Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Dixie

"In his book Life After Death: The Evidence, D'Souza stated that Dixie had a near-death experience at the age of 19." Is this relevant to the article, no matter how well-cited? The article is about Dinesh, not Dixie. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IQ?

There is nothing in this article about his IQ, which is reputed to be EXTREMELY high. Few, if any,, of his critics have extremely high IQ's. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dinesh D'Souza. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Father and Mother's Names, Family Clan, and other Pre-US information

Half of his life was in India and that seems to have been conveniently left out. Please add his parents names including his mother's maiden name. It's important in understanding his background in India. Names are connected to all sorts of social and cultural information in India. I hope they weren't originally removed or left out for that reason. Without them this page is missing the depth that Dinesh himself seeks in most of his investigations and research. Also add any information about his family clan in India, family social status etc from India. There's a lot missing here. Add them. It will be most enlightening. 1.10.217.84 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Party switch denial

Dinesh D'Souza heavily contributes to the increasingly popular in conservative circles worldview that the political parties in the United States never switched their ideologies, meaning that Klansmen and slaveowners are "leftist", the southern strategy never happened, and welfare is a new form of slavery. This is very often cited by conservative outlets such as prageru, national review and so on. The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, his newest book, relies completely on this thesis as well.

This should be significantly featured in the article. Lazybanshee (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That comment in itself is biased. The parties never "switched sides" because why would one party choose to start being racist, xenophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted, and etc. This makes no sense. Perhaps both parties strive for the same goals and one party may have a problem with its history, being radical rather than leftist. The "switched sides" theory is both untrue and based on ignorance. Dinseh D'Souza's work is well researched and documented. ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

When discussing the score on Rotten Tomatoes for "Hillary's America" the article omits the fact that the user reviews are 80% positive based on >13,500 reviews. 73.136.208.129 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the article text you are proposing to add, its location, and the source you propose to cite in order to verify the text. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Add announcement of presidential pardon

The Presidential announcement via Twitter on May 31, 2018 that D'Souza will be pardoned should be added to the felony conviction section.

The following text should be added:

On May 31, 2018, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter that D'Souza will be pardoned.[1]

 Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Trump, Donald. "Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D'Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!"". Twitter. Retrieved 31 May 2018.

America: Imagine the World Without Her

I've removed the one-sided political commentary from the "America: Imagine with World Without Her" section. This was selectively copied from America: Imagine the World Without Her, which references a whole variety of political commentary. There is zero reason for the section in this article to focus exclusively on conservative commentary. Either a summary of the variety of political commentary be included here, or readers can go to the film's article to read all available commentary in depth. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Recipients of American presidential pardons

Is this YET 'A DONE DEAL'? MaynardClark If the pardon has only been announced but not yet granted, should the Category be added at the bottom? (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 31, 2018

In the first sentence, calling Dinesh D'Souza an Indian American is misleading. This means he was born in America and has Indian descent. However, he was born in India, came here for college, and became a naturalized citizen. To be accurate, it should make that distinction. Below are two options for editing the sentence to be accurate:

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is a naturalized American citizen of Indian descent, who is a conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and convicted felon.

OR

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian born, naturalized American citizen, who is a conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and convicted felon.

-

IMO the combination of nationalities has never made sense, and many people deliberately attempt to avoid using it to not group people into categories. A US citizen is an American. It doesn't have to be more than that. People tend to refer to whites as just American, whereas Blacks with 10 generations of family here are always still "African American" for reasons nobody understands. Dinesh D'Souza is an American who was born in India.


And he's no longer a felon because he was pardoned. 2601:646:8300:2EEE:2C26:73C4:995A:5632 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I edited the lead sentence to say "Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian-born American political commentator...". This should accurately reflect what you were trying to say.

Balance in D'Souza article

I made a number of small changes here, in an attempt to improve the article, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. But a left-wing ideologue is undoing EVERY SINGLE EDIT, calling them "controversial", when the controversy exists only in his mind.

  • "Media Matters for America" is a group bankrolled and run by hard left folks such as George Soros and David Brock. It was reported in mainstream media (such as Newsweek) after MMA brought down Don Imus, that MMA has full-time staffers monitoring talk-shows they deem conservative, listening for anything they can use to destroy the show's reputation. Portraying MMA as a neutral media observer is absurd.
  • Alan Dershowitz is a life-long liberal, who recently has taken a handful of political positions that align with conservatives. This is not a matter of debate - Dershowitz has authored dozens of books, and is a frequent media presence; his liberal outlook cannot seriously be questioned. Lumping in Dershowitz as a conservative is simply false.
  • Stating as fact, without any qualification, that the US "stole" Native American land, makes this page sound like a Howard Zinn exercise in anti-American polemics, and not like a Wikipedia page. Adding in the modifier "alleged" should hardly be deemed "controversial".
Protecting the right to be hear is a far cry from "Theft" giving that it is widely know that most north American natives viewed the land as belonging to the "Great one"; so you don't steal something that is not owned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.218.106 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And my last edit simply was for readability and clarity, and was in no way related to politics. That this editor removed that improvement as well, and somehow deemed it "controversial", reflects extremely poorly on his judgment.

It seems that Nicolas Maduro is masquerading as a Wikipedia editor. Vcuttolo (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This article read like a left wing propaganda medium; to refer to a person as "Far right" is surly from a "Far left" perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.218.106 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2018 (UTC)
That's what the sources say, so it's what we say. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

But the sources cited are from left publications describing someone they disagree with. He doesn't even fit wikipedia's description of "far right." DSouza is described this way because he effectively goes onto campuses and wins debate after debate-in the left's incubation chamber and you don't like it. (Sandvol)

Overuse of quotes

The article now contains a lot of quotes. Too many, in my opinion, and too many that are overly long. See policy on this here: MOS:QUOTATIONS. I've added an overquote template to the top of the article. Thoughts? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. I put the quotations in Wiki Quote yesterday and changed this article to give a terse summary of D'Souza's views. I.e. I used the wiki style where the exact same information is presented in a way that actually takes some editorial skill and doesn't just defer to a copy-paste job. Nevertheless, User:BoogaLouie reverted me and did two other strange things. He called my edit "sanitizing" and restored your template. Connor Behan (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Quote dispute

Here are some of the Dinesh D'Souza quotes that have been removed by Finnegas and Connor Behan that I tried to restore:

Original text:

...More clearly, D'Souza states,
I've been studying radical Islamic thought—specifically, the thinkers who have influenced contemporary radical Muslims. When you read their work, you find that there are no denunciations of modernity, no condemnations of science, no condemnations of freedom. In fact, their whole argument seems to be that the United States—through our support of secular dictators in the region—is denying Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny.[1]

has been replaced with:

D'Souza has also commented on Islam. He stated in 2007 that American intervention in the Middle East "is denying Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny."[2]

(removed is highly contentious " no denunciations of modernity, no condemnations of science, no condemnations of freedom ... their whole argument seems to be ".
Note: the translation of "Boko Haram" is "western education is forbidden". note also stories like this)


Original text:

At the conclusion of a September 2010 opinion article in Forbes about President Barack Obama, titled "How Obama Thinks", D'Souza wrote:
[T]rapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.[3]

which has been replaced by

At the conclusion of a September 2010 opinion article in Forbes about President Barack Obama, titled "How Obama Thinks", D'Souza called Obama's father a "philandering, inebriated African socialist". He went on to write that the latter's views were controlling the policies of the Obama administration.[4]

(this edit isn't so bad but vivid language like "the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. ... is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son." has been removed.)

Original text:

[t]he [George W.] Bush administration and the conservatives must stop promoting American popular culture because it is producing a blowback of Muslim rage. With a few exceptions, the right should not bother to defend American movies, music, and television. From the point of view of traditional values, they are indefensible. Moreover, why should the right stand up for the left's debased values? Why should our people defend their America? Rather, American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values.[5]

is replaced by

D'Souza's conclusion urges conservatives to condemn products of the American entertainment industry.[6]

(cleansed by editors is " why should the right stand up for the left's debased values? Why should our people defend their America? Rather, American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values".
Note the divergence from a traditional American conservative patriotic sentiment -- American conservatives should unite with foreigners against the real enemy, other Americans)

[References]
  1. ^ Saint-Paul, Brian (January 31, 2007). "Knowing the Enemy – Dinesh D'Souza on Islam and the West". Catholicity.com. Archived from the original on June 13, 2011. Retrieved September 25, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Saint-Paul, Brian (January 31, 2007). "Knowing the Enemy – Dinesh D'Souza on Islam and the West". Catholicity.com. Archived from the original on June 13, 2011. Retrieved September 25, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ D'Souza, Dinesh (September 9, 2010). "How Obama Thinks". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 28, 2010. Retrieved September 27, 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ D'Souza, Dinesh (September 9, 2010). "How Obama Thinks". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 28, 2010. Retrieved September 27, 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 | Dinesh D'Souza". April 7, 2012. Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 | Dinesh D'Souza". April 7, 2012. Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved February 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Yes, wikipedia policy forbids excessive quotations, but at least in the present de-quotified form much of the context of why D'Souza is called a provocateur by so many is lost. Which is why I thought the edits were "sanitizing" --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

replies

If these quotations are singled out by reliable sources in their critique of D'Souza, I will not have a problem restoring them. But at present, it looks like they have been chosen to expose as much of his distasteful rhetoric as possible. And I could see people reading it the other way too. One of his fans might say "oh good, the wiki article is covering his truth bombs". I would suggest adding prose-formed context in these areas. Connor Behan (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Connor Behan, the use of the quotes was complete overkill. The current text is much better compared to the quotes which clearly were introduced to add a little bit of colour. The point which D'Souza was making has been retained minus some of whats been described as "vivid language". Finnegas (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
We have to keep our eye on the ball. There is no wikipedia policy against vivid language or "truth bombs". An encyclopedia need not be boring, sanitized of "distasteful rhetoric". The policy is against excessive and cherry-picked quotations, (along with original research, personal opinion, etc.). As a concession to the deletions of you two — Finnegas and Connor Behan — I've restored only some of the quotations. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been studying radical Islamic thought—specifically, the thinkers who have influenced contemporary radical Muslims. When you read their work, you find that there are no denunciations of modernity, no condemnations of science, no condemnations of freedom. In fact, their whole argument seems to be that the United States—through our support of secular dictators in the region—is denying Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny.

In the quote as-given, D'Souza does not himself make the assertion about American intervention denying Muslims freedom; he asserts that this is the belief of the Islamic scholars he has studied. I believe the citation is inaccurate as currently rendered.

  • D'Souza has also commented on Islam. He stated in 2007 that American intervention in the Middle East "is denying Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny."
  • D'Souza has also studied "the thinkers who have influenced contemporary radical Muslims." He stated in 2007 that these scholars do not oppose freedom or modernity, but instead believe American intervention in the Middle East "is denying Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny."

As far as I'm aware you remain a convicted felon when pardoned.

Is that correct? If so, that description should not be removed from this article. ResistTheEnemy (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone advocated removing the story of his conviction. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If your right to vote has been restored; you are no longer a felon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.218.106 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

False. A felon is one who has been convicted of a felony. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Got a reliable source for that? Once pardoned, you are a former convicted felon. Once pardoned, you are a former convicted felon. Case in point: Felons released from custody are unable to obtain a firearm, have limited civil rights including the inability to vote, sit on a jury, getting certain licenses, obtain a bond, and so on. According to the DOJ at the justice.gov website (in the FAQ section): "...a presidential pardon is the only means by which a person convicted of a federal felony offense may obtain relief from federal firearms disabilities...Once pardoned, the individual regains civil rights removed such as the right to vote...A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States.. Once pardoned, a convicted felon regains those rights."
The record is not expunged, the conviction still remains on their record, however they are formerly a felon and no longer have felon status, per the website. Therefore, I believe you are 100% wrong on this, JzG. Unless, of course, you have a reliable source that supports your personal viewpoint. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
A felon is one who has committed a felony. A convicted felon is one who has been convicted of a felony. Release from jail does not stop you being a felon (hence disproportionate numbers of African-American men cannot vote: they have been released but are convicted felons so cannot vote in some states). The right to vote can be restored by petition, but it doesn't change the status, all that's restored is the right to vote, not innocence. Acceptance of a pardon requires acceptance of guilt, and pardons have been declined on that basis. Your theory is novel, but is at odds witht he normal and legal definitions of the terms felon and felony. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Source? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This debate is entirely beside the point. The strongest reason for removing the felon stuff is undue weight. Connor Behan (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

D'Souza promoted conspiracy theories

This is extensively sourced and uncontroversial. He hasn't "been criticized for espousing conspiracy theories" or whatever WP:WEASEL phrase was inserted into the article. When a bunch of RS say that D'Souza regularly promotes conspiracy theories, the RS are not "criticizing" him for it, they are merely describing him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Review the RFC [1].
Then list the sources and relevant text that support Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist (emphasis on widely) and have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories. Reminder this is a BLP. D.Creish (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There are multiple RS cited - read them. The RfC is about whether D'Souza should be labelled a "conspiracy theorist" (which he definitely is, and I'm sure a proper RfC where I substantiate it with reliable sources would deliver a clear and resounding verdict in favor of the label), but that's something different from whether he's promoted conspiracy theories (which is clearly the language that RS use). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't ask whether there were RS. I asked you to specifically identify the sources and text that support those two claims, which WP:BURDEN requires you do. I'll wait but don't restore your edit until you do and without clear consensus. D.Creish (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are editors like this? Why is it so hard to just edit cooperatively? Do I really need to go and google "Dinesh D'Souza" + "provocateur", and then link the Google Search for you?[2] Do I really need to google "Dinesh D'Souza" + "polemic" and then link the Google Search for you?[3] The RS that are currently cited all explicitly say he's promoted unfounded and false conspiracy theories. You're editing the D'Souza page and you clearly know all of this. Why are you doing this, man? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop the IDHT. You put two claims in the lede:
  1. Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist
  2. have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories
What you need to do before restoring that is (for the third time now) provide the specific sources and text that support each of those claims. A link to a google search isn't acceptable. I created a section below that you can fill in. D.Creish (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

A few of the many references regarding conspiracy theories, per@JzG::

That last three in particular make it clear that even conservatives like David Frum have backed away from him as he gone more and more loony. The 1st ref above is right-wingish. The 2nd is generally right-wing. I am not aware of GQ having politics. The others are probably considered lefty.

After reading through most of the above references I'm not seeing where D'Souza could be described as a theorist. He actually cites facts in all these cases and asks his readers to put two plus two together. A conspiracy theorist wouldn't use so many facts. Sandvol (talk) 18:55,14 January 2019 (UTC)

So... this is pretty across-the-board, which is plenty broad to say it in WP's voice. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Thank you Jytdog for those extensive and exhaustive citations. This should put to rest the concerns of the other disruptive editor that there are we are solely relying on a sources from a couple of reviewers. I would've included more since this debate re-opened, but we must await the page being unlocked from protective status. It is clear from those sources that are from reputable sources on all sides of the political spectrum that D'Souza is advancing conspiracy theories. There should no longer be a question of whether or not we include it as WP:DUE and WP:CITATION demand we accurately call this duck that quacks like a duck the duck it is. JzG
SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC) @Jytdog: - fixing ping from preceding. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking Daily News, which is iffy as RS, it says is at it again with a new film that promises to expose a conspiracy theorist's dream of dirt on the Democratic presidential candidate and her party That review is based on a 3 minute trailer, according to the article, and doesn't directly say he promotes conspiracy theories. That's why I said to Snooganssnoogans identify the specific sources and text that supports the edits. Linking to a google searche or dumping a bunch of refs that may or may not support it and saying "here" doesn't cut it. I created a section below you can fill in. D.Creish (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The sources clearly support the text - all you had to do was glance at the Google searches. I'm not going to waste my time listing them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
D.Creish, NY Daily News is not - to my knowledge - considered a reliable source. It should be removed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair and one of many objections I have to the sources presented. But I'm not chasing around google searches or a haphazard collections for excerpts I think they think might support their edits. That's not how WP:BURDEN works. D.Creish (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There were five RS cited for the statement that D'Souza "promoted conspiracy theories" and you deleted that from the article. Why on Earth would anyone waste their time listing more sources when you are obviously going to disregard them? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support D.Creish's take on this. As currently written in Wiki-voice, the text of the content in question is incredibly POV, with is a vio of NPOV as well as WP:BLP. I am reverting it back to the NPOV version while discussion takes place here. The NPOV version gets the point across and is best to remain in the article for now, even if consensus decides on different wording. Pinging MelanieN to this discussion as she has demonstrated a great ability to rewrite POV content to a better compromise between editors challenging prose and NPOV/POV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Please explain what the violation of WP:NPOV is. RS clearly say he's promoted false and unfounded conspiracy theories. I know you like to argue that RS are nonsense and should be disregarded, so are you next going to argue that birther conspiracy theories are true, the anti-semitic conspiracy theory about 14-yr old George Soros being a Nazi collaborator is true, the conspiracy theory that the Unite the Right rally was staged by the left is true? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmmm so because the Daily News is not a RS the guy is not a conspiracy theorist, despite the rest of the sources? Interesting way of arguing. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
      • There's nothing in particular wrong with the NY Daily News. Maybe you have it confused with the Daily Caller? Anyway, [4] SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This is NOT extensively sourced. Not one source is cited, and almost all sources cited on THIS page are NOTORIOUSLY biased and/or otherwise untrustworthy. The article relies almost entirely on op-ed pieces & D'Souza's book Hillary's America to reach a very strong, pejorative, subjective conclusion. Many people agree with the analysis and many conclusions in D'Souza's book. It is not fairly characterized as a provably false "conspiracy" theory." Inclusion of this unsourced, partisan conclusion makes it appear Wikipedia participates in false narratives & smear campaigns. This is the worst error I have seen during many years of using your excellent service. The immediately-following "analysis" is sophomoric sophistry & twaddle. Please make the appropriate adjustments. Thank you. David H. Loomis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomisoid (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I sm glad this detailed review is going on, although concerned that language OP was asked not to reinsert without sourcing is, in fact, in the protected version without sources, e.g. "Unsupported theories and false narratives," so appears to have been reinserted after all. Much of the entry reads like a Resist tweet and not even close to Wikipedia standards, meanwhile the entry is getting a lot of hits given the recent pardon so lots of folks are seeing this content. Happy to help with edits but can't in this state. - JLB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8808:8C91:1AE:9E60:2827:49A6 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources and text for disputed edits

  • Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist
  1. <fill in here>
  • have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories
  1. <fill in here>


A million reliable sources in just the last 24 hrs[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

A million reliable sources in just the last 24 hrs[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

I can google Clinton + "vast right-wing conspiracy" and get 40,000 hits, yet the Clinton BLP doesn't call her a conspiracy theorist or add "baseless", it just mentions that she said it and readers can decide. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Should we let readers decide whether Obama was born outside of the US (as D'Souza claims) and that George Soros collaborated with Nazis against his fellow Jews while a 14-yr old in Nazi-occupied Hungary (as D'Souza claims)? I don't think we should, because I don't think Wikipedia should present false racist and anti-semitic conspiracy theories without identifying them as false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so your conspiracy-theory sourcing is irrelevant, this isn't about whether there are conspiracy theories but whether D'Souza directly espoused them and they are all false (and now anti-Semitic too). The real issue is the change you made on May 31 -- suddenly (and without a hint in the edit summary) accusations about D'Souza's films became accusations about D'Souza himself, vaguely-sourced name-calling is added, and "unfounded" is added, and "unsubstantiated" becomes "false". No wonder multiple editors (five, I think, including me) have opposed your new wording by saying so on this talk page or by attempting to revert/modify it according to the edit history. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
NYT, Vox, Business Insider - how many do you want? D'Souza promotes and has promoted far-right conspiracy theories, notably, but not limited to, birtherism. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The article has long stated that he espouses, promotes, presents, etc. conspiracy theories. It does not call him a "conspiracy theorist". Both those decisions were the outcome of extensive discussion here and are impeccably cited to RS references. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, all. I have been pinged to look at this discussion. AFAIK I have never been to this article before and I don’t care to dig deeply into it, so I will just confine myself to the two phrases being challenged here. You can consider me an uninvolved editor (not an admin in this situation) giving an editor’s analysis. Both phrases are currently in the last sentence of the lede. The key thing to look at is the sourcing, and many sources have been offered. I've done some searching of my own.

1. Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist

Dozens of reliable sources support “provacateur” as shown by Snoogans’ first Google search. They all call him that almost as if it was his title. So that is clearly includable.
“Polemicist” is not as strongly supported, but a search does find Time and Politico. We could probably leave that out. It’s not a widely recognized word anyhow.

2. have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories

“Promotion of conspiracy theories” has plenty of Reliable Source support at the second Google link, including the New York Times, HuffPo, Esquire, and Vox. Many specific conspiracy theories are mentioned including birtherism, a claim that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was staged, and a claim that the Las Vegas shooter was an anti-Trump activist.[7]
“False and unfounded” may be implied in “conspiracy theories” but I don’t find a lot of support for that precise wording. Individual false claims are mentioned such as the Obama “birther” claim and a claim that Hitler was not anti-gay, but I don’t find a general statement about him promoting falsehoods.

So I would suggest the clearly well supported wording “Widely characterized as a provacateur, D'Souza's films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of multiple conspiracy theories.” Do as you wish with it, but DON'T go putting it into the article immediately as if some kind of oracle had spoken. Discuss it here, see if it or a modified version of it gets consensus, then add to the article whatever the result of the discussion is. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think the longstanding content needs to be extensively rewritten? I'm not talking about tweaks or addition of new developments, but the conspiracy theory thing has been in the article for a long time after at least 2 prior talk page threads, and since nothing new has happened in that regard, why would we reopen the language and start from scratch on that (by scratch I mean having to first go through extensive explanation and discussion with editors who deny that it's sourced.) SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Why can't all editors be like MelanieN? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I only read this discussion just now but I assume it is the source of the opposition to my June 13 edit which changed "settled wording". Regarding the last sentence about conspiracy theories, I don't see how my version has content that is any different from the current version. However, someone who has been debating these minutia for awhile might be able to notice subtle differences and WP:WEASEL concerns. So let me just say that MelanieN's proposal above is completely fine with me. What's not fine is the first sentence (coatrack for undue labels with mid-sentence refs and possibly a missing comma) and the chronological order (the 2012 anti-Obama film and 2016 anti-Clinton film should be discussed together without being interrupted by the 2014 conviction). I plan to edit the lede in a few days and stay limited to those issues this time. But perhaps we can discuss here first. Connor Behan (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Political Incorrectness

This wikipedia article lists Dinesh D'Souza as Alt-right, provides misleading sources, and is intellectually dishonest.

While I disagree with Denish D'Souza on many things, he's a Christian Conservative. Not alt-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komuroto (talk • contribs) 01:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Description

It is incorrect to call him a "far-right" conservative. 64.216.238.122 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

book missing: Illiberal Education

Illiberal Education, published 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.44.104 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It was already on the list of books. It was first published in 1991 so maybe you missed it as it was not where you expected? The full title seems to be "Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus" so I have expanded it to say that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Fake mail bombs tweet

We shouldn't source it to his Twitter feed, but it was reported by the conservative The Weekly Standard.[8] pointing out that he's arguing that the lack of cancellation marks on the stamps proves it wasn't sent through the mail (which of course is nonsense). He's already mentioned at October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts as spreading a "false flag" conspiracy claim. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That is fairly substantial coverage, not just a name on a list, and not just carping from the other side. I think it can go in, although we probably also need to note that he has since backed down (with anything but good grace) here. I'm not sure if any RS will be bothered to cover that though. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree on inclusion. Main thing - not sure where to put it. Probably need a section on the various conspiracy theories he's spread. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Added Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Far right"

It is preposterous, hysterical and quite revealing that this locked article begins by referring to D'Souza as "far right" with a link to a liberal newspaper with "far right" in a HEADLINE about him! Folks - this isn't journalism or a proper source. He only seems "far right" to all the liberals on Wikipedia - far right should immediately be removed and your editors should apologize!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.35.124 (talk • contribs)

We have a policy on which sources we consider reliable: WP:RS. You might find that illuminating.
If he wants an apology then he, or his representatives, can approach the people in the media who have described him as far-right and discuss it with them. We will not be apologising for truthfully documenting what they have said. Wikipedia has no skin in this game. We just describe the situation before us. Ranting at us really won't do any good at all. It doesn't change the situation we are documenting. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's a list of articles by reliable sources who use more restraint language. [1][2][3][4] Given the lack of consensus, "far right" should be softened by something like "in opinion of some sources". BasiukTV (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — BasiukTV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/31/615759943/trump-says-hell-pardon-dinesh-dsouza-who-pleaded-guilty-to-campaign-finance-frau
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/politics/dinesh-dsouza-facts-history.html
  3. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/dinesh-dsouza-is-making-a-comeback/567233/
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/08/02/under-trump-a-red-carpet-for-dinesh-dsouza-who-claims-hitler-was-a-liberal-in-new-documentary/?utm_term=.ef029ca3cafa
And here are a whole load that use the explicit term far-right.
To be fair, though, in America today "conservative" and "far-right" have become largely synonymous, thanks to the Tea Party and to Donald Trump's mainstreaming of white nationalists and other extremists. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. Up above in the section #Alternative lead sentence I proposed an alternative lead sentence. Well over a month ago. Since nobody has objected in all that time, I have changed the lead accordingly. I haven't looked through all the sources Guy found above, but feel free to append them onto the end of the sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Everyone really should question the use of The Guardian as a reliable source especially after this recent Assange-Manafort fiasco. It appears to be a complete work of fiction printed by The Guardian. I propose the removal of The Guardian as a reliable source in any of this document.~Sandvol (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSN would be the right place to discuss your sourcing concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
And this discussion isn't relevant since the lead sentence was changed some time ago to attribute the term to several sources rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Second highest grossing political documentary" not supported by source

The line in the header, "In 2012, D'Souza released his film 2016: Obama's America, an anti-Obama polemic based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage; the film is the second-highest-grossing political documentary-style film produced in the United States" is not supported by the source. The source states that the film is "the highest grossing conservative documentary of all time." This needs to be corrected. 19:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.24.94 (talk)

Done. Captainllama (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I wonder how much Triumph des Willens made in today's money? Guy (Help!) 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Rating documentaries by their gross seems a little, well, gross. (Not that I am objecting to the inclusion of the comment. If that's what the source says then fair enough.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, according to the article, Triumph of the Will made 815,000 Reichsmarks in 1935. Using Harold Marcuse's conversion tables here: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/currency.htm#infcalc, I get 1 Mark to £12.1 in 1935. That converts to approximately $5.8 million USD in 2018. --ZEQFS (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ability to stay in US and study at Dartmouth

More detail on his time in the US and transition to Dartmouth is needed. It kind of looks like he overstayed his visa as a rotary exchange student as the visas for these exchange programs are only 10 months. If there is any more detail in this area it should be added. 2405:9800:BC20:2CC4:A01C:D74:337:37DC (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If true, I am surprised no media outlets have picked up on this story. A secondary source covering this topic should not be hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza/Archive_4&oldid=1083511519"