War
[1] About this edit. Why is it not a RS for the opinion of the authors? -Obsidi (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Why is the SPLC characterization of Horowitz included?
One of the editor responses in an earlier entry referred to leaving out mention of The Black Book of the American Left, in the basis that being verifiable (existence of the series, I suppose) does not make a thing necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Characterizations of non-leftist politicians and voices by the SPLC are widely disputed in general, and, having read a fair amount of work by Horowitz, I find him to be non of the things that SPLC is quoted as calling him - "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements." The placement of the quote, as the final statement of the introductory section gives it a prominence that is wildly inappropriate, given that it is thoroughly disputable.
I recommend that the comment be removed altogether, since I think it is completely inaccurate, but even movement to the "Controversy and Criticism" section would be an improvement.
Will anyone object if I move that statement lower and into a more appropriate context, to demote it somewhat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crwannall (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Crwannall (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- The introduction should reflect the body, and therefore it is appropriate to include criticism. The SPLC's views are discussed in the body. The introduction does not endorse SPLC's characterisation of Horowitz; it merely quotes it. I don't think there is any justification to move or remove this sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Characterizations of non-leftist politicians and voices" by the left are widely disputed by those characterized. The opposite is also true. Wikipedia is not endorsing those characterizations, it is merely noting their existence. A figure as noteworthy as Horowitz deserves to have these characterizations noted, or the article becomes POV. Horowitz' publicly stated opinions about controversial topics attract criticism, and, as his status as a public intellectual is what warrants having an article about him in the first place, that criticism warrants inclusion in the article. The introduction is intended to preview the body of the article, and, as the SPLC's criticism of him is included in the body, it warrants mention in the introduction. We are not required to agree with the SPLC.--Masque (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not believe that the SPLC's opinion of Horowitz belongs in the lead. Mention it somewhere else in the article maybe, but not the lead. Too much weight to a single source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to start an edit war over this, but I do want to observe that, contrary to Spbelknap's claim in their most recent revision, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently regarded as a generally reliable source. I will accept the rationale above that it places too much weight on a single source.--Masque (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Given the compelling evidence that SPLC is not a reliable source, it is indeed troubling that wikipedia still list SPLC as a reliable source.
- The validity of SPLC assertions has been brought into question by recent journalism and scholarship and by court decisions. This article is about a living person. Due diligence must be paid so as to avoid including defamatory information in wikipedia. Including defamatory statements supported by citations from unreliable sources is not consistent with wikipedia policy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_problem Those editors who are interested could assess for themselves the reliability of SPLC as a source on hate groups and extremists by reading about the group in the press. See, for example, :::https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.d2ab3f25643e
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html?utm_term=.a192515439ef
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/us/a-southern-watchdog-under-siege.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/?utm_term=.df43ed143dba
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-watches-the-hate-watchers-11553726030
- https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
- https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/montgomery-advertiser-series/
- Twitter no longer uses SPLC for their Trust and Safety Council: https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html
- Q.E.D. Sbelknap (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to start an edit war over this, but I do want to observe that, contrary to Spbelknap's claim in their most recent revision, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently regarded as a generally reliable source. I will accept the rationale above that it places too much weight on a single source.--Masque (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Most of those pieces are coming from sources that are extremely biased against the SPLC politically. Marc Thiessen in particular seems to think that torturing people is OK, and thinks that not torturing them leaves us vulnerable. He's also written anti-abortion pieces, referenced "Trump derangement syndrome," has, with typical "conservative" hyperbole, argued that Democrats are a major threat to the constitution, and defended the Alliance Defending Freedom as a "a respected organization of conservative lawyers dedicated to defending religious liberty," particularly making the odd claim that a ruling on strictly technical grounds qualifies their appearance before SCOTUS as a victory "fighting anti-Christian hate." SCOTUS found that the Colorado Commission had erred in its handling of the case, and did not vindicate the cake shop's bigotry. His association with the Hoover Institution and American Enterprise Institute are also suspect. In short, he's exactly the type of person who would find fault with the SPLC's classification of the Alliance Defending Freedom as a "hate group" for the simple fact that they were so labeled by the SPLC, and attempt to turn that label against the SPLC, rather than attempting an immanent critique of the SPLC's ontology of hate. Although I will readily agree that they don't appear to reach the same level of visceral hate as, e.g., the KKK, looking for that kind of expression from an organization of lawyers, as opposed to the modern Klan, which, in its most visible incarnations, is largely made up of lumpenproletarians, is an exercise in futility. I'm not sure I exactly agree with the SPLC's classification, and I actually have issues with their ontology of hate, but I don't think that per se disqualifies them as being reliable. Note that I am not foreclosing the possibility that the SPLC's reliability should be downgraded, but so far, I don't find the arguments sufficiently convincing, as they appear to be special pleading.--Masque (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that the New York Times, the Washington Post, New Yorker, and Twitter are "extremely biased against the SPLC politically?" These sources each have a history of citing the SPLC as a legitimate source in the past. Now these sources challenge the credibility of SPLC.Sbelknap (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Most of those pieces are coming from sources that are extremely biased against the SPLC politically. Marc Thiessen in particular seems to think that torturing people is OK, and thinks that not torturing them leaves us vulnerable. He's also written anti-abortion pieces, referenced "Trump derangement syndrome," has, with typical "conservative" hyperbole, argued that Democrats are a major threat to the constitution, and defended the Alliance Defending Freedom as a "a respected organization of conservative lawyers dedicated to defending religious liberty," particularly making the odd claim that a ruling on strictly technical grounds qualifies their appearance before SCOTUS as a victory "fighting anti-Christian hate." SCOTUS found that the Colorado Commission had erred in its handling of the case, and did not vindicate the cake shop's bigotry. His association with the Hoover Institution and American Enterprise Institute are also suspect. In short, he's exactly the type of person who would find fault with the SPLC's classification of the Alliance Defending Freedom as a "hate group" for the simple fact that they were so labeled by the SPLC, and attempt to turn that label against the SPLC, rather than attempting an immanent critique of the SPLC's ontology of hate. Although I will readily agree that they don't appear to reach the same level of visceral hate as, e.g., the KKK, looking for that kind of expression from an organization of lawyers, as opposed to the modern Klan, which, in its most visible incarnations, is largely made up of lumpenproletarians, is an exercise in futility. I'm not sure I exactly agree with the SPLC's classification, and I actually have issues with their ontology of hate, but I don't think that per se disqualifies them as being reliable. Note that I am not foreclosing the possibility that the SPLC's reliability should be downgraded, but so far, I don't find the arguments sufficiently convincing, as they appear to be special pleading.--Masque (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is straying far afield from the original intent of my contribution to this thread. I will conclude my participation by reiterating that, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently regarded as a generally reliable source. If you have issues with it, bring it up there.--Masque (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Freeknowledgecreator it is in the article and the lead is summarizing that, in fact, we shouldn't use attribution, we should say "David Horowitz is an Anti-Muslim"[2]. We have enough sources describing him as such.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- The material in question reads, "The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Horowitz today as "...a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements."" Per WP:LEAD: "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Nowhere in the remainder of the article was it noted that the SPLC has called Horowitz anti-black. Thus the material is clearly inappropriate in terms of the lead guideline. It should go somewhere else in the article, clearly marked as the SPLC's opinion, for WP:BLP reasons. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- literally see section "Criticism of Islamic organizations"--SharabSalam (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The SPLC's comment is not included there. In my comment, I noted that the reason I removed the material from the lead concerned the SPLC's description of Horowitz as "anti-black". Why would you respond to that with an irrelevant comment about Islamic organizations? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Freeknowledgecreator, When I have time I will try to fix the whitewashing in this article. Above source says that Version has described this guy as a white supremacist. This needs to be added, in fact a lot of content is missing. --SharabSalam (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- The information is clearly relevant in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I never suggested otherwise. However, per WP:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The SPLC quote is not covered in the remainder of the article and thus does not belong in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Freeknowledgecreator, What you are saying is actually not true, it is covered in the article;
- Anti-Muslim: section "Criticism of Islamic organizations"
In a 2011 review of anti-Islamic activists in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified Horowitz as one of 10 people in the United States' "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle".[80]
- Anti-black: section "Allegations of racism"
Horowitz said that Berlet's accusation of racism was a "calculated lie" and asked that the SPLC report be removed.[66] The SPLC refused Horowitz's request.[67] Horowitz criticized Berlet and the SPLC on his website and personal blog.[68][69]
- Both mention the SPLC
quotearticle.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)- No, what I said was completely correct. The specific SPLC quotation describing Horowitz as "a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements" is present only in the lead. It is not present in any of the sections you mention above. That makes the quotation a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Freeknowledgecreator, The quotation is what these sections are discussing, I should have said the "SPLC article" and not the quotation. In any case, the article of SPLC is discussed in detail in the body of the article. Therefore, the quote from the article is valid in the lead section.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, it is not. WP:LEAD is perfectly clear: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The specific SPLC quotation that you restored to the lead is not discussed in the remainder of the article and thus clearly does not belong in the lead. That the SPLC article that the quotation is taken from is used as a source in the remainder of the article is irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Freeknowledgecreator,
- A. The lead paragraph is about SPLC accusing David Horowitz of being anti-Muslim and racist. Whether it is a quotation or not is irrelevant. The point is that SPLC accuses David Horowitz of being anti-Muslim and racist...
- B. The article body shows in detail these accusations against David Horowitz by SPLC and his response.
- So? What is the problem here? We are in compliance with WP:LEAD policy. The SPLC accusation is covered in the remainder of the article--SharabSalam (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The quotation is a specific piece of information, stating that the SPLC holds a specific view of Horowitz, eg that he is, "a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements". The article body contains similar statements, but it does not contain the specific accusations present in that quotation. For example, the section "Allegations of racism" does not state that the SPLC sees Horowitz as a drive force of "anti-black movements". The quotation in the lead is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Your efforts at arguing otherwise are confused and mistaken. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The article extensively discusses the specific issues which led the SPLC to sum him up in such a pithy manner. WP:LEAD does not require that an individual quotation in the lede be repeated multiple times in the body - in fact, it doesn't require it to specifically appear anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not good enough. Nothing in the body of the article specifically states that Horowitz is a "driving force" of "anti-black movements". The point isn't simply that the body of the article does not contain that statement in so many words - it says nothing equivalent to it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- The article extensively discusses the specific issues which led the SPLC to sum him up in such a pithy manner. WP:LEAD does not require that an individual quotation in the lede be repeated multiple times in the body - in fact, it doesn't require it to specifically appear anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The quotation is a specific piece of information, stating that the SPLC holds a specific view of Horowitz, eg that he is, "a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements". The article body contains similar statements, but it does not contain the specific accusations present in that quotation. For example, the section "Allegations of racism" does not state that the SPLC sees Horowitz as a drive force of "anti-black movements". The quotation in the lead is a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Your efforts at arguing otherwise are confused and mistaken. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, it is not. WP:LEAD is perfectly clear: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The specific SPLC quotation that you restored to the lead is not discussed in the remainder of the article and thus clearly does not belong in the lead. That the SPLC article that the quotation is taken from is used as a source in the remainder of the article is irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Freeknowledgecreator, The quotation is what these sections are discussing, I should have said the "SPLC article" and not the quotation. In any case, the article of SPLC is discussed in detail in the body of the article. Therefore, the quote from the article is valid in the lead section.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, what I said was completely correct. The specific SPLC quotation describing Horowitz as "a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements" is present only in the lead. It is not present in any of the sections you mention above. That makes the quotation a clear violation of WP:LEAD. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I never suggested otherwise. However, per WP:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The SPLC quote is not covered in the remainder of the article and thus does not belong in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The SPLC's comment is not included there. In my comment, I noted that the reason I removed the material from the lead concerned the SPLC's description of Horowitz as "anti-black". Why would you respond to that with an irrelevant comment about Islamic organizations? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)