Talk:David Horowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Other David Horowitz 2 Back out of CPS's changes 3 External Links 4 "Conservative", "neo-conservative", or "far right wing"? 5 Tightened, Removed Repetition, Added Sources 6 POV problems in skywriters purported attempt to "tighten" the article 7 NPOV problem 8 More Cleanup 9 Keep controversy in "Controversy and criticism"! 10 Life and career 11 Charges of hypocrisy re: calling someone a "self-hating jew" 12 Rewrite 13 Recent editing over criticism material. 14 "Sociopath" used as descriptive adjective in first sentence? 15 Criticism Section 16 Unexplained removal of text from "Activism on the Right" Section 17 Section on Peter Jennings' Death 18 Associations and Affiliations -- good section idea, poor material! 19 Requested move 19.1 Survey 20 Criticism Section Needs Streamlining 21 Joel Beinin Lawsuit and cleaning up the criticism section 22 Sandinista junta 23 "Neoconservative" or not? 24 Treason?

[edit] Other David Horowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Back out of CPS's changes

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

[edit] External Links

These are the edits I've proposed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Conservative", "neo-conservative", or "far right wing"?

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

[edit] Tightened, Removed Repetition, Added Sources

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

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

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

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

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

skywriter 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] POV problems in skywriters purported attempt to "tighten" the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV problem

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

Zanksta 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] More Cleanup

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

[edit] Keep controversy in "Controversy and criticism"!

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

[edit] Life and career

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

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

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

I am removing the text:

[Horowitz]..has drawn charges of hypocrisy after he labeled Noam Chomsky and George Soros self-hating Jews, which is the Jewish equivalent of the Uncle Tom slur. [1]

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

[edit] Rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Recent editing over criticism material.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Sociopath" used as descriptive adjective in first sentence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism Section

I fail to see any criticism cited in this paragraph:

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

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

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

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

Four suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Unexplained removal of text from "Activism on the Right" Section

User:Dicksonlaprade removed the following text from the article:

Viewing the political atmosphere of many universities as intolerant of such ideas, he went so far as to purchase, or attempt to purchase, advertising space in school publications in order to get his views and arguments across. Many of these offers were denied, and at some schools whose papers carried the essay, copies were destroyed and confiscated by protesting campus groups. [2]

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

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

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

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

[edit] Section on Peter Jennings' Death

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

[edit] Associations and Affiliations -- good section idea, poor material!

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

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Criticism Section Needs Streamlining

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

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

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

[edit] Joel Beinin Lawsuit and cleaning up the criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sandinista junta

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

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

[edit] "Neoconservative" or not?

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

[edit] Treason?

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

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

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