Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit out the obvious BIAS.[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. Notaliberalhack (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Template:Notaliberalhack

Please specify what content or edits concern you and what edits you propose. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree and second this - take out the bullshit left wing opinions based on nothing but fear and ignorance. Let the readers make up their minds about the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scapp70 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you can't feel safe in your echo chamber, this isn't infowars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Letting the readers make up their minds actually is a policy. But the article is currently following it in almost all places. Connor Behan (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:DECISION (Wikipedia:Let the reader decide) mentioned above ("...[[WP:DECISION|actually is]] a policy...") is an essay, not a policy. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Noticed a sentence in the paragraph "The End of Racism" where it states that D'Souza "defended the Southern slave owner." Did this editor even read all of page 91 in reference [35]? D'Souza used all of page 91 to describe how slave owners were horrible human beings who often treated slaves poorly and that the only reason most of the time they weren't treated more poorly is because the slave owner had to protect his investment like he would any property so that is why he had to treat them pretty well. The sentence should read, "D'Souza accurately describes the Southern slave owner's treatment of slaves..." Sandvol (talk) 10:50, 02 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The fact that he is the only person to ever be sent to prison for campaign contribution violations in US history by definition makes him not a "conspiracy theorist" but a conspiracy factualist. That was proven here < - Quote"The pardon for Mr. D’Souza, who pleaded guilty in 2014 to making illegal campaign contributions, was a victory for one of the president’s most vocal bases of support, the conservative news media. Mr. D’Souza has argued that he was singled out for prosecution by President Barack Obama’s administration because of his conservative politics, an argument that mirrors Mr. Trump’s assertions that his predecessor targeted him, too."> remove the biased opinion please or change it to conspiracy factualist. ~~jayram1408~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayram1408 (talkcontribs) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jayram1408: as this is your only edit to article space, at least with this account, we don't make decisions like that as editors, we just relay on what sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS say about a subject.

Opinion rather than objective fact[edit]

This quote in the summary should be taken out. It constitutes opinion and not fact regarding D'Souza, who routinely cites to history to make his claims. "Widely characterized as a provocateur, D'Souza's films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of multiple conspiracy theories.[21][22][23][24][25][26]"

We should only post objective fact, not slander.

There's six sources right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
All opinion pieces. Would you object to someone citing a Sean Hannity piece to claim Barack Obama is a socialist on here? I believe so. What's good for the goose...

I agree we could use a breakdown of these 6 sources; many are opinion pieces with little scholarly utility, and while some of them are from reliable publications, for the most part they do not appear to affirm any of the claims made in the above-excerpted text.

  • The NYT article mentions D'Souza's promotion of conspiracy theories on Twitter, but not in conjunction with his films or any controversy surrounding them or him. It does not mention controversy or film at all, nor does it characterize him as a provocateur, but rather is about D'Souza's similarities to Trump and about the pardon he was issued by the latter. I do not believe this is adequate support for the claim.
  • The Guardian article is a review of D'Souza's film Hillary's America and neither references conspiracy theories nor characterizes D'Souza as a provocateur. This article, which is written in a tone heavy with ridicule, evidences only that D'Souza's film was badly received by this reviewer--an opinion. For this to be used in support of the claim of controversy, a second review should be included which has a strongly favorable opinion of this film.
  • The Slate article, surprisingly, is a well-written piece of research and contains a multitude of quotations and examples evidencing D'Souza's promotion of what could be called conspiracy theories. I consider this legitimate support for that assertion. However, it does not characterize D'Souza as a provocateur nor does it imply any kind of unusual controversy surrounding his involvement in the promotion of these theories. It references his films, only to say that they "tested poorly" according to the NYT, which does not imply controversy.
  • The Salon article is clearly an opinion piece and should not be considered a scholarly source. It reads as a smear on D'Souza and his films and the only researched facts that appear in the article refer to his 2014 conviction. It would be a valid source for that fact, if there were no better sources to attest to it, but not for any of the claims contained in the sentence in question. It is inadequate evidence to the claim that he is "characterized as a provocateur" because it accuses him of true racism, not trolling. It is inadequate evidence to the claim he, his commentary, or his films are "controversial" as it definitively asserts that D'Souza is bad person and his films are "terrible"; there is no controversy there. It is inadequate evidence to the claim that he promotes "conspiracy theories" because it acknowledges D'Souza's accusations of historical racism as true, but dismisses them as irrelevant. This is a terrible article that should be immediately removed.
  • The WaPo article I cannot evaluate, as I do not have a subscription to the service. If you seek to justify it as evidence for the claim it is cited as evidence for, please respond with quotations from the article that you feel justify its utilization. I am hesitant to support the inclusion of sources which cannot be verified by the public at-large, especially in the special case of living persons, such as D'Souza. If this article represents a true fact, I am certain there are other, superior sources we can use.
  • The Vanity Fair article is a very thorough one, if somewhat disorganized and multi-varied. It headlines coverage of the time after D'Souza's conviction that he spent living in a halfway house and contains a substantial contribution of quotes from D'Souza himself. It mentions D'Souza's accusation of "selective prosecution" from the Obama Administration, and although the article does not explicitly call the claim a conspiracy theory, that appears to be the implication. It also mentions his disdain for "walking on eggshells", and includes both criticism and support from a variety of political attitudes over a long period of time, which I consider adequate evidence of his controversial career and appears to suggest he is something of a provocateur. Of the sources given, the VF article gives the strongest support for the claim that D'Souza's career, commentary, and films are controversial, provocative, and promote conspiracy theories.

The quote in question currently reads: "Widely characterized as a provocateur, D'Souza's films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of multiple conspiracy theories."
Considering that none of the sources given characterize him outright as a provocateur, and that only the VF article peripherally alludes to his irreverent eminence, I move to strike that claim from the text. He is not "widely characterized" as anything if only one source corroborates that characterization. Furthermore, the agreement of the clause is incorrect and appears to mean D'Souza's films and commentary are the things widely characterized as a provocateur.
A better sentence would be "D'Souza's films and commentary have involved the promotion of conspiracy theories and have become the subject of considerable controversy." I also propose we remove the NYT, Guardian, and Salon articles immediately as they are not immediately pertinent to the claims being advanced by this sentence, and because the use of 6 sources here is absolute overkill. I would like to hear from someone with access to the Washington Post article before I pass judgement on that one. Slate and VF seem appropriate to me. I will make these changes if there is no objection raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 20:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely can use reliable sources that are subscription only, there's no question about that. No comment on the other sources but I've read the WaPo article and I'd support removing it. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The 'provocateur' term is extensively used by RS, as shown in this talk page discussion[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the sources. While I cannot judge the Post article, IMO the other two are certainly sufficient. However, the wording still means that it is D'Souza's films and commentary that are characterized as the provocateur. I feel like "Widely characterized as a provacateur,..." is someone's baby so I'll give them a chance to make it work before I attempt an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 07:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"Dinesh Joseph D'Souza is an Indian-born conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, often described as far right by media sources."
"Widely characterized as a provocateur, D'Souza's films and commentary have generated considerable controversy due to their promotion of multiple conspiracy theories."
To my mind, these sentences are saying roughly the same thing. I propose we combine them and consolidate the citations to avoid redundancy; something like "Dinesh Joseph D'Souza is an Indian-born conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, often described as a far right provocateur by media sources," would satisfy the major points and conserve the present connotation. If it is important to include the controversy generated by his films and commentary, that information would be appropriate in its current location, but as of now the last sentence appears vaguely out of place. Any opinions? If there are no objections I will make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 00:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ability to stay in US and study at Dartmouth[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 22:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Juxtaposing reviews by historians with non-RS reviews[edit]

The reviews in the section on D'Souza's book 'The Big Lie' currently juxtaposes reviews from RS by academic historians with reviews by Rush Limbaugh (from his own website) and Michael Taube (from the Moonie Times) under the rationale that it provides "balance". This is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviews are reviews. RS really doesn't apply to book reviews, movie reviews, album reviews, and so on. And no, WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't apply here, either. -- ψλ 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, RS does apply. In particular, when the claims concern factual matters, such as "Actually, D'Souza is kind of right that the Democrats are like Nazis" when recognized experts and RS completely reject the assertion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Reviews are opinions. Biased opinions. We put those biased opinions in articles re: books, movies, music, all the time. It's important to have balance with reviews in articles. No matter the opinion (pro and con). We don't just add reviews that support a particular bias. Doing so turns that article one-sided and biased. -- ψλ 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should obviously not present the notion that Democrats are like Nazis as a subject of contentious debate when mainstream scholarship clearly rejects the view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Book reviews, television show reviews, music reviews, movie reviews included in Wikipedia are not reflecting "mainstream scholarship", they come from the biased opinions of writers/reviewers/critics. This is the norm and there's no policy against it. -- ψλ 18:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Fringe noticeboard, because why not[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The "review" cited is basically Godwin's law outside the Internet or Reductio ad Hitlerum. Trying to discredit the political opposition by associating it with Adolf Hitler. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

  • "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a significant difference between a scholarly review and the subjective reviews that typically deal with the entertainment value of a fictional movie or book. In this case the sources are discussing the historical accuracy of the work, not their personal opinions, and it would be inappropriate to place the fringe POV next to the mainstream POV with no distinction between the two. –dlthewave 19:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "undue opinions by Rush Limbaugh etc." To elaborate, Limbaugh's statement was cited to his own website, while the other gentleman appears to be a nn writer for Washington Times. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As I stated at your talk page, you really need to self revert. Discussion is occurring, it is the norm to not revert content being discussed/challenged while discussion is still taking place. We are to work toward consensus. Reverting out the content being discussed during a discussion thwarts that attempt at consensus as well as creates feelings of hostility and WP:BATTLE. -- ψλ 18:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
No discussion is going to validate non-notable opinion in a non-RS rag or self-published opinion from a fringe polemecist, left, right, or center. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Limbaugh's review is non-notable? That's funny. Reviews are reviews are reviews - they are always biased and always opinion. It's the nature of them. We include them all the time in Wikipedia re: books and other forms of expression (art, movies, music). And not just the ones we like or agree with. Not sure why the typical use of biased opinion reviews from various types of sources in thousands of Wikipedia articles is escaping some of you (it's not feigned or intention, is it?). -- ψλ 19:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you may be misreading Specifico's comment, Winkelvi. "Non-notable opinion in a non-RS rag" referrd to The Washington Times piece, while Limbaugh part was addressed in "self-published opinion from a fringe polemecist". At least that's how I read it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither here nor there. Both are reviews about a book and are allowable in the article. See WP:COMMONSENSE. Not to mention that by leaving out positive reviews of D'Souza's books, Wikipedia is acting as a defacto biased review site. But, maybe that's the intention of those who only want to see the only negative content retained and the positive excluded. Just a guess. -- ψλ 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with including only negative reviews. Reviews by non-notable reviewers, or by crackpots who have no demonstrated expertise or knowledge of the subject they're talking about, don't need to have any weight given to them on Wikipedia. You seem to be advocating the position that all reviews are equal in value, and that certainly isn't the case. If you want to change Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, this page isn't the place to do it. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
And who would these un-knowledgeable "crackpots" doing reviews of the book be that you are referring to, Anachronist? What's more, the people we regularly quote for reviews of books, music, films, television shows, and so on... couldn't they also be "crackpots"? And by what yardstick do we measure a crackpot? Is there a litmus test that abides within policy regarding inclusion of reviews for books in Wikipedia? -- ψλ 00:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about two specific reviews here. I'm sure you can figure it out. Reviewers with zero expertise on a subject who feel the need to express a viewpoint about that subject, don't belong with equal weight beside the opinions of experts. This is just WP:COMMONSENSE.
I would not object to a single sentence saying the Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh reviewed the book positively. That's a simple and non-controversial statement of fact. But to quote them in detail? There is no purpose in that other than to create WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is something we don't do here. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You keep saying these unnamed reviewers of D'Souza's book have zero expertise on a subject... what subject, what reviewers? I'm not into guessing games. Name it and claim it in order to prove they have no expertise in whatever subject you are vaguely referring to. Otherwise, if you don't/can't/won't do that, what you're now applying is WP:OR and personal opinion to come to a policy-based type decision. Wholly unproductive and certainly not leaning toward the collegial building of an encyclopedia. -- ψλ 03:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I named them in my last comment. I even offered a suggestion for resolution. Failure to read and comprehend the conversations (not just on this page) in which you have been participating is wholly unproductive and does not facilitate the collegial building of an encyclopedia. You want to include some quotations, then the WP:BURDEN is on you to support their inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I've already done that. All editors who want to keep balance out have offered is WP:IDLI and a skewed version of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Those are not valid arguments. -- ψλ 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a really clear case. The subject is the similarity of two political parties, and the experts are historians. All the historians say one thing, and Rush Limbaugh, who has (at most) zero expertise in anything, says the opposite. As pointed out above, including Limbaugh's unfounded opinion would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Nothing skewed about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW If Rush Limbaugh is as unreliable as you assert ("crackpot" connotes very little ambiguity) then his opinion in favor should be a convincing argument against, and this should be clear and unambiguous to all. Since we are not proposing treatment of Limbaugh's review as statement of fact, or the historians' review as a statement of fact, that the book is good or not good, but rather the opinion of the reviewer, that the book is good or not good, then it is relevant to the history of the book to note that it was received in such-and-such a way by so-and-so a person, if that person is a noteworthy individual. Rush Limbaugh, agree with him or not, crackpot or not, is certainly a notable person in the sphere of politics, if not of history. The reaction of a noteworthy individual to a noteworthy piece of literature is noteworthy, so let us note it. It is potentially valuable information to consider and its omission prompts a few questions.

  • Do we now reassess all reviews included on this page in light of whether the author is qualified to give his opinion on the topic at hand? Are WaPo, etc. review contributors all accredited historians, or should we be reassessing their potential lack of expertise? Or can we treat them like opinions, and take them with a grain of salt? Reviews do not undergo the same level of fact-checking journalistic or scholarly articles do.
  • Are the reviews given by the historians fact-based refutations, or opinionated reactions? This may help with your categorization.
  • Are fringe opinions not worthy of situational consideration, or must they always be discarded? If Rush Limbaugh is a crackpot for his political commentary, then is D'Souza not also a crackpot for writing a book comparing Democrats to Nazis? Do the contents of the book matter, if they are just "fringe theories"? Why shouldn't the contents also be omitted? Or are the material contributions of these crackpots only worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia so that they may be derided by the reposted opinions of those reviewers deemed "legitimate"?

I do not believe Limbaugh's opinion regarding the book to be irrelevant or inappropriate to the discussion of its cultural significance. Simply because Limbaugh espouses ideas that are considered fringe does not preclude him from being an influential individual; his opinion is considered valuable by a large portion of the American population, even if you (and many others) disagree with him.
While I would not cite him in defense of historical fact, and while self-published articles are generally not reliable sources for fact, his defense or otherwise reaction to a book within his sphere of influence (right wing politics) is certainly pertinent; if nothing else than as evidence to D'Souza's conservative context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Far right?[edit]

The opening line of the article describes D'Souza as being "far right". Has Wikipedia ever reviewed how many persons are described as "far left" versus "far right"? Is there a numerical calculus which determines who in fact is or is not extremist? Perhaps it has more to do with whom you agree with than with any factual basis. Dynasteria (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the term either. I'm wondering what neutral term could be used pin down where he is on the conservative spectrum; he certainly isn't mainstream conservative or moderate conservative, and although he has been labeled as neoconservative (as it says in the body of the article), his writings and speech seem more extremist than other well-known individuals named in the neoconservatism article. The term alt right doesn't really fit either. Perhaps the article on Ann Coulter could be a guide, which simply refers to her as "conservative". ~Anachronist (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If the sources use the term "far-right" to describe him, like the Guardian article, then "far-right" IS the neutral term. Saying "I don't like the term" is not an argument. I don't like lots of things. But I don't edit on the basis of that. We edit on the basis of reliable sources. The Ann Coulter argument is really just WP:OTHERSTUFF and you could just as well make the argument that it's her article that should be changed. Here's half a dozen+ sources which also describe him as such: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Volunteer Marek 14:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm convinced. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I read the articles referenced by Volunteer Marek . They don't provide support for usage of the term according to the current definition of Far-right_politics. They go into his alleged racism, history revisionism, being provocateur and generally not a very nice person. But nothing along the lines of "extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies". BasiukTV (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the issue for me is that "far right" seems to be a term that is thrown around a great deal without much substantiation. I can't gauge to what extent the journalists behind those linked articles are unbiased. I would caution in general, however, against relying on any journalists at all unless they are reporting verifiable facts. The term "far right" (or "left") is more a statement of opinion than fact, in my view. Dynasteria (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The "substantiation" here is the prevalent use of the term in the sources. Volunteer Marek 05:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's why the term "far right" is inappropriate: It leaves no "room" for real far-right people like David Duke, and white supremacists. When you lump a Barack Obama political prisoner like Dinesh D'Souza with those people, the expression "far right" looses all possible credibility. Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative, not a "far-right" individual. When I removed the false denomination from the main article, it was promptly put back. This is my last edit to Wikipedia, as I have come to the sad realization that it has joined other social media outlets as another tool of the far left. From now on, I will use only Conservapedia as a source for any articles that are vulnerable to extreme bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcasas1 (talkcontribs) 12:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your realization is wrong, as is your impression of Conservapedia as unbiased. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You neglected to show where I stated that Conservapedia is unbiased, therefore, it is "your realization" that is wrong. Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia are biased. The difference between the two lies in the fact that Conservapedia admits its bias (observe its name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcasas1 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is obviously biased. D'Souza has no association with Far Right politics nor does he have an association with Nazism, Fascism, or Ultra-nationalism. The term Far Right should only be associated with the likes of David Duke and others who subscribe to Far Right Wing ideologies.Toronto2005! (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto2005! (talkcontribs) 22:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion. And for what it's worth, that's my opinion too, if you read my earlier comment in this section. But we don't put our opinions in Wikipedia articles, we go by what reliable sources say, and as shown above, the prevalence of the term "far right" to describe him in reliable sources is sufficient for this article to describe him that way also. Part of the problem, I think, is that there is no clear agreed-upon definition of what "far right" means. David Duke and others might be called "extreme right" as a differentiator. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. The article does not accuse him of Nazism or the like. It is clear that he is a long way further right than a typical conservative, even allowing for the fact that American conservatives are now a lot further right than they used to be. He has been quite widely and deliberately described as "far right" by reliable sources. I'd probably feel more sympathetic if he wasn't the author of a pretty wacky propaganda video where he tries to mischaracterise Nazism as left wing but I still have no desire to see him mischaracterised here, even if the irony tickles me slightly. Two of the 6 sources on that sentence explicitly describe him as "far-right". The sources are valid and that's all that matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree with your assessment. The sources that you used describe D'Souza as being "Far Right" without giving any evidence or quotations of him explicitly supporting Nazism, Fascism, or White Supremacy. Please refer to the definition of "Far-right politics" on Wikipedia where it clearly states that "The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views". So by that definition, David Duke and D'Souza are not in the same political category. This is someone's biography, let's be very careful not to throw around controversial labels without using explicit and definitive explanations of what that person has said in order to be described as "Far Right". It is not just my "personal opinion" that there is no direct connection between D'Souza and Far Right politics.Toronto2005! (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources you used are opinion articles nonetheless. In order to label D'Souza as being "Far Right", I would argue that you would need a direct quote or actions that would be supporting "Far Right Politics" especially since this term has becoming more politicized since the election victory of Donald Trump.Toronto2005! (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

One of them is an opinion piece, as far as I can tell. The others are just standard reporting, particularly the Business Insider pieces. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"I'd probably feel more sympathetic if he wasn't the author of a pretty wacky propaganda video where he tries to mischaracterise Nazism as left wing." We should try to keep his biography neutral regardless of his claims that Progressives and Nazis are closely aligned. I also don't see how spreading unsubstantiated claims makes someone's political identity "Far Right".Toronto2005! (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point I made immediately after I said that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my previous statements? Let me know why I am wrong about this.Toronto2005! (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with most of what you have said here so far. I was only agreeing with the one point you made where you said that his mischaracterisations do not justify us in mischaracterising him and noting that this was a point that I had already made. So, that one point is uncontroversial. The rest, not so much.
We have multiple reliable sources describing him as far-right. The fact that some of those sources contain opinions is not relevant as that description is not part of the opinion, it is part of their outline of the facts, which they set out before they go on to have an opinion about those facts. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So if the Washington Post called Bernie Sanders a "Communist" would you include that in his biography? None of these articles provide any evidence or direct quotations that prove he is "Far Right". If you read the Wikipedia description of "Far Right Politics", you would easily know that D'Souza does not fit that description in any way. I remind you that I am not doing this because I personally like the political views of D'Souza, I simply want to keep this biography neutral. I reiterate, please provide a quotation or action that proves D'Souza supports "Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, or neo-fascism". I remind you, that the quote I used comes directly from the wikipedia page describing "Far-right politics".Toronto2005! (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Now blocked for "disruptive editing", a catch-all term that here also includes edit warring, BLP violations, improper sourcing. Y'all are welcome to ask for arbitration sanctions; judging from their edits, they probably need to be topic-banned from the American Politics area. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Drmies you deleted my edits previously because I described a podcast as "far-left". My source for that was a Guardian article that described them as "hard-left" and "the leftwing alternative to Breitbart". You said that that was invalid because "Who said that? What value does it have?"

So you can imagine my surprise when you're blocking users for using your EXACT SAME reasoning as to why D'Souza is "far-right". Mind explaining yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milewoman (talkcontribs) 11:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking back at your contributions, I'm surprised that you failed to recognize that you were edit warring, removing validly sourced material, and engaging in WP:OR by adding the "far left" label while citing a source that didn't actually use that label, and that the rest of the lead already provided detail about the subject's leftist characteristics. In this article, we have multiple sources (not just one) that describe D'Souza as far-right. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Far right?? Says "The Guardian" which is well known as left wing newspaper.... If Fox News called someone "Far Left" I highly doubt that such a statement would be allowed to used as evidence on here, so why is the opposite not true? When you see such obvious bias and nonsense like this at the start of a Wikipedia article, it is a great reminder why Wikipedia is little more then a playground for people to push propaganda and not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "Far Right" that wikipedia uses is illogical. Farthest left would be statism or communism-no public or private enterprise, everything owned by the state. Farthest right would be no government, no laws, each man for himself, survival of the fittest. When has Dinesh espoused these views? Show a reliable source. (User:Sandvol) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Wikipedia is not calling him "far right", and Wikipedia is neither defining nor using a definition of "far right". Wikipedia is reflecting what reliable sources say, and they call him far right. You're wasting your time trying to get Wikipedia to change what others say about him, Wikipedia does not have that power. If you want reliable sources not to call him "far right" then you'll have to take it up with them, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say. Good luck! Captainllama (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Captainllama, it's inaccurate what you stated. It isn't they. It is one. It isn't sources. It is source. And, yes wikipedia is calling him far right with only one ambiguous source where the author doesn't actually describe him as far right but as conservative commentator and conservative pundit. Name one person in all of wikipedia land who is described as far left? (User talk: Sandvol) 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning. And, no, Wikipedia does not have to use that inaccurate description. Wikipedia is defining "reliable sources" as someone who reliably publishes even if it's inaccurate. Show one reliable source where Dinesh D"Souza has himself espoused "far right" ideology. It is Wikipedia's duty as an online encyclopedia to be accurate and only cite accurate "reliable sources." (User talk: Sandvol) 07:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I apologize I assumed the original Wikipedia author/editor was accurately quoting the Guardian article-he isn't. The Guardian article which the Wikipedia editor uses to describe Dinesh D'Souza as far right describes Dinesh D'Souza as a "far right provocateur." It misunderstands the meaning of "far right provocateur." Far right provocateur is someone who might provoke the far right-it does not mean he is far right. No where in the article does it actually describe Dinesh as "far right." (User talk: Sandvol) 07:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Two points:
  1. You seem to be editing while not logged in. If you log in then the signature button will work properly and you won't get any more "Unsigned comment added by" messages automatically added to your comments.
  2. I'm afraid that you are misreading the Guardian article. It is perfectly clear that they mean to say that he is both far-right and a provocateur. Your alternative reading, that they meant to say that he provokes the far-right, would be possible but extremely unlikely based on the headline alone but, when taken with the rest of the article, it is completely untenable. Nothing in the article speaks about him provoking the far right. In fact, it points out that he is popular with the right and does not mention anything about his interactions with others on the far-right in either direction. Unless we assume the Guardian's writers and editors to be borderline illiterate, there is no plausible way to construe their headline in the way you suggest. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Daniel, this is pretty weak. It isn't clear that is what Jason Wilson means by implication or assertion. Can you please cite the sentence or paragraph where Wilson asserts that D'Souza is himself far right and actually shows evidence? There should be at least one sentence in the entire article. Aren't Wikipedia's standards higher than this? (User talk: Sandvol) 11:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually all throughout the article he describes D'Souza as conservative. Not far right conservative. (User talk: Sandvol) 11:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just pointing out that your attempt to flip the specific phrase "far right provocateur" 180 degrees from what it plainly means is misguided and without any support in the referenced article. It is unambiguously clear what the phrase means in this context. Discussion of other issues is separate. I agree that it would be nice if the Guardian had chosen to expand on this further but it is sufficient for referencing the content as it stands. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Daniel, there are only two sentences in the article where Wilson describes D'Souza. The first is, "Donald Trump pardoned Dinesh D’Souza today. Who is he? Dinesh D’Souza is a conservative commentator, film-maker and author." and the second is, " Conservative pundits are a dime a dozen. What makes D’Souza different? His success, and his shamelessness." So, what am I trying to flip? So, in both descriptors he describes D'Souza as conservative commentator and conservative pundit, not far right conservative. I am not trying to flip anything. I am trying to correct the original misuse of this reference. (User talk: Sandvol) 12:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the reference is not good then I'm not stopping you. What you should not try to do is claim that its use the phrase "far-right provocateur" in the title literally does not mean far-right provocateur. That is silly, and doing so can only blunt the force of your other points. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So that's your argument? That I'm silly because I believe the author meant with the title that D'Souza is a provoker of the far right and you think that author meant D'Souza is a far right provoker although in the article the author never describes D'Souza as far right? I don't think you're silly- I think you're highly biased. (User talk: Sandvol) 13:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure if you are serious here or not but, either way, I'm not going to argue the plain and obvious meaning of simple English words and phrases with you any further. Lets see if anybody else agrees with you. I'll just caution you to assume good faith and not to accuse people of "bias" just because they can read and parse the sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

But it is OK for you to accuse people of being silly? Do you realize what blunts the force of your argument? You use one ambiguous reference where the author provides no evidence that D'Souza is far right and doesn't even use that label in the article. (User talk: Sandvol) 19:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

For argument's sake let's stipulate you are correct and that's what the author meant. So Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia can label D'Souza as far right based on one author's assertion? -One author? One source? Really? What if I write an article for Guardian and assert D'Souza is not far right? How many articles would it take asserting he is not far right? (User talk: Sandvol) 19:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

After reading about Wikipedia's editing policies then editors should have no problem changing it to "is an Indian born American who one source describes as a far right..." (User talk: Sandvol) 14:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sandvol: There are plenty more sources than just the Guardian, and they are listed above in the earlier comments. Also see my proposal "Alternative lead sentence" for a more neutral version below, which got no responses in spite of being proposed over a month ago. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist, one reference is used. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with far right description if used properly. D'Souza is not far right. People like David Koresh and Jim Jones were far right-their views were extreme. They believed in no government. D'Souza isn't anything like that. The reference in question nor any others have shown any connection to far right views. They have just found authors who have improperly used "far right" because they like that label. This is not academic integrity. (User talk: Sandvol) 13:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist, that change is more acceptable. I don't think there are that many references though. I went through all the references and most of them characterized him not as "far right" but "right wing." He is "right wing" because he has used the term to characterize himself. I think two of the other references referred back to the Guardian article. David Koresh was far right and rebelled against and spoke against any government. (User talk: Sandvol) 11:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative lead sentence[edit]

I figured out why I have a problem with the lead sentence.

While our prose must reflect what reliable sources say, there is no requirement in any policy or guideline that we use loaded or sensationalist terminology in Wikipedia's narrative voice. In fact, WP:WikiVoice states the opposite: don't present opinions as facts, and avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Yes, far-right is a fact, but the way it is written comes across as dictating a biased opinion, and as we can all see above, it has been contested. So I suggest a lead sentence like this:

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza is an Indian-born American conservative political commentator, author and filmmaker, characterized as far right by media sources.[1][2]...

This is a factual sentence that retains the "far right" label but attributes it properly without dictating an opinion to readers in Wikipedia's voice, thereby avoiding an impression of bias. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support. OK. I'll start the comments if nobody else wants to. I don't feel very strongly between this and the status quo. I'd certainly be OK with this wording but I'm also OK with it as it is, however I'm leaning towards thinking that this is the better option. What it is not going to do (and what it would be unreasonable to expect it to do) is to satisfy anybody who just wants to whitewash the article to make him sound more mainstream than he is. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur Anachronist. The very definition of far-right is nebulous despite free and freQuent use of the word by the media. Describing D'Souza as far-right, with a link to far right, is potentially inaccurate and/or misleading considering that the author of source article may be using the term differently than the editors of far right. However, to say that he "...has been characterized as far right by media sources..." is not disputable, provided the sources do actually use the word to describe him. This is a necessary NPOV correction; it is not the editors' job to profess whether or not D'Souza is deserving of that characterization.

    Essentially, the source article does not offer a description of D'Souza that is consistent with the page for far right, therefore it is inappropriate to use either the source or the link as they had been used. I believe your correction fully addresses this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 04:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

    • This is just another version of "let's not believe what reliable sources say". Anachronist: "Sources say the sky is blue..."Drmies (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Drmies, see comment below by Doug Weller. Claim of "far right" does not appear to be substantiated in the body of the Guardian article, although he is identified as such by the headline. If true, then he has been characterized as far right by the media, but without the source evidencing the moniker.
        Of the sources given, the only two articles that refer to D'Souza as far right in the body of the text are the Daily Beast and NBCNews. The Daily Beast article is not a reliable source, firstly, and while NBC characterizes him as far right, that article is not about why (read: in what way) D'Souza is far right and as such provides no evidence or argument supporting that claim. These sources, as given, do not evidence D'Souza's characterization as far right, only that he has in fact been characterized as far right. Anachronist's correction is warranted. Hit up my talk page if you want to discuss the color of the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 19:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, "skaterboi", but that's not what Doug Weller is saying, and the Daily Beast is usually reliable, and etc. No, I don't want to "hit up" your talk page, but thanks--I'm good. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
          No, this isn't a case of "let's not believe what reliable sources say". My proposal is to state exactly what reliable sources say, attributing the "far right" term to those reliable sources that use it. 06:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
          • My apologies Doug I did not mean to put words in your mouth. Drmies, when I referenced his comment I was referring to the ineligibility of headlines as secondary sources in themselves. Since one of the articles in question only calls D'Souza "far right" in the headline and not the body of the text, that citation is ineligible as evidence to the claim "far right". My criticism of the other sources given is independent of me referring you to the headline comment by Doug Weller. Sorry for any confusion I have caused. Although these other sources refer to D'Souza as far right they are not valid sources to use as evidence for his being far right. For example, the Daily Beast article reads "And yet, amid all that posturing about civility and a willingness to take on a Republican president, the magazine continues to associate with one of the Trump era’s loudest and most well-known mouthpieces for vile, hateful, far-right rhetoric: Dinesh D’Souza". This article is not about what makes D'Souza definable as far right. It only calls him far right, without elaboration. If you seek to justify a reversion to the original language, you need to find a source that actually relates to that claim. (IMHO the "far right" moniker should not even be included considering the weakness of these sources in support of that assertion, as well as the stringent protections afforded to politics and to living persons.) However, as it stands I support the current wording and believe it is neither inaccurate nor unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


I used to write these for the Miami Herald. We've discussed them at WP:RSN. They are generally not written by the author of the piece but by a headline writer (or in my case the PA for the city editor for the ones I wrote). We can't use them as sources. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Doug, how can Wikipedia continue to use Guardian as a reliable source? Yesterday their reporting of the Covington High School boys incident with the Native American has been shown to have misrepresented the facts. Sandvol talk 12:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First, no it wasn't, it was merely disputed by right-wing media (which has problems of its own), and second, the Grauniad, in common with all other mainstream media but not right-wing media, will correct good faith errors and in some cases even retract the articles. You should read Network propaganda, recommended to me by Mike Godwin (who is definitely not a classical Guardian reader). Guy (Help!) 18:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Second highest grossing political documentary" not supported by source[edit]

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 (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:, 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)

Fake mail bombs tweet[edit]

We shouldn't source it to his Twitter feed, but it was reported by the conservative The Weekly Standard.[9] 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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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)

Convicted felon[edit]

I have removed the description "convicted felon" from the lead, because his conviction was overturned by presidential pardon. There has been some discussion about this above, with editors offering ample legal opinions without citing sources.

Regardless of legalisms, per Wikipedia policy, at the most, the lead could say he's a "former convicted felon", but it would be a WP:BLP violation to state that he is still a "convicted felon" unless we have a reliable source stating that a conviction remains for life even after a presidential pardon. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"was a convicted felon until pardoned...."? Doug Weller talk 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that sounds OK. An alternative might be something like "was convicted, and later pardoned, of..." Either of these would reflect the situation accurately and in a way that readers can easily understand.
We don't need to get hung up on the current applicability of the word "felon". The very fact that we don't find it easy to know whether it correctly applies after a pardon suggests that readers might also struggle to interpret it correctly. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have just seen this TP . I had already restored the bit about convicted felon. He pleaded guilty to a felony and was convicted. I can't see why someone would need to remive that from the article. Being pardoned isn't the same as the conviction being expunged. Moriori (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Moriori: Pardon "

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense, as if the act never occurred." That doesn't mean of course that he was never convicted. Note that the article even suggests acceptance of a pardon may mean a tacit admission of guilt. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

My point exactly. He was convicted. It's in the history books. A pardon cannot excise history. So, we mention the conviction, and the pardon. Actually , that's what we have done. Moriori (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The accuracy of our Pardon article is a separate discussion, but the Department of Justice (scroll down to #10) states that a pardon does not remove a crime from one's record. –dlthewave 20:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I support removing "convicted felon" from the first sentence. Regardless of D'Souza's legal status, "felon" generally isn't a useful description of a person; if someone is primarily notable for a felony, we describe them according to the crime: "muderer", "bank robber", "rapist", or in this case, "campaign-finance violator". Additionally, although "convicted felon" may be factual, it does not tell the whole story. The second-paragraph treatment in this version handles the conviction/pardon neatly, unambiguously and without burying it in the body. –dlthewave 20:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think it is essential to have it in the first paragraph of the lede so long as it is covered somewhere in the lede. I'm happy to leave the word "felon" out entirely. (I'm British and we don't often use that word. We would nearly always say "criminal" and if I imagine substituting that into the text then it doesn't seem right.) The trouble with "felon" is that it covers everything from tax evasion to axe murdering making it too broad to be very informative. (The use of "felony" is fine though as it is perfectly clear which felony it is talking about.) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

And I have removed it again. Describing the subject as a "convicted felon" is a false statement. Yes, he received a felony conviction. But he is no longer a felon. Rightly or wrongly, he's been pardoned. We could say "former convicted felon" or say "he was convicted as a felon and then received a presidential pardon" but simply saying he's a "convicted felon" is misleading. Not only does it violate WP:BLP but also WP:UNDUE. Being a formerly-convicted felon is not what defines him. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The argument that a person who "received a felony conviction" is not a "convicted felon" seems grammatically dubious. But I agree with dlthewave that D'Souza isn't typically identified as a "convicted felon" and that it is preferable to just describe it in paragraph 2. Nblund talk 02:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, a presidential pardon does not mean that one convicted of a felony and pardoned is no longer a "convicted felon". See the U.S. DOJ's PARDON INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS:

10. Effect of a pardon
While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, you may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of your residence regarding the procedures for restoring your state civil rights.

However, I agree with dlthewave's comment that "felon" is not a particularly useful descriptor.--Rpclod (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC - can we call him a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's own voice?[edit]

Clear, near-unanimous agreement that sources justify the use of "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia voice. Non-admin close Pincrete (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead include the description "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's own voice? Starting this because my revert of someone who removed the description has been challenged on the basis of a 2016 RfC closed by a sock.[10] Doug Weller talk 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)



  • Support per the preponderance of RSes. To whit, see:
Note that I have excluded sources which don't directly label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" or refer to his work as "conspiracy theories", which leaves many more verbose descriptions that equate to the same thing out. I can produce them, if needed.
Note further that there's also RS support for calling him a "dunce", "simpleton" and other such adjectives.
In conclusion, I would note that I was unable to find any reliable sources defending D'Souza from the charge, meaning that this label is not even contentious. It merely appears to be to those who have other reasons to promote D'Souza's conspiracy theories. Finally, I would point out that, given the vast usage of this label and it's utter lack of controversy, it would be an egregious BLP violation for us not to use the term in wiki voice, as that would falsely imply that there are reliable sources who endorse his conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with congratulations to MPants at work for providing such a comprehensive and definitive response above. I've seen a sledgehammer used to crack a walnut before but using Mjölnir makes it special. I can't even see any walnut fragments, just dust. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
<insert off-color joke about busting nuts here> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a clear WP:SPADE situation, especially in the absence of any RS arguing against the notion of him being a conspiracy theorist versus a pile of RS that describe him as such. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Procedure may call for a fresh RfC, but the sources speak for themselves in this case. Compliments to MPants for the list. Novusuna talk 21:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Oh, for the days when Dinesh D'Souza was just a self-righteous neoconservative scribe. In recent years, he has re-branded himself as a documentary filmmaker, and in the process he has become something even more outlandish: a right-wing conspiracy wingnut, the kind of 'thinker' who takes off from Barack Obama birther theories and just keeps going, spinning out a web of comic-book liberal evil. D'Souza's new film, 'Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,' might be described as propaganda that shades off into paranoia. It asserts that the Democratic Party was single-handedly responsible for slavery, the genocidal killing of Native Americans, the Ku Klux Klan, and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Source: Variety
--Guy Macon (talk) 8:32 pm, Today (UTC−8)
  • Support Although Mjolnir's list of sources is relevant, illustrative, and helpful, I'd like to note for the sake of showing fidelity to the precautionary principle (and just to play devil's advocate) that's it's entirely possible for a list of dozens of reliable sources to exist which define a given individual in a certain fashion and yet that descriptor could still not be WP:DUE as a WP:WEIGHT matter. But I make that point merely to be pro forma about the relevant policy arguments here. Considering all evidence I have seen in the article when previous RfCs brought me here, and thus knowing how sources describe this individual generally--and reviewing the article again and doing a little bit of extra research now--I am fairly confident this is an appropriate description to use as a summary of how RS describe the subject generally, even when using wouthe especially high burden required of BLPs of particularly controversial persons. Snow let's rap 04:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
it's entirely possible for a list of dozens of reliable sources to exist which define a given individual in a certain fashion and yet that descriptor could still not be WP:DUE as a WP:WEIGHT matter. Yes, but it's worth pointing out that the descriptor in question would have to have little or nothing to do with why they're notable for that to be the case. So a politician who likes to tweet about homeopathy would be one example of a case where we couldn't use a descriptor, even if it showed up in a lot of RSes. Actually, even then we could use it, and use it in wikivoice, we'd just have to define him as a "politician" full stop in the first sentence and move the descriptor down further, possibly even out of the lede if it's not notable enough.
In a case like this, where the guy's pseudo-documentaries and rabble rousing are the very reason he's notable, it's incumbent upon us to state very clearly that he's a conspiracy theorist, so as not to present an inaccurate portrayal to the reader. There's a world of difference between a conspiracy theorist who does political activism like D'Souza, and an honest political activist. There's not so much difference (to return to my example) between a politician who tweets about homeopathy and one who doesn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per numerous sources listed above. –dlthewave 18:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MPants. I don't know what he was like two decades ago, but he has for the last ten years been an unhinged conspiracy theorist and troll. Not a lot distinguishes him from Jack Posobiec, Jim Hoft, Alex Jones and other prominent far-right conspiracy theorists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what he was like two decades ago He was just a run-of-the-mill Creationism apologist back then. Like a discount William Lane Craig, and when I say discount, I mean discount. He got his ass handed to him in a debate with Ehrman in 2006 or so because he kept pretending Ehrman was a mythicist. If you're not into that stuff, know that Ehrman is probably the single biggest opponent the real mythicists have. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support.. But that's just what they want me to say. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Is the sky blue? This one is an obvious slam dunk. Wikivoice is appropriate here, as long as the sources are used in the body. He's a classic far-right conspiracy theorist who traffics in ridiculous claims without evidence, much like Limbaugh, Jones, and Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support While I don't agree with some of the attitudes expressed above, namely certain flippant attributions made to persons who would oppose the characterization of D'Souza as a "conspiracy theorist" or who would object to the inclusion of that characterization in the first sentence, the preponderance of sources (irrespective of bias) do in fact attribute to him that exact moniker.
    Furthermore, the sociopolitical stigma of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" has declined considerably within the last few years, meaning that its inclusion here is less likely to be read as a political attack or some other violation of Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. For this reason, I believe labeling D'Souza as a "conspiracy theorist" is simply accurate; he conceives of and promotes elaborate theories about hypothetical conspiracies.
    While it is a pity that D'Souza's critics are not held to the same standard of scrutiny, being known to publish unverified claims of "collusion" for example, it is not necessarily the fault of Wikipedia or its editors that the sources Wikipedia uses fail to refer to themselves as "collusion theorists". We can only use the descriptors and information the sources use, therefore the treatment of D'Souza as a "conspiracy theorist" is unfair neither to him nor the integrity of Wikipedia, but simply a result of the current trend in journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support based on the preponderance of sources calling him that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia's voice is that of the sources, and in this case, it would be WP:UNDUE to give them equal weight. ——SerialNumber54129 11:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support We go by what the sources say. The list of reliable sources describing him in this way is long, it doesn't seem a controversial description. GirthSummit (blether) 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. We follow the reliable sources here; they are many and uncontradicted. Neutralitytalk 02:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per MPants. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: that's what the subject is known for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


  • No. There are several solid non-review reliable sources describing him as such, but not a single "conspiracy theory" is described in this article or any related article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
...not a single "conspiracy theory" is described in this article or any related article. I guess you didn't read as far as Dinesh D'Souza#On 2018 mail bombing attempts. Or even as far as Dinesh D'Souza#The Roots of Obama's Rage. Or even the last line of the lede. Jesus, dude, did you even glance at the article before you decided to mansplain to us what's in it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, "I concede that reliable sources describe subject as X, but I see no evidence that meets my idiosyncratic standard to call the subject X, therefore I oppose the inclusion of X" is about as paradigmatic an example of WP:Original research as you can get. Snow let's rap 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, while there are sources which may call D'Souza a conspiracy theorist, it is not Wikipedia's place to say that per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, rather we can say so and so says such and such, and that there says this here, but to just say he is a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia voice IMHO it violates WP:NEU. Moreover see WP:ATTACKPAGE. If there is criticism of the subject, that is allowed as long as it is neutrally presented, but this article is not a WP:SOAPBOX to trash the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - this again??? Still contrary to BLP, NPOV, OR, LABEL, and V. Still no language or support stated to a request. The 2016 rfc was predominantly against doing this and seems nothing really new or different about the case. You don’t like him and want an OK for unlimited insults stated as if uncontested Fact... ignoring that just looks biased. Logically, he wouldn’t be in question for this if he didn’t have a significant number out there who feel otherwise. WP should be seeking to provide info, not seeking to make insults in article leads. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion[edit]

Just as a quick note since this confused me, the old RfC seems to have been started by User:SPECIFICO who hasn't been around for a while, but seems to be in good standing. User:Oneshotofwhiskey is a sock and is the first one who brought up the issue in an earlier thread, and also was fairly active in that RfC including being cited by SPECIFICO. (Discussion was held before the first formal !vote.) It doesn't look like the RfC was ever formally closed as such. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant to anything I know especially since it could be in part Google's knowledge of me, but I had a brain fade and couldn't remember this guy's name. So I tried searching for 'indian american conspiracy theorist' and failed and then tried 'conservative indian american conspiracy theorist' and he was the first result. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Call for close[edit]

It has been two weeks. Per WP:SNOW, there is zero chance that further discussion will change the outcome. Could someone who is not involved please close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Felony status[edit]

Now that he has been pardoned, and now that it is clear this was a hit job of sorts, can we not remove any mention of the felony in the lead paragraph? I understand the need of its inclusion in the body as it is part of his history, FCS he made his movie about it! Nevertheless, it smacks of embarrassing him. He's technically in the clear. As a living person, should we not respect that and remove it entirely from the introduction? Thoughts?Luciusfoxx (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

now that it I clear this was a hit job of sorts That is not even remotely "clear" and there is no RS support for this statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion:

On May 31, 2018, Dinesh D'Souza was issued a full pardon by President Donald Trump[1] for alleged campaign finance violations involving personal contributions made during the 2012 United States Senate campaign.[2][3][4][5]

I prefer the current version which clearly describes both the conviction and the pardon. According to the Department of Justice, "A presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime" and "it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction". Pardoned felons are also required to disclose their conviction when asked. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to describe the violations as "alleged" since he was indeed found guilty and that finding has not been overturned. –dlthewave 15:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that we do not include it in the article, I only mention the lead. Given your suggestions, how about:

On May 31, 2018, Dinesh D'Souza was issued a full pardon by President Donald Trump[1] for court-action against personal campaign contributions he made during the 2012 United States Senate campaign.[2][3][4][5]


  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference foxpardon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b "Dinesh D'Souza Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to Five Years of Probation for Campaign Finance Fraud". September 23, 2014. Retrieved May 31, 2018.
  3. ^ a b Graham, David A. (September 19, 2017). "Is Trump's 'Wiretap' Claim Vindicated?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 20, 2017. Retrieved September 20, 2017. Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Raymond was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Mahler was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

As for the hit job against D'Souza, this has been extensively discussed at length as selective prosecution and there are many sources for it. It is already discussed in the article so I was not advocated its inclusion in the lead. Nevertheless, he is in fact pardoned for at worst a non-violent crime that he bravely served time for anyways and fines for which he will never get back the money. As a living breathing figure we don't need to beat a dead horse. These articles are verbose anyhow and could use this kind of trimming.

Any thoughts from non-liberal, objective (read: neutral) editors here?Luciusfoxx (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Update: For now, this was the change I made respecting the compromise and consensus as listed on this talk page- On May 31, 2018, Dinesh D'Souza was issued a full pardon by President Donald Trump for court-sanctioned personal campaign contributions made during the 2012 United States Senate campaign. Might add the word federal before court so avoid confusion. Other than that, I respect neutral, non-biased feedback that acknowledges that we should respect these law-abiding subjects as living, breathing people that we should not go out of our way to troll or embarrass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciusfoxx (talkcontribs) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts from non-liberal, objective (read: neutral) editors here? Do you want to be topic banned? Because this is the sort of statement that's just begging to be quoted in an ANI thread about you.
For now, this was the change I made respecting the compromise and consensus as listed on this talk page- There is absolutely no such consensus here. Two editors have expressed disagreement with your proposal, nor does that edit constitute a compromise of any sort.
P.S. You can claim that there are "many sources" calling D'Souza's prosecution a hit job, but you haven't shown a single one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not editors. I did not accuse you of being liberal or non-neutral. However, given the partisan politics on both sides, that was my way of asking for the opinions of non-invested editors to chime in. If you want to create an ANI on my opinion on a talk-page, go for it. Nothing I have done warrants such a threat. As for the "compromise" and "consensus" I mentioned, I was referring to the inclusion of the selective prosecution of process crimes against D'Souza. I understand that it needs to be included in the article itself, especially considering that D'Souza himself has made the oppression against him now part of his historical narrative in his own films. That was the "consensus" I was referring to. And I made it clear I intend to respect it. The "compromise" I referred to was the suggestion that we do not refer to the hit job against D'Souza as simply "alleged." I did not take that suggestion as a warning to not make changes. I took it reasonably as a suggestion to keep that it mind. Also, he/she simply stated their "preference". However, that was me agreeing with the other editor. And I made it a point to concede that those false allegations against D'Souza rose to the level of actual charges, indictments, and jail time for this patriot. So they are clearly more than simple allegations. My bad for the semantics. However, I researched the past year or two on this page and found several back and forth arguments on this subjects, so the "two editors" you mention are only part of that. It is unclear what the consensus on exact wording should be, but I acknowledge the need to include it. My only qualm is including it in the verbose, embarrassing way that it is in the lead. Living breathing subjects deserve respect where possible and there is no need IMHO to draw so much attention to it. Do not worry. I will only move forward on this if others chime in. And I understand that sometimes there are Anthony Weiners and other felon political types that have erred so badly that there is no other way to describe them without personal embarrassment. But I think it is clear that the selective prosecution of petty process crimes against a man like D'Souza is not in the same serious class of crimes that an Anthony Weiner commits or the treason that Hillary committed by sharing classified emails and trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination. It's a slippery slope and a matter of scale and whether you agree with D'Souza bravely telling the truth the way he does, he's a law-abiding citizen unlike Weiner or the Clintons. That's my final thoughts on this. Thank you for your feedback.Luciusfoxx (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not editors. Did you really make a blanket statement about liberal editors being non-neutral right after an editor whose user page describes him as a liberal disagreed with you, and then think you had any leg to stand on to follow it up with this comment? Get over yourself.
D'Souza bravely telling the truth the way he does That is categorically and demonstrably false.
he's a law-abiding citizen unlike Weiner or the Clintons That is categorically, demonstrably and definitionally false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Do not put words in my mouth. I am not claiming or accusing you (or anyone here) of being "liberal." I would be insulted too if someone accused me of being a liberal. And I don't go onto other people's pages, if I can help it, to inquire as to your political beliefs. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I think we both know where we stand on this issue.Luciusfoxx (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The coverage of this in the lead is fine as it is. The conviction and pardon are among the key things that he is known for so they both belong there. Omitting either fact would be an act of censorship giving a dishonestly skewed view of the situation. Including both is factual, honest and neutral. Omitting both would be to leave an egregious gap to the point where we might as well give up on having an article at all.
I won't comment on the factually incorrect bloviations above except to say that we are not here to write fictionalised hagiography so the question of his sainthood simply doesn't arise. People are entitled to their opinions, however odd, and they are entitled to express their opinions in places where opinion is properly expressed. Wikipedia is not one of those places. Lets keep the coverage neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I was only making the case about my edit, which I have more or less dropped for now. I have no desire to debate politics here, and thank you for being of like-mind. Thank you for your feedback.Luciusfoxx (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lucius foxxman, I agree with Dan Rigal; regardless of whether D'Souza was unfairly prosecuted, or was prosecuted more harshly than others would have been, or whether that prosecution constitutes a political "hit", is not relevant to the inclusion of that story in the lead paragraph. He is well known partially for this specific scandal and it's important to include for that reason. I also think both sides of the argument are well-enough addressed in the section relating to the incident.
However, I would support the addition of a clause to the lead paragraph that acknowledges the pardon from Pres. Trump was granted due to perceived unfairness during the prosecution, as it is pertinent to the readers' initial impression of D'Souza and because the sources support that information. I would also support including in the appropriate section an elaboration upon D'Souza's claims that he was targeted by the Obama administration as a direct result of his criticism of Pres. Obama, which is currently implied but could be easily expounded upon. The sources support that information as well, as D'Souza has made that claim and the claim has been reported on by the media.
I don't think either of those changes could be taken as granting undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talkcontribs) 22:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of other participants, User:Luciusfoxx has been indefed and after an appeal was declined, left a comment suggesting they weren't coming back. I initially closed this thread, but then noticed SK8RBOI seems to have made some proposals for change. I suggest any discussion should focus on that, or other proposals not made by Luciusfoxx, unless they are unblocked or someone else supports their proposals. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019[edit]

The mention of "Conspiracy Theorist" & "Conspiracy Theory" need to be removed. That is a personal opinion by whomever wrote the wiki listing and not based on actual facts. Personal opinions and SNARK cannot be placed on a person's wiki-page by random people and promoted as being factual. It's not. It's personal opinion bordering on slander/libel. Everything D'Souza writes about or films is based on actual documented fact that can be easily verifiable by anyone willing to put in the effort to do so. Federal, State and Local Records available to the public being the most significant sources for his research.

The Reference to Christian Apologetics needs to be removed. There is no such thing and is, once again, the personal opinion of the person who wrote the wiki entry, not based on any actual facts or existing credible agencies. There is no such thing as Christian apologetics, white privilege or gender fluidity in human beings. None of these "ideologies" are supported by facts or recognized as being factual or true by any credible scientific body or credible governing body dealing with these types of issues. There is no universal consensus that accepts these ideologies as being factual or even existing.

References of "Far-Right" need to be removed. "Far-Right" suggests an association with Skin Heads and that is simply not true. Being non-white himself, D'Souza would be physically harmed by the very people he is accused of being one of. Any claims that he is "Far-Right" is patently false and need to be removed.

In the section of Authorship: "End of Racism", "What's So Great About America", "The Enemy at Home", "The Big Lie", "The Roots of Obama's Rage" and the moronic "Christian apologetics series" needs to be edited or just removed entirely. The descriptions of each of his books are rampant with speculation and negative criticism not based on what he said in his books but based instead on what people who didn't like his books THOUGHT he meant. No referenced are made about these re-interpretations and the articles are written as if they are based on fact when they are not. They are rife with personal animus. The writer of this wiki section doesn't cover the books themselves but instead writes extensive criticisms and reviews based on his or other's personal feelings. A Person's wiki page is not the place for reviewers to ramp up personal attacks on the subject of the wiki page. It's a place to note ACTUAL facts about that person or the book or movie and nothing more.

The Movies section is also rife with rampant speculation and bias especially when it leaves out the fact that the "reviews" his movies receive on review sites are minimal and all by LEFT LEANING people inclined to hate his topics. At the very least, footnotes stating these obvious facts needs to be added to give the page visitor proper perspective.

Views and Perspectives section might as well be removed all together. There is virtually nothing written there that is factual other than there is a man named Dinesh D'Souza and he writes books, makes movies and is a Conservative. Pretty much everything else is rank speculation and Hate-Spew against D'Souza and does not reflect D'Souza's actual beliefs or views. (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done All of the content you object to seems to be validly referenced to reliable sources and reflects those sources not our personal opinions. Also, just because you have never heard of Christian apologetics before that does not mean that we made it up just to annoy you. It is a real thing with almost two millennia of history. If you are interested, you can learn what it is by clicking the link to it. If you do then you will see that is a genuine subject within Christian theology and is taught at many Christian Theological Seminaries. Hope this helps. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)