Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 6

Felony status
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 for alleged campaign finance violations involving personal contributions made during the 2012 United States Senate campaign.
 * 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 for court-action against personal campaign contributions he made during the 2012 United States Senate campaign.

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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
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. 75.167.103.223 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

This Article Not Neutral, obviously written with a leftwing slant
This article is entirely biased from beginning to end. The fact that he is basically demonized, referred to as "far right" and a "conspiracy theorist." Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you guys? Can't the leftwingers who compose these articles resist infusing them with their political views. I know they can't, because they see it as their duty to spread a leftwing message through every outlet possible. It's ridiculous & disheartening how egregious the left-wing bias of wikipedia has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.25.125 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that calling him a conspiracy theorist is unjustified. The article only notes two theories he's espoused that could be called "conspiracy theories": a series of three tweets arguing that the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts were faked (based on the fact that the stamps on one of the packages were not cancelled), and his view that he was singled out for higher punishment than others who have engaged in the same kind of election fraud that he was. The latter doesn't seem that conspiratorial to me - whatever the reason, he did in fact get higher punishment than others have. As for the former: if sending out a few tweets alleging a conspiracy is enough to qualify someone as a "conspiracy theorist", then there are thousands, if not more, people whose Wikipedia articles need to have that phrase added to their opening sentence. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
It is not entitled “Hillary’s America.” It is titled that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:25 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon
The paragraph beginning this topic includes the following text:


 * Gerald Molen, who co-produced the 2012 film 2016: Obama's America with D'Souza, stated that the indictment was politically motivated retribution for the success of that film.[6] Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz felt that the charges were unfair: "The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn't sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion ... I can't help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it ... It smacks of selective prosecution." He went on to say such alleged campaign violations are common in politics.[7]

Gerald Molen was a business partner of Dinesh D'Souza. No one knows why Alan Dershowitz's opinion about the case matters. I have removed their opinions of D'Souza from the discussion of his guilty plea to the criminal charges. EveningStarNM (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Dersh is a right wing hack these days. Just another Fox mouthpiece. Guy (help!) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The subject
has been consistently identified with far right. Not sure, why we are not shifting this to WP voice. Comments? &#x222F; WBG converse 19:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I thnk if you can collect three solid analytical (i.e. non-news / opinion) sources I would support it. Guy (help!) 16:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Twitter attack on 16 year old climate activist Greta Thunberg comparing her to nazi propaganda
A section on the tweet of Sept 22, 2019 and the subsequent backlash should be included. The text of the tweet was "Children—notably Nordic white girls with braids and red cheeks—were often used in Nazi propaganda. An old Goebbels technique! Looks like today’s progressive Left is still learning its game from an earlier Left in the 1930s". There are many articles on both the tweet and the backlash.
 * It is already mentioned under the "Views and perspectives" header. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And what does Joseph Goebbels have to do with the left? Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Trolls gonna troll. D'Souza probably doesn't believe this shit himself. Guy (help!) 20:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020
Please remove the Far Right View point comment. Dinesh is not Far right. You need to learn the difference. 2600:8801:3800:346:1047:A376:C3B9:DD08 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The article contains falsehoods and inaccuracies, Wikipedia should not be used for spreading falsehoods.
1. The author is described as "far-right" - this is inaccurate, as Dinesh, though a Christian, is not far right. Going to Jesuit college and attending a Christian church does not make a person far-right. "Far-right" is a degrading term referred by people in U.S. to emphasize the person's dislike of women and minorities, which is completely opposite of what Dinesh is writing about. Therefore, this language is accusatory, smearing and needs removed. Dinesh's work contains factually accurate statements that all history books will confirm: In his movies and book he correctly depicts the dark past of the Democratic party which enslaved, lynched, raped the African Americans, disenfranchised women, and attacked the poor. Again, the fact that Dinesh lifts the historical factual past of the Democratic party, does not make him far-right.

2. The article contains a lot of negativity for Dinesh. In its second paragraph it discusses Dinesh's conviction. Compare that to article about Hillary Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton whose actions about having private servers, accepting strange foreign donations, protecting her husband's questionable actions towards women are hidden somewhere mid-way in the text. It seems that the author of the article is running a smear campaign on Dinesh.

3. Again the article makes a mount of a molehill. "he defended the Southern slave owner, and notes that "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."" This verbiage is taken out of context. If the author had watched Dinesh's "Hillary's America", there Dinesh condemns the African American slavery, lynching, subjugation of women as practices of solely Democratic party, and not Republicans. If author is Democrat who wants to smear Dinesh's reputation and make a mount of every molehill, than certainly the article achieved that end. The article blatantly ignores Dinesh's writings and investigative journalism, rather it is an attempt to smear him by focusing on every single negative fact that this guy's life. What a shame to zero in on negativity and ignore Dinesh's work as a whole being anti-slavery, pro-women, pro-America, and anti-terror, anti -socialism and -communism. Does Wikipedia allow only leftist and pro-Democrats viewpoints? Why can't people differ in opinions and still have their factual work respected and recognized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awiki123 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Without RS, your comments are useless. The article's content is based on what RS tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh the irony. Guy (help!) 08:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020
Sorry to bother everyone with something so minor - I was just going to edit it myself to add a link to the polemic page as a reference for those reading who don't read above a 8-10th grade level. I think this would be useful because many people have been asking me about D'Souza recently, and I noticed a few of them looking this word up after I did.

The first sentence we read the word contained this phrasing:

>, an anti-Obama polemic based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage;

I think it's probably one of those words that anyone who's been through college believe that they understand, but few could provide a passable definition.

I didn't mean to debate the word for so long, I was just trying to explain why I felt an internal link for it is warranted I suppose. Sorry I couldn't just edit it myself to add the internal link to here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic

I hope you all have an amazing week! 72.47.76.205 (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Captainllama (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

phrasing of sentence on straw donor and illegal contributions
article says DDS was charged with "using a straw donor to make an illegal campaign contribution" but the contributions themselves were legal and within the allowed limit. The illegality is in how the donations were represented.

A correct statement would be "illegally using straw donors" to "circumvent limits on campaign contributions" or "to make contributions above the allowed limit". 73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he used the straw donor to make illegal contributions. Both aspects are illegal. You are contradicting yourself when you write: "the contributions themselves were legal and within the allowed limit." If the amount of the contributions had not been illegal, he wouldn't have needed to use the straw donor.
 * Otherwise, the rest of what you write is correct. He did circumvent limits on the allowed amount. That circumvention was illegal, and he had to use a straw donor to achieve that end. In both aspects he broke the law, and that wasn't an accident, but quite deliberate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. After looking into it I see that you are correct about both being illegal, and have therefore removed "misleading" from the title of the section. I think the phrasing in the article could be made clearer, but it might require lengthening the sentence too much so I no longer have any specific alternative phrasing to suggest.  73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods"
The intro states, "D'Souza's films and commentary have generated considerable controversy due to their promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods, as well as for their incendiary nature." "Conspiracy theories and falsehoods" is a pretty brazen statement to make, especially in a biography of a living person, so one would expect the references for it to be unimpeachable. There are two citations for "conspiracy theories and falsehoods": this Slate article and this Vanity Fair article. (There was also this Washington Post article, which I removed because it barely mentions D'Souza, but maybe I missed something there). And the reference for "incendiary nature" (or maybe it's for the whole sentence?) is this New York Times article.

As far as I can tell, the first two sources only mention one "conspiracy theory", which is his view that he got harsher sentencing for his campaign finance violations because he was a prominent anti-Obama commentator. Which - right or wrong - doesn't strike me as much of a conspiracy theory. And I see no evidence that this particular theory has "generated considerable controversy". The New York Times mentions this tweet of his about the Charlottesville rally - which certainly seems conspiratorial/false/controversial - but it's a Twitter post, not part of his regular commentary or his films.

What is the evidence for this bold claim? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Use of conspiracies etc. was dicussed in May 2018 in thread D'Souza promoted conspiracy theories, and discussed a bit more in thread "Opinion rather than objective fact" in Archive 5. I didn't like the use of conspiracies etc. but got the impression that most other editors did. The words "and falsehoods" are from a much more recent edit by Snooganssnoogans. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those links. This has indeed been discussed quite a bit, but those discussions don't seem to have turned up any proof of these statements - and certainly not in the articles currently referenced. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , NYT, BBC, Business Insider, Buzfeed News all exactly suport the lede, WaPo characterises him as a conspiracy minded extremist, Deadline Hollywood quotes Entertainment Weekly's opinion that he "giv[es] intellectual cover to the worst in subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks".
 * Per Haaretz, "Indiewire's David Ehrlich opined that "D’Souza’s revisionism is too popular to ignore, his conspiracy theories too widely accepted as fact. Even his lowest-grossing documentaries made more than $10 million at the box office, putting them on par with monster hits like 'RBG' [about Ruth Bader Ginsburg] and 'Won’t You Be My Neighbor?' [about Fred Rogers]. He may be preaching to the choir, but the choir has grown so loud that millions of other Americans can no longer hear themselves think. We can call them lunatics, but we can’t pretend that no one takes them seriously." https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-democrats-were-more-racist-than-nazis-says-dinesh-d-souza-in-new-film-1.6335843
 * That he promotes conspiracy theories and falsehoods is a neutral statement of the mainstream view in both news and entertainment circles. Guy (help!) 19:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Great. Perhaps you could improve the intro so that the references for these statements actually back them up? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is already fine. If you think it need more referenciness you're free to add them, but the existing sources are sufficient for me. Guy (help!) 20:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? As I noted at the beginning, the references currently provided don't back up the statements at all. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , others disagree. But you're welcome to beef up the sourcing form the above if you consider it inadequate. Guy (help!) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your retort - "others disagree"? For a potentially serious BLP violation of calling someone a liar and conspiracist in the intro of their Wikipedia article? If you're so sure of yourself, why not spend the five minutes it would take to find the quote(s) in the cited sources that back up these statements? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that and the unambiguous consensus from the last RfC that it's fine to call him a conspiracy theorist in Wiki-voice. The issue here is that it's a "problem" that only you see, and multiple additional sources are available if you feel the existing source is unacceptable, so you can either fix it by adding those or accept the status quo, either is fine - in a way that demanding other people to change the article to your personal satisfaction plainly is not. Guy (help!) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Only I see it? Just three people have commented in this section, and two of us agree that the wording should be changed - or at least better cited. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed it that there was an RfC saying "conspiracy theorist" in the lead is allowed, so it doesn't matter that I agree it should be removed. I also agree that the wording "and falsehoods" plus the first cite following it should be removed, but we're a minority. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's the most charitable way of putting the outright fabrications in Death of a Nation. Reliable sources are pretty much unanimous in dismissing that as somewhere between malicious bullshit and outright propaganda. Oh, and it's ahistorical and a terrible movie. Guy (help!) 18:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course it should say "Promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods". That is what D'Souza primarily does these days. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, finally we hear from the person who added the "and falsehoods" part. Perhaps you can explain what the evidence is to back this up? (I'd ask about the "conspiracy theories" part too, but one step at a time.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sources right above support it, and in fact so does the current source list in the article. You have two options: accept that others don't see the problem, or add one or more of the sources I provided above until it's resolved to your satisfaction. Guy (help!) 18:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I could make this any clearer: the sources currently in the article do not back up the assertions made currently in the article. And talking about other sources is not relevant, until/unless they get added. If you disagree, and think the sources do back up the assertions, please show me how I'm wrong. Just saying "I disagree" does not help. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an apparent misconception among some editors here (maybe just two) that, because some sources exist that may potentially back up a statement, it doesn't matter whether those sources are in the article itself. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's an apparent misconception among some editors here (maybe just one) that, because in your view a source doesn't adequately support a statement even though loads more exist which absolutely do, that you can kvetch about it forever on the talk page - even when you're the only one who doesn't think the existing sources sufficient - rather than adding one or more of the multiple additional sources that have been linked in discussion. Guy (help!) 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not just one. Am I really "kvetching"? I'm just trying to add a tag to the page to note that the current sources do not support the current assertions - something that no one has seriously argued against - but it keeps getting removed. It seems like you agree with me on that point, by the way - since you're referring to these "loads more" sources, rather than to the ones in the actual article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

- you asked in the main article for an explanation of how the sources fail verification. Did you see my explanation at the very beginning of this section? I pretty much laid it all out there. I'll just add to that that doing a search on the word "falsehood" in both articles produces zero results. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh, OK, so it's the same nonsense, and the same solution: nobody else thinks it fails, but if you feel you must, add some more sources form the lists above. Guy (help!) 22:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stay civil. And another editor agrees with me, so it's not just me, but you knew that already. Maybe if you spent the five minutes it would take to refute my "nonsense" - assuming it can be refuted - this long discussion could be avoided? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , at the risk of being repetitious, if you think the statements need more sources, feel free to add them from those above, plenty of tohers have looked and do not see the problem so that is the way to fix it. Guy (help!) 13:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "plenty of others" - there are 2-3 editors on your side of the disagreement, and 2 on mine. Not that the numbers should really matter, but if you're going to keep making the same argument over and over again, it might as well be an accurate one. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you think the sources do not support the statement to your satisfaction (an issue I do not see) then you are welcome to add one of the sources listed above, or another you can find. Since the issue is that around your satisfaction, and others don't see the problem, that's the way to fix it. I think I have run out of ways of saying this so feel free to have the last word. Guy (help!) 15:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that, throughout this whole long discussion, you have not referred once to the actual sources we're talking about - one article in Slate and one in Vanity Fair. Have you actually read them? Do you have any interest in what they way or don't say? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , because those specific sources are not required, the lead summarises the body and other sources in the body support the specifics. But, as I may have mentioned before, if you think this is a pressing problem, you're absolutely at liberty to take one or more of the sources listed above, which explicitly do support the text, and add them at the point where you think additional support is required. Or you could just keep complaining about it here and not fix it. Up to you. Guy (help!) 15:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...or I can just a "failed verification" tag, which is a perfectly appropriate action when the sources given don't match up with the statement. I don't know why that tag keeps getting removed. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that you can't, because it is verifiable from other sources in the article and the lead does not require inline citations for stuff that's cited elsewhere. So the most likely explanation is that you don't like the fact that he's a conspiracy theorist and want to downplay or obscure that, rather than genuinely wanting better sourcing. We;'ll find out now - Snooganssnoogans has just added some more sources. Guy (help!) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I indeed don't think he qualifies as a conspiracy theorist, but as a Wikipedia editor I can only stick to what notable sources say. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , which is that he is a conspiracy theorist. So now Snooganssnoogans has made the trivial edit you refused to make, we are done here. Guy (help!) 22:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great riposte, it was definitely worth the wait. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked through those links and don't see how they support the conspiracy theory assertion. Seems like the easiest way to settle this would be for someone who believes those links offer support for D'Souza being a conspiracy theorist to highlight those sections and add them here. If the flippant comments about how obviously he's a conspiracy theorist are true, seems like it should be easy to add support. I was a bit shocked to read a comment above where a supporter of an unsupported claim tried to put the burden of adding support on someone who pointed out it was unsupported. The solution for unsupported claims is to delete them until such time as support has been made available. Is this the twilight zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.196.82 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

“Far right viewpoint”
I propose the “far right viewpoint” piece be changed to “right wing views” or removed entirely, and here is why:

1: sources: out of the 5 sources I was asked to see for confirmation, only 1 describes Dinesh as far right. The other describe him as right wing or conservative. This would apppear as consensus that Dinesh is right wing/conservative, not far right. I can provide additional sources to this as well.

2: how? How in Dinesh far right? As far as I am aware, he hasn’t promoted any exclusively far right ideas (racial/ethnic nationalism, anti semitism, corporatism, etc.) Dinesh also made an entire documentary about how communism and nazism were one in the same (Death of a Nation) something a far right figure would obviously never do, as the far right is highly anti communist.

Hope the discussion is productive Nigel Abe (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , conservative is far-right now, of course. Guy (help!) 15:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact people think that way now is depressing. It’s like boomers who call communists liberals. Nigel Abe (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess it depends: the conservatives who have joined the Democratic Party aren't far right, but everybody left in the GOP at national level, and pretty much everyone at elected state level, is far-right by most definitions: hard-line anti-immigrant American exceptionalist Dominionist authoritarian is the GOP default now. Guy (help!) 23:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve honestly come to just accept whatever people define their political position as. I’ve gotten so tired of watching others use mental gymnastics to say someone is something they aren’t that I want to avoid adding to that crowd. The types of folks who call Bernie Sanders a communist or Ben Shapiro a neo Nazi have become all the norm, and, as seen here, it causes a lot of debate that, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Nigel Abe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure. Shapiro is not a neo-Nazi and Sanders is not a communist. But d'Souza is far right by the definition anyone past college grew up with. It's just that the far-right fringe has mainstreamed in the last decade. I did not think I would live to see a time when a major party would swing so far back from mainstream 20th Century progress that concentration camps on the |US border would be a thing. Guy (help!) 11:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not racist/nationalist? Snuggle up with his books on Obama for a good night's read.  SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I said racial/ethnic nationalism. Has Dinesh ever promoted race pseudosciences or the idea of ethnostates? Criticizing Obama equaling racism is the equivalent of criticizing Meghan Kelly equaling sexism. Nigel Abe (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainstream description of D'Souza says he has espoused racial nationalism, sorry if his racist statements don't fit your pseudo-academic pseudo-scientific nomenclature. One can be racist racial nationalist, and one can recognize statements promoting this view, without being able to spell "pseudo". SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any reliable source that falls into WP:NPOV and WP:OR that states D’Souza is a racial nationalist? All I’m seeing right now is OR that fails to include any evidence aside from “read a book he wrote about Obama.” Since you suggest it I assume you have read from it and can also provide properly sourced quotations. Nigel Abe (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article text is "far-right viewpoint".  SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s the very object in dispute, because the consensus of sources describes Dinesh as right wing/conservative, *not* as far right. Nigel Abe (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "right-wing" in the infobox is a better characterization based on the sources we cite. The lead sentence correctly uses the term "far right" with attribution, and of the five sources cited, only one uses that term in the article, and another uses it only in the headline. I oppose using use headlines as a basis, so that leaves only one source, which is pretty weak for using the term in the infobox, which is stating things in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , how about hard right views, per . The FT is a very solidly neutral source. Guy (help!) 11:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't view the FT source, but I know it's a good source, and we should be using it.
 * But again, it's one source, and I'm referring to the characterization given in the infobox, which is Wikipedia's voice that cannot be attributed clearly. Wikipedia's voice shouldn't give undue weight to any particular source. Wikipedia's voice shouldn't be telling readers what to think, and shouldn't state editorial opinions. All the sources show a consensus around "right-wing", so what's wrong with that? We already use "far right" in the body of the article, and it's used correctly with attribution. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FT is a great source, although I personally don’t like using sources that are behind paywalls, as info verification becomes harder then. Additionally, “hard right” doesn’t have a clear meaning here on wiki, as right wing and far right do. Nigel Abe (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here? If no one responds I’d like to take that as consensus for the change. Nigel Abe (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hell no. Right-wing is left of center compared to D'Souza. He's definitely well to the right of right-wing, so far-right is accurate and backed by many sources. Keep in mind that many that say "right" are generalizing and making it clear he's not "left". Just how far to the right is he? He's far beyond your typical right-winger. They don't invent and push conspiracy theories and ignore proven facts in the process. That's what he does. -- Valjean (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Every part of the political spectrum has conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists (for example almost every right of center person believes the climate change conspiracy), this cannot be used to make a distinction. Only one source calls Dinesh far right, the vast majority refer to him as right wing. Additionally please read wiki’s own article on the far right, you’re reasoning is not seen there. Unless his actual political views can be proven to be on par with the likes of Mussolini and Hitler (who, by the way, D’Souza believes to be left wing), it would be impossible to honestly call him far right. Nigel Abe (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you name which polemicists you believe sources consider to be farther to the right than D'Souza?  SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we got Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes, David Duke, and more. Calling Dinesh far right is essentially saying he holds the same beliefs as them. Nigel Abe (talk)
 * Not necessarily the same. Just commensurate. Do you believe that is not how he's viewed by the available sources?  SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on when I look up Dinesh, the sources presented describe him as “right wing” and “conservative” but when I look up those guys, the sources presented described them as “far/alt right” and “neo Nazi” I would say there is a consensus among sources that Dinesh belongs to a different political grouping than the individuals I mentioned (if you were to ask me which grouping he should belong to, I would personally say he’s in there with the likes of Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson). (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Carlson, just to deal with one that you chose, speaks from a rational logical framework. D'Souza promulgates irratonal, proven falsehoods and logically inconsistent hate speech. That is a significant difference. Maybe look for some more sources.  Of course, there are relatively few sources on fringe personalities. Because they're not taken seriously by 80% of the population. Fringe advocates generally point to the lack of criticism as validation of their views. Actually -- rightly or wrongly -- it's just indifference, due to the relative impotence of the polemecists.  SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I found "hard right" I suggest we compromise on that. Guy (help!) 23:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First I’ll reply to specifico: I agree that Dinesh puts out a lot more bad information than your average right winger, however using that to determine your place on the political spectrum doesn’t make logical sense, and in this case would be OR. I’ve gone ahead and compiled a sample of sources that describe Dinesh as right wing/conservative below:

Media matters describes Dinesh as right wing

Vox describes Dinesh as conservative

Newsweek describes Dinesh as right wing and conservative

The Atlantic describes Dinesh as conservative

The associated press describes Dinesh as conservative

I can give more sources if you wish.

Now to respond to jzg: the reason I don’t want to use “hard right” is because A: only one source describes him that way, and B: the term “hard right” doesn’t have a clear meaning. Some may believe it means right wing, others far right. If we used a term with a more recognized meaning, like right wing, we won’t have any confusion.

Therefore I remain, due to the consensus among multiple reliable sources, the infobox should be changed from “far right viewpoint” to “right wing views”.Nigel Abe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's in that nice group of extreme right-wingers: Hannity, Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Posobiec, Corsi, etc.
 * Nigel, you just proved my point. That he believes that Mussolini and Hitler, both extreme right-wingers, were left-wing, shows he's to the right of them, so of course he views them as to the left of him. That's one of his major pillars of deception he pushes on people, and with that bizarre departure from historical facts, he has lost touch with reality and makes up more shit. Now I don't think anyone really believes that he really is further right than Mussolini and Hitler, or even as far to the right of center as them, but he's further to the right than your typical right-winger. He believes and pushes conspiracy theories more than your typical right-winger, and he's a major figure who gets them to believe such conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statements contradict themselves, first you say “ That he believes that Mussolini and Hitler, both extreme right-wingers, were left-wing, shows he's to the right of them” then a sentence later say “ Now I don't think anyone really believes that he really is further right than Mussolini and Hitler”, so I believe we can just say that Dinesh is not to the right of Mussolini or Hitler. Now, he may be further to the right than your typical right winger (in accordance with your examples of Hannity and Limbaugh), but this doesn’t make them far right, but rather “hard right” or another term. If it were a proper term on wiki we could use hard right as you had suggested, but since it isn’t, the closest thing we could reliably use is right wing. Now to address you saying that the sources that describe Dinesh as right Kent meant far right: this is WP:OR. There’s no evidence I’ve seen to support this belief. Nigel Abe (talk)
 * , I am not sure that the far right genuinely believe Hitler and Mussolini to have been left-wing, but it is clearly very important for them to minimise the similarities between fascism and their own views. It's a case of trying to put $BADPERSON in the category of hated liberals, rather than their own category. That's why their arguments always look so much like motivated reasoning: because they are. Guy (help!) 17:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

First off, with all the recent competition for extreme attention-grabbing views on the right, D'Souza is firming up his market share by going farther and farther over the edge. So I wouldn't rely on, for example, Vox from five years ago. Second, Frum (whose posture may once have overlapped to some extent with the nascent D'Souza of today) is addressing a different subject. His article is not about how to label D'Souza, whom he basically calls crass, demented, and absurd. If you'd like to put that kind of language in the article, attributed to Frum, be my guest. Anyway, your arguments remain unconvincing and I suggest we follow JzG's suggestion.  SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC) I have only seen one source refer to Dinesh as far right, that being an nbc article from 4 years ago, which even now I’ve checked it again and it now refers to him as conservative. That being said you are now arguing we should use a single source, locked behind a paywall, that describes Dinesh in subjective terms, as opposed to using clearer descriptions used by reliable sources in recent times. I’m willing to drop the Vox article due to age, and the Atlantic article due to its POV nature, The associated press is a sublime source and their article I cited was written less than a year ago. In addition the Newsweek article I cited is already used on the wiki page in the lead, the NBC and NYT articles used in the lead use the same descriptions. I can’t the logic behind not making use of these multiple, reliable, viewable-by-all sources in favor of a single reliable paywall source. Nigel Abe (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't view these terms as distinct defined categories, like Hydrogen and Helium. Neither do RS references, otherwise we wouldn't have so big a jar of jellybeans to choose from. I think consensus is pretty much against you here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From that standpoint I’d argue we shouldn’t try and put the position of his views in the infobox at all. After all, if we’re saying it’s what he’s known for, it should be done it clear terms right? (maybe there’s a third opinion to use “conservative views”, which is more clear than right wing/hard right/far right, considering that could also be backed by multiple sources)? Nigel Abe (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello? Nigel Abe (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Far right" is the overarching term for the sum of "extreme right" and "radical right" politics. According to Cas Mudde in The Far Right in America (2018), this man is a "radical right entrepreneur".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not entirely sure what it means to be a “radical right entrepreneur” but I’d venture a guess it’s the same or similar to being a “far right provocateur” as the Guardian describes Dinesh. This means he’s provoked the far right before (and Death of a Nation surely did that) but doesn’t tell us about his views. Hence why I’m still sticking to the associated press, New York Times, Newsweek, and other sources in describing him as right wing/conservative. Nigel Abe (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering why we're going in circles here, and I suspect there is a language barrier. Your last comment reinforces my suspicion. "Far right provocateur" definitely "tells us about his views" and does not mean he provokes the far right, but means he is far-right and provokes everyone to the left of him. He echoes, amplifies, and even creates, far-right POV. He literally pushes ordinary, non-radical, right-wingers even further down the rabbit hole of extreme right-wing conspiratorial delusions by creating and pushing such conspiracy theories and counterfactual historical views.
 * The Guardian is an excellent source for describing him as "far-right". -- Valjean (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Only with attribution, not in Wikipedia's voice, which is what the infobox is.
 * As I stated earlier in this section above (my participation here has been slight), there is a consensus among reliable sources for "right wing" but not "far right". No matter what hand-waving one does with respect to other articles and comparisons to Hitler and whatnot, in the end, the infobox should either use a term in line with due weight of reliable sources, or not include it at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently there are 3 different sources going against my 5. The problem with them is they conflict with each other (one says ‘hard right’, one says ‘radical right’, and another says ‘far right provocateur’). The first two are subjective terms with no firm definition, and the other can easily be interpreted differently (as seen with me and Valjean). With these things considered in addition to my main sources being a sample of the ones that describe Dinesh in the same way (right wing/conservative), and to echo Anachronist’s comment about due/undue weight, there is no reason apart from lack of talk page consensus to change the infobox text, or remove the disputed piece entirely. Nigel Abe (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You see a lot of alleged contradictions that I do not see. Radical right and far right are not contradictory. The former is a subset of the latter. I don't think hard right means anything in scholar terms. --Asqueladd (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad we agree that “hard right” harbors little meaning. So we shouldn’t consider using “hard right”. That leaves “radical right” and “far right provocateur”. Based on what’s been said we are to believe that radical right is synonymous with far right and that far right provocateur means just far right. In using these extra herdels to arrive at the “far right” conclusion you use two sources, and only two. Again, I have been holding up 5+ different sources for my description on Dinesh, while only in the latter half of the discussion have you guys gathered what is now two sources for yours. If we’re going to give due weight then the infobox should say right wing/conservative views accompanied by my sources. Nigel Abe (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , but since far right is a subset of conservative, your sources do nto contradict far right. Guy (help!) 15:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s like saying Stalinism is a subset of “liberal”. When a person is far right the sources will all call him far right, if he’s a right wing conservative the sources will call him right wing and/or conservative. The sources describe Dinesh as right wing and/or conservative, therefore that is what we should describe him as. Doing otherwise is applying personal interpretation to the sources and counts as original research. Nigel Abe (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid analogy. Could you restate your concern more directly? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is you’re giving undue weight to two sources as opposed to a dozen sources that counter it and are using mental gymnastics to do so. Nigel Abe (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They do not "counter" it or contradict it. Most sources are just being general ("far-right" is still "right-wing"), and not specifically more accurate as those two sources. Dinesh is much to the right of normal right-wingers, and that makes him "far-right". Again, your failure to understand these distinctions may be a result of the suspected language barrier mentioned above. At this English Wikipedia, normal English is our currency and my points stand. There is no contradiction when someone describes a "far-right" person as "right-wing". They are just not being specific enough, and we like to be specific when it's necessary. Since "right-wing" is far too tame to describe him, we go with the more specific and more accurate description. -- Valjean (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)