Talk:David Horowitz Freedom Center

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

message: Dropping these here from my !vote on the AfD. Will parse later unless someone beats me to it.
*Outside source about the Freedom Center,  quite biased, but should work. 
*Story about the Freedom Center backed incident in Pennsylvania . 
*State Police Network run down of on the Freedom Center . 
*AFT article criticizing Freedom Center's funding . 
*Tuscan Tucson News article . 
--NuclearZer0 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounded from your mention that the DHFC had a run-in with the State Police, but I see it's just a directory entry. Minimal contribution to notability, but despite Hipocrite and Disavian that was never in serious doubt. Someone had to point that out, though, and thanks for chiming in (before I did). On the DTN AfD I felt very much like a one man band. I was right, but it didn't look good. If the closing Admin is unreasonable nothing will help except taking it to the next level (maybe). I didn't know why the Italians took a special interest in DHFC but now that I'm looking at source I see it's a misspelling. I've taken the liberty of strikeouts -- if that's not ok, undo. No time for more now. Andyvphil 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tons of stuff on Media Matters. link and link2 Will look through it all soon. - FAAFA 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff to add

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I thought Wikipedia was supposed to provide a neutral point of view. I am interested in what is going on with Islam - after all, it does seem to be instigating a large number of conflicts around the world, some now quite close to my home. So I look through the various articles here on Wikipedia to find out more. But what I don't need is some kind of self-appointed thought police instructing me that what I am reading is "islamophobic". Actually I resent being told what to think. I make up my own mind thank you very much. I don't care if you think you're 'Left' or 'Right' or just an overweight pimply onanist, hows abouts whoever the self-appointed Light of Righteousness here is who put up that prejudicial piece of propaganda, just go on and remove it again. Thank you. Stringybark (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have User:Liftarn to thank (see above).  I've pointed out several times (above and at Template_talk:Islamophobia#And_now_for_something_completely_different) that given its size, it's more suitable for being a bottom-of-page template than a sidebar template... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the huge "islamophobic" banner on this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on David Horowitz Freedom Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613224727/http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org:80/ongoing-programs/ to http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/ongoing-programs
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061024154657/http://freedomlaw.com/IRFpre.html to http://freedomlaw.com/IRFpre.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following content was recently added by  and deleted by  (after minor modifications by me): 
What's the basis for the deletion? This content is about the Horowitz center, supported by a reliable source, and written in a neutral, straightforward manner, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, I fully support inclusion. This is well-sourced, and was noted in the NY Times - although the Times said that the Center gave $125,000 in 2015, and $25,000 in 2016). Neutralitytalk 01:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is an opinion article written by someone who opposes Horowitz, not reliable, and whether Geert Wilders is "far-right" or not is disputed (see Talk:Geert Wilders#Far-right.3F).--Oxbird (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not edit war. There is nothing suggesting that the source is an opinion article, and certainly the assertion that so-and-so gave money to so-and-so isn't an opinion. The Intercept is a reputable outlet; it is often cited by other reliable sources; the author is a professional journalist; and a source isn't unreliable simply because it's biased. I take no opinion on whether Wilders is far-right since I haven't researched the matter. I would be fine with removing "far-right." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  The NYT article is not an opinion article but a news article that cites Dutch official sources. There is no reason whatever to exclude this information. Zerotalk 08:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: More mainstream media sources.about a drop in US funding since 2015The Washington Postthe Chicago Tribune Doug Weller talk 10:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with  and  that the argument that Intecept report, and NY Times report, are NOT opinion pieces. Thus I have re-posted with both Intercept and NY Times links.
Oxbird was a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo. Part of a huge sockfarm, worth taking a look at for future use. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  VVD funding 

message: I noticed that in the criticism tab, it describes the SPLC as being far-left. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic, especially for an organization as mainstream as the SPLC? Hooded-wanderer (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That was from a POV edit from the day before yesterday, which I just reverted. Thank you for noticing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

text: It is hardly mainstream! Hob's edit addresses the concern adequately, in my opinion. Characterizations of entities that have their own WP articles seems excessive. That's a general observation. A specific one is that it is confusing and probably redundant to describe DHFC as both right-wing and far right in the same sentence.--FeralOink (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPLC Mention