Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

Curious about “provocateur” in the first paragraph
How many sources do we have for this term? Does Wikipedia allow this label based on few sources? I was able to find two to there sources for this but it seems sensational and to put it in the first paragraph as if it was his job or his title doesn't look right. 102.44.242.240 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a new replacement for the word “internet troll” since it reads as both more accurate and NPOV (even though previous sources used the word troll repeatedly to describe “provocateurs.”). Long answer is, yes, this is allowed and RS supports this. If you can find more sources, I am absolutely open to hearing how he is described. Tyrone (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

the word provocateur is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.217.225 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * An agent provocateur is a person who commits, or who acts to entice another person to commit, an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation of, or entice legal action against, the target, or a group they belong to or are perceived to belong to. Wikipedia
 * Pointing only to his promotion of "birthirism" and his (2000 mules) film in which extraordinarily thin "evidence" is paraded as proven fact, it's very clear that D'Souza's central objectives include promotion of illegal acts (disenfranchisement), reputational damage (birthirism) and enticement of legal action against (presumed legal voters) groups and individuals. *Please consider signing your comments in future posts. Jhall 3rd (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Assertions without argument can be ignored. Jibal (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that provocateur was removed from the lead with the summary "not an occupation"] and without reference to this discussion here, which bothers me a bit. MOS:LEAD says we should list "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." So the fact that it's not an occupation isn't a reason for removing it. Is it "contentious"? Looking at the various discussions on about the term "conspiracy theorist" on Wikipedia talk:MOS, the consensus appears to be if there are enough good quality sources for a possibly contentious term, then it can go in. At present, still in the lead as sources for the term, are the Guardian, BBC, LA Times and NPR, all headlining articles about him with the word "provocateur". Isn't that good enough for inclusion? OsFish (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be reinserted. It was removed without consensus and the reason was bogus, as you note. Jibal (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * no it shouldnt: MOS:LEAD is clear: "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." --FMSky (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022
An approved editor just a few hours ago edited this entry to note that D'Souza believed in the conspiracy theory that George Soros assisted the Nazis against the Jews and that this assertion is untrue. However, George Soros himself plainly admits he helped the Nazis against the Jews in a 60 Minutes interview available here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QSyczwuTQfo. Starting at 6:57 you can hear the story of how Soros helped get his fellow Jews arrested, ultimately leading to the death of many. Soros himself freely admits this in this 60 Minutes interview aired on CBS television in tbe U.S. This, therefore, needs to be corrected since it accuses D'Souza of propogating an untruth. I will check back soon to see if this gets corrected. Thanks! 97.119.116.69 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Xenologer48 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interview Soros asserts that as a very young boy (14) he "accompanied" his godfather on visits where the Nazis would confiscate belongings from Jews. He also points out that the experience instilled deep within him the idea the evil does exist and ought to be acted against actively rather than passively. When you do check back to see if your claims have been included in this bio please do tell us exactly how you know that he was "helping the Nazis" arrest Jews and thus causing their condemnation to death. Even if this were to be true -and it may be- it would be very misleading and unfair to make the statement that "George Soros assisted the Nazis against the Jews" as a stand-alone comment without mentioning the crucial fact that he was 14 years old, ensconced in a plan made by his father to save his son via placement with this godfather figure and clueless as to what was happening or it's significance. Please people - let's be a bit more detailed in pushing startling statements like this as informational when they paint a very small part of the overall picture. Jhall 3rd (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I could have just said : context please. Jhall 3rd (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the audio wasn't working correctly when you watched the video because none of your claims are correct. At 10:00 Soros says that he was a spectator and played no role in taking property. There isn't anything at all about getting Jews arrested. Jibal (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the veracity of this claim is, but I have a very big problem with referring to it as a conspiracy theory. "Conspiracy theory" has become one of the most overused terms, seemingly used to refer to any political theory one disagrees with. Either Soros helped out the local Nazis or he didn't - either way, there would be no conspiracy involved. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See, D'Souza discusses it because he associates Soros with the democrats and he cherry picks it in order to therefore push his claim that Fascism is leftist. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E6A4:78FF:DA8A:79F0 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes - dishonest summing up
Article states that “ The similar website Rotten Tomatoes-surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus”

BUT why does it not also say that the publics assessment of the film is 84% positive? This should be put in for the sake of honesty. Rustygecko (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to including that if it were cited to a reliable source. We have other articles with similar statements; for example the article on The Accountant (2016 film) says that critics rated it low but audiences rated it high, and cited all the sources needed to support those claims. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For a reliable source just go and look at Rotten Tomatoes. Rustygecko (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But, thinking about it, this exposes a deeper problem. Whoever put that in new that they were being intellectually dishonest and biased against the subject.
 * If you read the whole article in fact it looks like nobody supports what he’s saying at all. It’s a more of an attack piece rather than a balanced view of the subject. Rustygecko (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Film says Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for summarizing reviews by professional film critics. It is not considered a reliable source for audience reaction, and the film in question is clearly subject to demographic skew. Following the Manual of Style is not being . Instead, it is what editors are expected to do. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Rustygecko, you write: "If you read the whole article in fact it looks like nobody supports what he’s saying at all. It’s a more of an attack piece rather than a balanced view of the subject." You describe an issue unrelated to Rotten Tomatoes. It's related to reliable source coverage, due weight, and how we avoid a false balance and promotion/advocacy of fringe POV. The sources and people (including editors) who believe and support D'Souza are fringe and are given low weight here. (Such editors are often blocked or banned.) Such views are underplayed because they are fringe and unreliable.

To get their POV about D'Souza covered here, it must be covered in RS, and then we cite those RS, with the shading and framing from the RS, IOW we present and attribute it as clearly fringe and untrustworthy. You will find that our articles on fringe personalities, fringe topics, and conspiracy theories will have this framing, and that's how it should be. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We do not present mainstream and fringe views as of equal worth. They are not. Anyone who is fringe and who wants better coverage here should drop their lies and conspiracy theories, let that improvement change their reputations, and then get published favorably in more RS. Until then, the coverage of them here will make them look bad, and that's fair and proper. We give more weight to RS, so it's an unavoidable situation. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What is RS?
 * So you are saying that Wiki doesn’t present fairly an idea that the authors dislike? Doesn’t that make Wiki very dominated by the zeitgeist rather than giving objective information? Rustygecko (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The acronym "RS" is shorthand on talk pages for "reliable source". Articles report what reliable sources say. That is the standard of objective information here. Read Valjean's reply again now that you know what RS means. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Alex O Connor Debate
"A writer of Christian apologetics, D'Souza has debated against prominent atheists and critics of Christianity on religious and moral issues. His debate opponents have included Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, David Silverman, and Bart D. Ehrman." Shall we add he debated Alex O Connor? BenDoleman (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)