Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 1

LEFTIST ADMINISTRATORS NOT CREDIBLE SOURCES FOR ASSESSING THE VALUE OF THE WORK OF CONSERVATIVES
I deleted the reference to the Leftist administrator at Dartmouth deriding Mr. D'Souza's paper for having a different ideological stance than himself and the people who insure his tenure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.145.28 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This removed statement seems verifiable, if positively sourced, and may come from the NY Times article cited above it. That article is not free to view though, alas. Anyone have a subscription with which to search the article for the alleged quote? I hardly think that one of the Dartmouth staff, employed partly for the purpose of holding at least some authority over The Prospect, cannot be considered a credible critic of the paper. (By the way, the word you were looking for was "ensure." Insuring his tenure would be taking out an insurance policy on it, or betting against it in some other way) What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please get some progressive editors in here to lampshade Mr.Souza some more? This article isn't nearly negative enough. Surely some verifiable sources of his evil can be found ? ELD 24.254.240.91 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

C-Span interview Feb 4, 2007

 * This is not a forum for general discussion of Dinesh D'Souza. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dinesh D'Souza at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

Irrelevant info
The sections "Critics" and "A millionaire" seem to be attacks without relevance. One name critics call him is not very relevant, especially without a source. Anr public political figure is likely to have snarky nicknames, but they are usually not interesting in a encyclopedic context. Also, the section about his finances seems to imply that there's something unseemly about his making money. I do not believe Wikipedia considers this worthy of note on other much higher paid speakers such as Bill Clinton or Sean Hannity.

Now in the interest of honesty, I should point out that I am a conservative and like D'Souza. I'm not trying to remove criticism, just irrelevant criticism. For now, I'm removing both sections. I would like to see some honest (or at least sourced, in the case of the name-calling) critiscism. But I don't think we need this pointless stuff. Vonspringer 09:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the "Distort D'Newsa" "nickname" he received. I agree that it can probably be omitted from the article (as for the source, I got it from the book Blinded by the Right.
 * As for the "millionaire" section, the information there seems relevant. Perhaps you would object less if we called the section "success at the speaking circuit?" --Asbl 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough. I have no objection to including relevant financial information, I just didn't like the previous wording which seemed to imply it was wrong for him to earn money. Vonspringer 04:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Added Category
I've added him under the category indian christians, very intelligent guy, actually not a fan of him or his work, but we accept our own, warts and all;-)--71.30.177.228 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Positive Biography, not an opportunity to Denigrate the Opposition
Previous editors seem to have added language with pejorative terms. It seems irrelevant to use a biographical page to characterize opponents of his political views as "enemies". In addition, defining his views in opposition to some "left-wing" view (also a pejorative) implies a lesser value of them on their own.

It also grates upon me that one can say that his views might be perceived as racist if he were white. This is especially ironic in the face of Mr. D'Souza's opposition to the whole notion of institutionalized racism in America. In fact, if comments may be interpreted as racist, the comments cam stand on their own, indipendant of the identity politics involving the writer.

My latest edit, I believe, achieves a balance of describing the subject without denigrating those who would disagree with him.

Justus R 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * His "opposition to the whole notion of institutionalized racism" is racist. How? Because he doesn't oppose institutionalized racism, he opposes any suggestion that it actually exists. Thus, he (deliberately) helps to maintain it. 71.203.209.0 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment. It was not addressing the validity of his views. What I was saying on that subject is that the determination of whether certain views are racist does not depend on the identity of the person espousing them, but on the views themselves.

Goan, without any white ancestry
As a Goan, I emailed him and he confirmed that his parents were Goans settled in Bombay, and without any white ancestry.

'''I have tried to add him to the Category: Goa page, but I cannot understand how to. Can someone please do so?'''

WikiSceptic 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to add my weith to this and the former comment: Goa was one of the longest held portuguese possessions and so there was a great influence in religious and onomastic practices, which doesn't however correlate to actual ancestry (which is there, but not it the the scale that looking at surnames would indicate). Also, can someone add his ancestry/origin to the page? I find it bizarre that this is ommited especially since it's relevant to his views on immigration, etc. The way it is written doesn't specify his origin and one can only try to guess it.--195.245.185.32 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this ("(hence the Portuguese surname)") to his personal details. Note that it does not imply that D'Souza has any Portuguese ancestry.

--89.152.28.78 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Personal wealth' section
If an alternative press paper in the county of San Diego, distributed gratis, decides to smear D'Souza as someone who profits from being a bigot, they're free to do so. However, D'Souza is one of many popular US scientist and media persons who cater to the fancy of both the US public and academe for public speaking. This is well paid for the more prominent ones, be it Chomsky or D'Souza. Can we conclude that this section is smear too, and thus WP:POV?

I deleted the last paragraph too, having been shoved in disregarding of pertinence anyway. That some of his detractors, generalised as "student population," chose to label him as "racist" and "bigot," was obviously introduced to the WP article to smear him with that terms by association. --tickle me 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone re-added the "Personal Wealth" to the personal section. I agree with you.  Unless we're going to add a personal wealth section to every single public person with a listing here on wikipedia, it doesn't really add much to the discussion. I deleted it and the description of his wife from the same source. It seems rather unnessary to include a quote about she's blonde or petite or what she was wearing. --Jdcaust 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

D'Souza Prospect Scandal
I deleted the information about the D'Souza scandal where he purported printed information about a girl's sex life. The source goes to a dead link. This was removed to follow guidelines in Biographies of Living Persons. According those guidelines: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." When someone finds a source on this that is both reliable and accessible, it can be re-added with the information that the source provides. --Jdcaust 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found a source, I've added it and wrote the section based on that source. --Jdcaust 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so my source was a blog that mentioned NY Times articles as its source. I checked the article on the NY Times archives.  I found one and included information from that. However, the article that supposedly says he discussed the girl's sex life is no where to be found in the archives.  I tried multiple search terms, even going as broad as checking all Princeton references in the Times in 1984 and I still couldn't find it.  As it is, I don't really trust a blog that doesn't have its own reliable sources, so I re-added what I could corroborate.  Please do not re-add information about the scandal where he discusses her sex life from this url: http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/01/concerned_alumn_1.html . I will remove it under Citing sources and WikiProject Fact and Reference Check  Any other sources that can verifying that information would be welcome. --Jdcaust 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Research and POV sentences keep getting re-added.
Academic Challenger, you and someone anonymous (who may have also been you), Someone keeps adding two sentences to the Social Policy and Affirmative Action sections that are both uncited original research and POV:

1) as being programs that encourage dependency by minority groups on social programs, albeit without offering an alternative solution.

2) Additionally, he does not mention in any of his publications the government affirmative action initiatives of his native India on behalf of the Untouchables and the redress of inequities to that Indian caste.

You would be hard pressed to find any respectable editors who thinks either of these comments are constructive or appropriate for a wikipedia article. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:Bio. If you are honestly trying to improve the article, please read up on these and other wikipedia guidelines before you continue. See associated comments on your talk page. --Jdcaust 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology to User:Academic Challenger. I wrongly identfied you as the person who made the edits.  See my associated strike-through above and comments on your talk page.  --Jdcaust 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Principles of the American Revolution
The article states that D'Souza believes in "conserving the principles of the American Revolution." But didn't post-revolutionary United States tolerate slavery? And didn't one of the founding fathers (Jefferson)father illegitimate children by one of his female slaves? The article states that D'Souza opposed birth control on campus at the university he attended, and is undoubtedly a conservative (this word is oft and ill-used)on sexual matters.132.156.43.8
 * I'm assuming you meant for this to be in a new category so I made it as such. What edits do you propose?  You can't say that D'Souza would be supportive of slavery because that would be original research and you'll never find a source that states that.  Are you making the argument that D'Souza doesn't support the principles of the American Revolution?  Since he said as much, you'd be hard pressed to find a source that debates that.  Just including that without a source would also be original research.  Also, who's debating that he is a conservative? As of yet, you haven't proposed anything that should be changed that wouldn't violate wikipedia policy.  --Jdcaust 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "conserving the principles of the American Revolution" has nothng to do with the notion of the habits of the American Revolutionists. The "principles of the American Revolution" are many but they do not include knocking up slaves.

The former colonies had major flaws that compromised the meaning of the word "principle"--at least that word's use in the positive sense. And conservative is a subjective concept: environmentalists--a group derided by many conservative--could be called "conservative": they want to conserve nature, something basically existing at the very least since the creation of the United States. Then again, if you want to discuss semantics, conservative and right-wing are not really the same thing--though many consider them so.132.156.43.8 —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, but I'm not sure that they apply here. Whether or not it's the appropriate use of the term, the general understanding of conservative is synonymous with right-wing both here on wikipedia and in the mind of the general public.  Dinesh D'Souza fits well under the term conservative as defined in Conservatism and especially in Conservatism in the United States.  For these reasons, I believe that the label fits based on its 'modern' definition, even if the traditional or historical definition doesn't agree.
 * As for arguing about the flaws of the colonies and how they apply to people espousing the "Principles of the Revolution" today, I think you'd have an excellent topic for a historical essay or opinion piece. I'm guessing you have the knowledge to write that.  Unfortunately, such arguments do not fit in the encyclopedic content of wikipedia.  What belongs here is a NPOV overview of the topic without originial research in a way that can be easily understood by the general public.  Placing such information here, especially without strong secondary sources, may also violate WP:Biographies of Living Persons in that we should avoid guilt by association.
 * With the disagreements you have, I believe your points may be better fitted in the articles for Conservatism, Declaration of Independence, or United States Constitution. The points you bring up are notable and valid if you have sources to back them up.  This article just isn't the proper place to put them. Thanks for your concern, though.  I'm always open to suggestions to improve things here, as a lot of work is still needed. You should also consider creating a log-in name for yourself as you have obvious interest in the editting that goes on.  --Jdcaust 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

D'Souza's views on feminism
Like most of his views, he has based his opinion of feminism on a shallow understanding of the topic in question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal of most feminists is not necessarily to "break into" the man's working world, as it were, but rather to demand a choice between home life and outside work. --Blob4000 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. Everyone can have an opinion of his views.  You can think he's right or wrong and that's fine.  However, that has no place on a wikipedia page.  The discussion page for the article is also not the place to discuss the man, but the place to discuss how to improve the page.  If you would like to discuss D'Souza, I am sure there are plenty of places on the web (especially forums) where people dissect his views and debate their worth.  If you would like to propose ways to improve the page, please do.  If you yourself would like to improve the page, please edit it, as long as you reference your material and stay away from original research and point of view statements. --Jdcaust (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Beta
This is to the anonymous editor who keeps changing the wording of Phi Kappa Beta. The proper grammatical way to describe Phi Kappa Beta honors is to say they "graduated Phi Kappa Beta in" whatever they graduated in. This is the way it is on Rivers Cuomo, Emily Bergl, Jeb Bush, and Jennifer Granholm. Another description found in Glenn Close and Benazir Bhutto says they were "elected to" Phi Beta Kappa, butgiven your reason for changing this in the first place, I doubt this method would please you as well. Considering that other articles list things the same way and that this maintains a high standard of writing quality (unlike "graduated in English with a prize of Phi Kappa Beta. Whew, that's wordy!), I believe this is the best wording possible. If people are truly confused, the society 'is' wikilinked, so they can go there and learn all about it. --Jdcaust (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why only negative quotes?
I assume the writer simply wanted to cast D'souza's book in a negative light by citing only negative sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I haven't been around for a while, but some anon editors have been overloading this article with negative information about D'Souza.  The negative stuff is being given way too much undue weight.  When I get some time, I'll try and clean it all up. --Jdcaust (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Bad Faith Award section.
I just removed the "bad faith award" section. This not only comes from a very biased source, the New Humanist (which is both anti-religion and far left), but is completely non-notable. Why should anyone care that the New Humanist gave him this award. Should include the opinion of every magazine and newspaper that has ever commented on Mr. D'Souza? The survey doesn't even come up in a single independent, neutral source such as a newspaper or news transcript. Per WP:BLP, this contentious material has been removed until it can be sourced with a reliable, unbiased and independent reference that shows this to be notable. --Jdcaust (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Enemy at Home Section
I tagged it for neutrality for now. As has been discussed above, sections of the article have given criticism a ton of undue weight without balancing the other side. As I clean this up, I'm going to leave the tag. Once this is completed, I'll remove it. --Jdcaust (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
This statement, "As an Indian immigrant (with Portuguese blood)" is a gross overgeneralisation, way off target, and most probably incorrect.

The fact that he has failed to provide his residency status, and prove he came to the US legally is troubling. I think this should be mentioned.

Goa is a region along the west coast of India. It was one of the first, and longest-held European colonies in Asia (1510-1961). But that doesn't mean that people carrying Portuguese surnames have "Portuguese blood".

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa

I should know, I live there. This is no political point. Just an attempt to correct an inaccuracy. Incidentally, I strongly disagree with D'Souza's views, which could well result in a setback to the cause for greater racial equality and integration. But that isn't particularly relevant here. --fredericknoronha 18:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dinesh has no portugese blood. He admitted to that. In fact he is from the low cast Hindu's who were converted to christianity by portugese colonials.

How does he claim that Muslim rulers of India did not kill millions of Hindus? Had he had attended the high school in India, he would have known the reality. Muslim rulers like Aurangzeb are famous for their cruelty and their unique ways such as throwing people in hot oil, and cementing them in walls alive. One example would be Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was thrown into a cauldron of hot boiling oil, and later beheaded in public for not accepting Islam. There also goes a joke about two vultures planning for a feast, awaiting the mass slaughter in a near by village by a Muslim conqueror. His black color does not adorn him with the disposition to pass statements about India just because he feels like. It's a shame the world listens to idiots and hypocrites like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbharti (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Islam section
I'm just making a few minor edits as I read this but I think this section needs some work. It's mainly quotes from one debate and recent edits by a new editor don't seem to be well worded. Richard001 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

PR FIRM
Wow, it looks like somebody's PR firm was busy writing articles for their client... I've seen actual notable intellectuals with smaller and less detailed pages than this. I mean, even Doris Lessing has a shorter wikipedia page. No offense to this page, it is very detailed and cites all the necessary sources. But I'd pick over this information with a fine comb. Wikipedia is for notable infomation, not for every detail of this man's life, its like they are publishing his resume. Well played big business... --75.69.161.74 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DDS Interviewed About Life After Death
Here is an interview DDS did about his newly released book, “Life After Death: The Evidence”: Q&A: Dinesh D'Souza on Life After Death by Paul Kengor. Asteriks (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion Section?
I'm curious if anyone has any info on D'Souza's religion background. Seems like it might be relevant since much of his commentary apparently centers around "culture war" issues.


 * Yeah, Mr. D'Souza is known for his very controversial views on Muslims and the 'War on Terror,' yes? I was actually wondering whether he might have some distant (or even recent) Sephardic heritage in his family due to the fact that he is from Goa and has a very recognizable Portuguese last name. Apparently a few Jews still exist in Goa to this day (most of them merchants and found in the learned upper-classes of Goa), though most of the former Sephardic population of Goa has of course already long assimilated in to the populace and adopted either Catholicism (which makes them a "New Christian") or even Hinduism. So, it is theoretically possible for D'Souza and others to be a Catholic religiously and a Jew ethnically (even if only a tiny bit). However, it gets even more interesting because often-times these Sephardic Jews would adopt Catholicism outwardly (in society) yet would remain secretly Jewish (within the home and with trusted others). They would also continue marrying other Jews exclusively as well in order to retain their ethnic Jewish heritage (they married other crypto-Jews through silent agreements with one another). However, the Goa Inquisition basicially demolished Jewish life in Goa, but some did continue living on there, even if they were totally secretive about it. This is of course all speculation when it comes to Mr. D'Souza, but it is indeed worth looking in to!  --Wassermann 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some info on that, but the section I wrote needs some editing by others. Towsonu2003 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sam Harris quote does not belong as was clearly added by an atheist who wanted a criticism of D'Souza's statement. This would not be in a real encyclopedia. Isn't that what people are striving for here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.212.25 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Girlfriends/Love Life?
Should it be mentioned that he has dated Ann Coulter and been engaged to Laura Ingraham (Interracial Relationships)? It seems pertinent to accusations of racism, as it can support those accusations from one view (both are white-women) and repudiate them from another view (ignoring the color of skin to find the conservative inside). --Darth Kottaram 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't even know if he did date Laura Ingraham. Besides, someone once told me NNDb isn't very reliable. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This section appears to be both unreliable and irrelevant. Deleting discussions of his dating life.
 * Why did you delete this?--Ericg33 (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that he and Ann Coulter had a relationship, to say nothing of Laura Ingraham. Where is the proof? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this unsourced material. Not even sure if it is notable enough for inclusion regardless. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Research Fellowship
The first sentence of this article mentions his (past?) Research Fellowship with the Hoover Institution at Stanford. If he is still a Fellow, this sentence should read in present tense. If he is no longer a Fellow or if this information is not currently available, I think it should be mentioned elsewhere (early career, maybe). --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

D'Souza is not currently listed as a fellow on the | Hoover Institution website. Editing accordingly. Aaronshaw (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, D'Souza's categorization here as Stanford Faculty appears to be incorrect without further evidence - the Hoover Institution is housed on the Stanford campus and shares in part of the Stanford endowment, but it's fellows are not necessarily members of the Stanford Faculty. They are officially classified as 'academic staff' along the lines of department administrators and the like, but very different from either tenure track or adjunct teaching faculty. For more on this issue: see | here, | here and here. Aaronshaw (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Christian apologetics in lead
I had to follow the link to understand Christian apologist. While the term is technically accurate defender of Christianity is easier to understand in an encyclopedic sense. Therefore I'm maintaining the internal link but piping it from "defender of christianity". Should be no rational objection to this since Christian apologist is defined as a defender of christianity. I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think both apologetic and defender are fairly loaded terms, though apologetic is widely accepted within the academic community. I suggest changing the sentence to explain that he writes something like "arguments for the objective truth of the Christian religion's beliefs." I'm tempted to type dogma instead of beliefs, but that is another somewhat prejudicial word. Arguments could be a link, or Christian apologetics could be mentioned by name apart from this explanation. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions section
I've attempted to give this section structure, but couldn't help but notice that it concentrates almost purely on what D'Souza himself says (WP:PRIMARY sources) as opposed to the reception of those comments by (prominent) WP:SECONDARY sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Spencer Debate
The concluding sentence/paragraph regarding the Spencer/D'Souza debate conveyed the impression that Spencer had refuted D'Souza in a subsequent interview. It never mentioned that the interview was conducted by a close political associate, Pamela Geller. I revised the section to point out that Spencer's refutations were not made in open debate, that the interview was friendly. Since Spencer did address pertinent issues, I removed citation questioning the source. Tapered (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bell Curve
As far as I know D'Souza is a supporter of the racist screed The Bell Curve (1994) and he believes in genetic social Darwinist theories; for example, most Blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites or other races and that explains their aggregate lower performance standards compared to whites on standardized tests. Like many ultra-right wingers he whitewashes or minimalizes atrocities against peasants in Central America by US-backed militias (he attacked Rigoberta Menchu for "lying" about parts of her book on her experiences as a Mayan in Guatemala in the 1980s). Many of his racialist arguments are rather easy to poke holes through, though his more traditionally conservative positions have more merit on libertarian grounds. --Daxtox 05:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Menchu admitted to fabricating much of her biography; the Nobel committee also admitted that much of it was made up, but decided not to revoke her award. This is hardly "ultra-conservative" bias; in adddition, he actually argues against the notion that black people are inferior, accusing people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of promoting such racist messages. (LaszloWalrus) [written by 68.7.212.152, added by Asbl 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)]

Indeed. The common mistake is that he holds the belief, or at least argued, that African-American(as in, black people who're from the United States, and not all black in the States) have a bad culture. Not that they, as an actual, genetic people are bad, but that their culture holds some rather bad flaws, including high rate of illegitimacy, lack of much education, blahblah. In other words, it's an ethnic argument, not a racial one.


 * At some point an ethnic argument becomes a racial discussion. If he has written as cited in the article that blacks are inferior to whites, then that is a racist statement and not a cultural argument. People are free to hold racist views, but they should also be honest enough to admit the fact. Merlin1935 (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Our opinions on these other opinions don't matter so much to this article, but if all of this is part of his opposition to affirmative action, it deserves a moment's discussion and clarification. Allow me to point out that he did not come up with the idea that African-American culture is holding African-Americans back, nor the idea of claiming that it is not a racial argument. It is. The difference between an ethnicity and a race is so vague and indefinite so as not to exist in many cases. His distinctions between the two don't categorically state what he believes to be genetic/racial and what cultural/ethnic, exactly, because neither he nor the authors of the Bell Curve can ever be sure whether the statistics they are interpreting have come about because of genetics, culture, or both. If you want to read a killer commentary on The Bell Curve read Stephen J. Gould's section on it from his book The Mismeasure of Man. Gould has more analytical insight in his pinky toe than D'Souza and all of his closest colleagues combined. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

General comment
Are you sure about his admitting to his "low caste"? I don't know if it matters, since the info isn't on his page, but in his book, "What's So Great About America?" he recounts a story in which his grandfather (I think, I don't have the book in front of me) tells him that he is fortunate because he was born a Brahmin, which I understand to be a high caste.

Is it really noteworthy to add the part about Keith Olbermann commenting on D'souza's appearance on a different show? Did Keith Olbermann add that himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right! From that book, p. 82-3: "my grandfather called in my brother, my sister, and me, and asked us if we knew how lucky we were. Finally we pressed him: why did he consider us so lucky? Then he revealed the answer: 'Because you are Brahmins!'" (Just in case this seems to have been a surprise to him, that's not how the book is telling it; he claims merely to have been learning what a Brahmin was for the 1st time.) And yes, Brahmin was the highest caste in India. It was rare for Brahmin families to convert to Christianity, given the social influence that they received for staying Hindu, and even rarer before the British had a strong presence in India, when it was just the Portuguese running protection rackets and taking over this or that coastal community temporarily. As you can imagine, this behavior didn't inspire many Indians to join their religion. A link to p. 83 of the book. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Debate with Bart Ehrman
D'Souza has debated Bart Ehrman twice, I think. Should we add something to the religion section on it? ELH76345 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dualist Panentheism
This is not demonstrably, factually correct: "He has argued for dualist Panentheism which is in conflict with traditional Christianity."

I don't know what kind of "dualist Panentheism" Mr. D'Souza is supposed to have advocated; the source is simply a note with the date of a debate.

Regardless, there are forms of dualistic Panentheism which are wholly compatible with Christianity as understood by Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

If one takes "traditional" to mean American protestantism, then I suppose the sentence is correct no matter what the definition of dualist Pantentheism.

I don't expect this discussion to bear fruit. Reader beware.--24.21.36.196 (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. There's no real citation, it's in one unremarkable line towards the bottom, and i taken in the broadest terms, is a gigantic claim, akin to describing Dawkins as an agnostic. It's not necessarily 180 degrees, but it's a significant distinction to make. I'm going to remove it for the time being until someone can produce more substantial evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkwoftw (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

College president
Where's the section on Dinesh D'Souza as "college president"? I had heard he is or was a college president, so I search this WP article for "college president" and find nothing in the text. The search yields two 'hits' but no section and nothing in the text. There needs to be a section 1.9 President of The King's College (New York) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Genesis 4:9 ("Am I my brother's keeper?")
We saw it first on DrudgeReport; and this morning on The Blaze: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/i-have-no-one-else-to-ask-dinesh-dsouza-says-he-paid-hospital-bill-for-obamas-half-brother/  George Obama (half-brother) is conservative.

FoxNews has also picked up the “My Brother’s Keeper” theme. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/ This is an opinion article (on the front page) by Dinesh D'Souza. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Rosey Grier's All American Heroes: Today's Multcultural Success Stories" reliable?
Rosey Grier's All American Heroes: Today's Multcultural Success Stories (1993) has a bio of D'Souza. The bio appears to have been copied with attribution on Sodahead. Is the book reliable?--Nowa (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

NNDB reliable?
Is NNDB generally considered a reliable reference for biographical information?--Nowa (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been several past discussion about this source at the reliable sources noticeboard. You can look at those discussion here.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The discussion is now archived here.  It seems questionable at best. It might be worth trying to find alternative references.--Nowa (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson a prominent atheist or sceptic?
According to wikipedia the Reverend Jackson is a Baptist Minister. Therefore I believe that sentence is factually incorrect.207.145.86.162 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Shervyn
 * Agreed. D'Souza did debate Jesse Jackson, but the debate was about racism in America, not religion.--Nowa (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

White ancestry?
He must have European ancestry because he has a Portuguese name. I guessed that he was from Goa because of his name, before I discovered that he was born in Bombay of Goan parents. Goa was a Portuguese colony. This would also explain why he's Catholic.


 * "Must have"? Um... no. The vast majority of Indian Catholics are of an Indian ethnic group and took surnames from the priests they were converted by. Likewise, most Indian Muslims have Arabic/Farsi name, but they don't have Middle Eastern ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.7.42 (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Better Photo
I'm absolutly no fan of this man, but to place such a photo with his wiki is to put it mildly 'not nice'. There must be a better photo out there... Leaf huntress (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a fan of this man. He has done the job that 'the watchdog of America' should have done during the election cycle that brought us our current president. I would not worry too much about the current photo of Dinesh D'Souza. Readers who visit Wikipedia know there will be a Liberal slant. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It is called transmogrification. There is a penalty to be paid for making money off of Christianity. see Simon Magus Acts 8:9-23. He has attacked the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. He is no intellectual. His work is that of a pure political hack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.246.2 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. — Mine is that he is brilliant, as is his movie, "2016—Obama's America: Love him or hate him, you don't know him." This action movie moves quickly and everything is documented, heavily, not opinion except the three conclusions at the end:
 * From his book [and movie] he bases 2016 predictions on three points. [And I quote, exactly]:

Opinions to the contrary are of interest to me, but only based on evidence and thoughtful logic. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC) PS: Yes, a better photo would be appreciated. Current one looks stupid. The entire premise of the book and movie is insane. Obama met his father once when he was in high school. Elemming (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC) PS: He can correctly be called a Christian apologist and conservative propagandist. Oh? What you mention is only a tiny part of D'Souza's premise. . . The premise of the book is (1) predicting the second term of Obama; (2) "Love him or hate him, you don't know him." Obama went to his father's grave in Kenya and solidified taking on the anti-colonization views of Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Yes, the movie also points out that Obama met his father only once, but that is not the premise of the book and movie. You can still buy the movie at Costco. Let's discuss the views of Dinesh D'Souza again in 2016. The author is reflected in his book and movie. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (1). Obama will do nothing to prevent Iran's nuclear bombs. He hasn't.
 * (2). He will spend money as if the Deficit doesn't matter. He has.
 * (3). If forced to address the Debt/Deficit, he will cut Military and raise taxes.

D'Souza moves to the front of politics in the 2012 presidential election cycle
Since media didn't do the investigation that D'Souza did, not in 2008, nor in 2009 to now, this represents an October Surprise delivered two months early (in my humble opinion). There is more in this movie than many (perhaps most) care to know but should know. It is true to the tagline: "love him or hate him, you don't know him."

Yes we can agree you are a man of simplicity, but you are not humble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.246.2 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)    — Thanks for the comment, you gave me a chuckle. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I just read a D'Souza article he wrote two years ago and suggest that any WP editor here should read it before contributing to this article; (I saw this article listed in our list of D'Souza articles; maybe I'll read more of them.) Important to this article is this: Dinesh D'Souza is going to be noticed ten times more than he was before—he already is now!

This Washington Post article is great, well written, and explains a lot about how Barry Obama become his (absent) dad, Barack Hussein Obama, Senior. (Did I mention it was written two years ago? A movie is more noticeable than many articles.) You can bet that Tea Party Conservatives will support D'Souza and his Obama analysis. This will be important to this article, and the companion article now, 2016: Obama's America. I've begun editing over there now also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't really be replying to this, per WP:NOTFORUM, but I just had to say it seems odd to me to suggest that D'Souza's film uncovers new previously unknown facts about Obama's background. It's all right there in his own book, Dreams from my Father, which was around in 2008 and in fact became something of a bestseller. It's not as though there's any secrets being exposed here, so I think talking about an 'October Surprise' is overstating matters quite a bit. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The movie covers more than is in the autobiography of Obama, which most adults in America did not read — ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, The New York Times, et. al. never reported his past and ideology. The movie starts with Dinesh D'Souza covering his own coming to America as a land of opportunity; and contrasts to the dreams of Obama coming to the White House, to remake America. Time will tell how important this is to our critical 2012 election in November. We can write the history into Wikipedia now as it is happening or wait and see, to weigh the importance of the movie. The astute Wikipedia reader reads both the article and the TALK here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * " Time will tell how important this" is exactly why we should wait. Wikipedia is going to be around, we can wait :) IRWolfie- (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

After 12 weeks in theaters, "2016: Obama's America" is still on the box-office charts at #17 FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Residence
It appears that over a period of time the subject's residence appears to have been altered, possibly being vandalism by insertion of original research, changing the content of the article to say that the subject resides in San Diego and New York City to saying that the subject resides in Texas. I have found some reliable sources showing that the subject does reside (at least part-time) in Rancho Santa Fe, which borders Northern San Diego, and Encinitas. Here are the references: Rancho Santa Fe Review, San Diego Union Tribune, and San Diego Beat. Please correct this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * oops i had thought you were talking about the text in the body. i have removed the claims from the info box because the sourced content in the text contradicts texas claims, and given the change in employer, the residence may change again soon there is no value in trying to put this complicated info in the infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of info in Personal Life section regarding his "engagement"
A lot of sourced info regarding D'Souza's forced resignation from King's College was deleted by someone who described it as "salacious." This info was not at all salacious, which per online dictionaries means lustful or lecherous, obscene or grossly indecent. This info just described D'Souza's behavior and was all sourced and contributed by a number of different people. D'Souza lost a high profile job over this and this info was all relevant and explained why D'Souza lost this job. The info that he filed for divorce only after he was confronted about introducing a young woman as his fiance at a religious convention was deleted. The fact that his "fiance's" facebook account showed that she was decades younger than him and recently married herself was deleted. After the way this article was rewritten the action taken by the school against D'Souza makes no sense, it's as if the school just bizarrely objects to people getting divorced, which obviously wasn't the problem. I've added quotes from a recent New York Times interview in which he was asked about the reports that both he and his "fiance" were both married to others, which is another source for this info which is NOT salacious. Iful (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Iful (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question
When has Dinesh D'Souza defended "Social Darwinism"? I've read three of his books and cannot recall a defense. Can the person who wrote that reveal his source?

Thanks, Ben (benl47)

Untrue
Actually, if you read "The End of Racism", he argues against Murray's IQ thesis, in much the same way Thomas Sowell has debunked the theory. If you were the one to have included that "Social Darwinism" comment, I suggest you remove it because it seems that you are not too familiar with his work. I agree that he occasionally uses *language* that is frustrating and disappointing. I've actually e-mailed him about it, and he agreed that his use of the word "parasitic," for instance, was just too much. His general view is not racialist at all. In fact, that's the whole premise of his book on the issue -- envisioning an end to racism. His thesis is that we can reach such a desirable point if we remove race from the law completely, treating everyone equal under the law, as our Constitution demands.

--Benl47 00:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of Homophobia and Misogyny
Worth a section or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.92.86 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the sources are exceptional: no. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is "exceptional", but you might want to review "Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education" and perhaps trace back the references provided therein. (Many public libraries provide no cost access to JSTOR)--Nowa (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You can be against homosexual 'GAY marriage' and not be afraid of it. It is "not notable". — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's Misogyny? I doubt D.D. has it since he dates and marries. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ROFL - if you think being married prevents one from being a misogynist, you clearly need to revisit your study of what the word means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do people attack Dinesh D'Souza because he is a Conservative? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or because he spoke against Obama? Citizens are noticing now. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Synapsis of the Movie Missing
The section on the Obama:2016 movie seems overly "clipped", as if a bare minimum of facts with an absolutely equal political balance was the goal, and the article has been butchered to deliver that. I'm not saying it's POV, I'm saying it's TOO neutral, to the point that it's neutrality is the focus. As a reader, I'd like to read a bit about the movie. Not necessarily a full synopsis, but the only visual image this section creates for me hinges on the word "psychoanalyze" which I also have problems with. Was the word used literally, as if the D'Souza's intent was to perform Freudian Mental Health Care evaluation on President Obama, or was the word used loosely, metaphorically to give a more "overview" notion of D'Souza's intent. I doubt "A", and "B" is biased as that's the only real impression of the movie the wikipedia article gives. I appreciate the intense nature of the political pressures and the single-minded determination to make things "balanced", but in this case it's the balance that is the focal point, and not a useful and fair description of the movie.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point! -- AstroU (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Four Republican senators question indictment
Headline: Senators Demand FBI Head Answer Questions About Indictment of Dinesh D'Souza Headline: Senators call FBI on carpet over D'Souza charges Lists 12 questions for investigators to explain about developing case. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weekly Standard — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/senators-call-fbi-on-carpet-over-dsouza-charges/
 * I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you understand that WorldNetDaily isn't a reliable source for anything, least of all for a BLP. So why are you posting this here? This isn't your Facebook wall. How does this relate to the actual content of our article? MastCell Talk 04:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been a while—no one noted this important letter by four senators on the Judiciary Committee. You can see what I added in the lede. At your suggestion, I used more acceptable sources: Politico and Washington Examiner. Where do you find a list of sources that are not acceptable? I'm sure you know that a source not usually accepted can be included upon proper appeal and review. And we both know that TALK-discussion is for improving the article here, (which explains my discussion here.) Thanks for asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Story: An elderly teacher told her young class on the first day of school, "There are no rules in my class, but if you break one of them, I'll tell you." I feel the same about the news sources on the 'black list' of Wikipedia. A year or two ago, I spent 30 minutes or more trying to find the WP list of news sources that would be immediately yanked, either by an editor or in some cases by the software. So I know there is a file somewhere (maybe I should ask the WP help desk.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — PS: What I did find was the WP article on 'black-list' and the history of black listing.
 * There is a software-enforced "blacklist", but sources are generally placed there because of spamming, rather than low quality. Outside of those obviously abusive cases, decisions about sourcing are supposed to incorporate common sense. Reliable sources are those with a good reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and quality. I don't think anyone could make a case, with a straight face, that WorldNetDaily meets those criteria, although you wouldn't be the first to try. More generally, the goal of this project is to build a serious, respectable reference work. It should therefore be obvious that partisan punditry is of little, if any, use in creating serious encyclopedic content, unless the point is simply to illustrate what partisan ideologues think about a specific subject. This is where common sense comes in. The Washington Examiner is no one's idea of a serious journalistic endeavor; it's a partisan publication and a very poor source&mdash;especially in a biographical article, where our sourcing standards are much stricter. Politico is fine. MastCell Talk 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insights! -- AstroU (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"VIDEO: Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Trailer Released"
Dinesh D'Souza was the keynote speaker at the annual Conservative PAC (CPAC) and received an ovation after showing his trailer for "America", to be released July 4, 2014.

Headline: "VIDEO: Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Trailer Released" QUOTE: "D’Souza delivered the afternoon keynote address at CPAC, where he showed about 3,500 attendees the trailer. Later, he plans to show the video during an appearance on Fox News Channel." — [Watch the 2min video to improve the article here.] FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-trailer-dinesh-dsouzas-america-686669

In the news again today: Headline-2: Hot Trailer: Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘America’ QUOTE: "Having made the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time, the team behind 2016: Obama’s America is now, as promised, following up with America. Sending up some fireworks of his own to rival the ones 2016 generated, producer-writer and kind-of host Dinesh D’Souza says of his new docu, “We answer the central moral challenge of America’s critics, which is that America’s greatness is based on theft, plunder and oppression.” Watch the 2-min trailer." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/hot-trailer-dinesh-dsouzas-america/

Headline-3: Production Notes from IMDbPro QUOTE: "Credited cast: Russell W. Reed (Ford Theatre Stage Actor); John Koopman (George Washington); Tina Fortune (Hispanic Worker); Rest of cast listed alphabetically: Barack Obama (Himself) (archive footage); Bobby T(Ellison's Chief Slave) (rumored); Dinesh D'Souza (Dinesh D'Souza, himself)." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2785390/

Headline-4: Dinesh D'Souza to Take on NSA in Upcoming 'America' (Exclusive Video) QUOTE: "The Obama administration is collecting private information on every American, for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism." -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dinesh-dsouza-take-nsa-upcoming-702568

Known for money laundering
D'Souza is so well known for money laundering that the talk page is full of discussion, yet a user keeps removing that from the page. A little bit ironic there... ulterior motive? SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to assume ulterior motive. I can't speak for the others who undid you, but I undid once, and I know absolutely nothing about the man or his actions. I undid it because it was an unsourced controversial information about a living person. That's a BLP violation. And WP:BRD means that the edit should be discussed after the first revert, not that you get to keep making the edit. Meters (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not controversial. He is a convicted felon for money laundering and it's been all over the news: https://www.google.com/search?q=d%27souza+money+laundering&oq=d%27souza+money+laundering&aqs=chrome..69i57.4646j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=d'souza+money+laundering+guilty — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issues with your edit have already been explained to you on your talk page before you put it in the third time. The article mentions that he was convicted of campaign finance law violations. That does not seem to justify uadding "money laundering" in the infobox. Meters (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A few points: 1. We do not use Google search results as a source. 2. "Money laundering is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets." There is no indication that he got money through the proceeds of crime. 3. While he pled to a felony count, I don't think the charge is within the Money Laundering Control Act. 4. The possible sentencing is a 10–16 month sentence. The actual sentencing may come in at less than the one year that felonies usually incur. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-illegal-campaign-contribution-106882.html

FELONY: "The single felony count D’Souza admitted guilt on..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-berkowitz/america-dinesh-dsouzas-de_b_5563541.html

"part of his problem is his conviction for illegal political campaign donations and money laundering," — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The politico story doesn't use the term. The Huff piece is basically opinion and not reliable for this factual contention. Please look at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In this instance we cannot say he was convicted of a campaign donation violation and money laundering crime because he has pled to a single charge. In other words, Berkowitz is not reliable because he is using the term incorrectly.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And even if it were a reliable source, a single opinion piece using the term is not enough to justify claiming in an infobox that a person is "known for money laundering". I think the inclusion of the term in the infobox is not justified. Meters (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. Use the term "Campaign Finance Fraud" instead. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Two difficulties: 1. the sources do not use the term "fraud" and 2. putting the description (however it might be worded) in the infobox creates UNDUE problems. An infobox is used "to summarize key facts that appear in the article." (WP:IBX). I can't think of a single term to use which is WP:NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Political advisor and commentator
The claim that D'Souza was a political adviser to Ronald Reagan is poorly sourced and should be verified by sources other than D'Souza. It could be a false CV/resume claim. It reads like a gross overstatement especially when Reagan was in his last two years when D'Souza claims to have joined the staff. Considering D'Souza was not even a naturalized citizen at the time, it is highly unlikely he could have been even cleared to work in the White House, and was likely a low-level staffer working in some D.C. office no where near Reagan. This claim should be investigated, because D'Souza uses Reagan to puff up his own credentials. If the claim is false, D'Souza really becomes a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.10.168 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)