Jump to content

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Elder La Follette (talk | contribs) at 14:46, 25 November 2020 (→Far right??!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon and that must be included in the first sentence to comply with WP:UNCENSORED.

WITHDRAWN
Eggishorn and I have come to the conclusion that this dispute fails to properly satisfy WP:RFC and therefore shall start a new one compliant with such. Feel free to bring your ideas there. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This dispute has occurred enough times with a resolution for way too long. It's time to end the edit wars and disputes once and for all. Upon the victory of my stance, "convicted felon" shall remain in the first sentence and upon the defeat of this vote... well the opposite occurs. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The most recent removal of "convicted felon" occurred, due to the argument that its inclusion is redundant and irrelevant. It's first noted that D'Souza's crimes are established in the next paragraph, but that's not a good argument as conspiracy theories are established both in Paragraph 4 and is already implied by the title of his films in the first paragraph. Even without the "conspiracy theorist" identifier, it's blatant he dabbles in conspiracy theories. Accordingly, why not remove that as well? Because it was affirmed by WP:Consensus in the archives. Look, removing one identifier because paragraph 2 further explains it, but not removing another despite paragraph 1 and 4 further explaining it makes no sense. It's either all okay or none of it's okay and here it's all okay to comply with WP:NPOV. The idea that D'Souza being convicted isn't relevant enough to who he is fails because it's relevant enough for its own section. Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon is a massive section, and if it can feel that, it has to be central to his life, identity and article. Accordingly, it must be in the first sentence. With All Due Respect, GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose It is unnecessary. It is undue. It is covered in the article. There is no censorship. A claim of censorship might be appropriate if the information was being withheld from the article, but it is not. D'Souza's legal situation is described in the article adequately. Just calling him a "convicted felon" without putting it in context is not neutral editing of the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you voting or just commenting? Also, User:Leofstan, User:Moriori, User:Avaron676, User:Eggishorn & User:Minatijeetii, you guys all have a notably history of editing this page on this topic, so what do you think is the best course of action. It seems to be approximately 1 - 4 in keeping it gone. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is his conviction status unnecessary and irrelevant, yet him being a conspiracy theorist isn't? It's very easily censorship as it hides a blatantly true and valid claim with the most notable argument being its bias, despite the sources directly mentioning it and it being more objective then him being a conspiracy theorist. D'Souza being a filmmaker is also adequately explained and established outside the first paragraph, so should that be removed as well? If not, why not? Claiming that just referring to him as a convicted felon (which is what he objectively is and as the sources describe him as) is a WP:NPOV violation is untrue, but its noninclusion is a violation of WP:PRECEDENT and WP:CENSORED. Plenty of other pages do it, and as it's very intelligently noted in WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT, in order to ignore WP:PRECEDENT you need WP:CONSENSUS that the page would be better by ignoring such. The claim that convicted felon is bias without context, but conspiracy theory isn't, lacks logic. This is just my personal belief though. Would love to hear your counter-argument. Sorry if I come off as a violation of WP:HOSTILE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first five sources establish that he is a conspiracy theorist and a convicted felon. His felon status is noted in three sources, while his conspiracy theorist status is mentioned in four. Him being an author and film maker is mentioned in all five while him being a "far-right political provocateur" is mentioned in two. His felony status is more well sourced, then his "far-right political provocateur" status. Either that's removed or convicted felon is added pursuant to this logic. As for the claim that D'Souza isn't notable as a felon, that's subjective and therefore a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. The core question is it sourced (which it is) and notable to the entire page (which it is). This is just my personal belief though. Would love to hear your counter-argument. Sorry if I come off as a violation of WP:HOSTILE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing. Are people giving their opinion on (1) the article heading which says "convicted felon must be included in the first sentence" or (2) "removal of "convicted felon" could be a sanctionable offense."? Moriori (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moriori, Sorry, I reworded it to be more concise. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally invalid No local consensus of an infinitesimal handful of editors can create a sanctionable dictat. This is not actually an RfC so it can't even claim to establish such a local consensus. Even if it was one it would be closed because the opening statement is far from neutral. Attempting to tote up votes less than a day after opening it is highly irregular, as well. This sorry excuse for a discussion should be put out of our misery as soon as possible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first sentence as it basically challenges WP:Consensus and WP:RFC as a concept. If you request the abolishment of such common and popular practices, you'd have to go to the WP:ARBCOM. There's no other way you could even attempt to establish such a massive WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT moment for all of Wikipedia right here. I concede your second and third point and dispute your fourth point as opinionated, not reliant on any cognizable policy, and therefore irrelevant. Ultimately, I concede that this dispute should be restarted in compliance with RFC and shall shut this down and make a new one. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. It's putting WP:UNDUE weight to include that in the first sentence. It's not something he's primarily known for. It should be in the lead overall, there's no question on that, but in the first sentence or even the first para? No. Ravensfire (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfc about proposed rewritten of the first sentence of the lead

WITHDRAWN
I believe my arguments are superior but I feel that this rfc will not be closed in my favor. Therefore, I will withdraw it and not start another rfc on this topic for this article. I hope someone tries again one day and can establish consensus on the side that I align with. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the first sentence of WP:Lead be written as Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian American far-right political provocateur, author, filmmaker, conspiracy theorist and convicted felon. or remain as it currently is? The question ultimately is about the following issue. Should WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT be invoked by WP:Consensus as WP:Precedent tells us this proposed first sentence is legitimate, seen here: Roger Stone, Joe Ganim and Paul Manafort. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Support The most recent removal of "convicted felon" occurred, due to the argument that its inclusion is redundant and irrelevant. It's first noted that D'Souza's crimes are established in the next paragraph, but that's not a good argument as conspiracy theories are established both in Paragraph 4 and is already implied by the title of his films in the first paragraph. Even without the "conspiracy theorist" identifier, it's blatant he dabbles in conspiracy theories. Accordingly, why not remove that as well? Because it was affirmed by WP:Consensus in the archives. Look, removing one identifier because paragraph 2 further explains it, but not removing another despite paragraph 1 and 4 further explaining it makes no sense. It's either all okay or none of it's okay and here it's all okay to comply with WP:NPOV. The idea that D'Souza being convicted isn't relevant enough to who he is fails because it's relevant enough for its own section. Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon is a massive section, and if it can feel that, it has to be central to his life, identity and article. Accordingly, it must be in the first sentence. The first five sources establish that he is a conspiracy theorist and a convicted felon. His felon status is noted in three sources, while his conspiracy theorist status is mentioned in four. Him being an author and filmmaker is mentioned in all five while him being a "far-right political provocateur" is mentioned in two. His felony status is more well-sourced, then his "far-right political provocateur" status. Either that's removed or convicted felon is added pursuant to this logic. As for the claim that D'Souza isn't notable as a felon, that's subjective and therefore a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. The core question is it sourced (which it is) and notable to the entire page (which it is). This is just my personal belief though. Would love to hear your counter-argument. Sorry if I come off as a violation of WP:HOSTILE. With All Due Respect,GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Leofstan, User:Moriori, User:Avaron676, User:Eggishorn & User:Minatijeetii, you guys all have a notably history of editing this page on this topic, so what do you think is the best course of action. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to ping the people in the above section too? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question because section Very curious: Convicted felon in the first sentence shows that many editors inserted "felon" and many editors removed it or objected. But GreenFrogsGoRibbit has chosen only to ping editors who inserted. So, GreenFrogsGoRibbit: have you read WP:CANVASS? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Gulutzan & Emir of Wikipedia Sorry, just checking this page now. I didn't see a need to ping the original users, since I assumed they had "Watch This Page" on which is how they voted first time. In any event, I thought the official "rfc" would summon new people to vote and give their opinion as well as the original people I summoned. Either way, Wikipedia is not a democracy as illustrated here WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and therefore it wouldn't matter if I had twenty more votes if my argument was moot, so that was yet another reason I didn't see the need to ping everyone. Still, if anyone wants to ping more, I have no objections to it. The people I pinged haven't explicitly responded and given their opinion as opposed to others, so that' why I pinged them. I wasn't aware of WP:CANVASS and if I knew about it, I wouldn't have tagged anyone. At least going further I know not too. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One concern I would have about putting the felon status right at the front is that later on, when it appears, the context is immediately provided. The term "felon" covers a great deal of ground - everything from sex crimes, to multiple murders, to tax fraud, and yes, campaign finance violations. I would think the extra care, conservative writing and concern for privacy requirements of wp:blp would weigh in favor of, if the felony does go in that very first sentence, just adding "for campaign finance violation". I know, it is wordy already. But it seems to me that if you don't do that, you are putting in this shocking fact, and in a way that is completely open ended and could indicate something a lot worse. The reader deserves to know...the fact in its context. Some readers might not read as far as the paragraphs that explain the nature of the offense.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get your argument, but you also have to account for the fact that simply including "convicted felon" follows WP:PRECEDENT as we've done it before. Also, he is a convicted felon and the term isn't any more vague then calling him a conspiracy theorist which can mean a variety of things. I admit that felonies include a wide range of crimes, but he is still a felon regardless. It's not innacuarate and his criminal behavior is explained more in-depth in the WP:LEDE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy So do you * Oppose or * Support GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose addition to the first sentence per the reasons pointed out in the previous discussion section. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This proposed sentence is (or is very similar to) what we had as the first sentence for a long time in the past and I think we should go back to that. I see no reason to remove "felon" completely other than to spare his blushes, which should not be a consideration for us so long as what we are saying is true and proportionate coverage. I would be open to adding a very few extra words to make it clear what he was convicted of (in the most general sense) so that the reader isn't led to speculate that maybe he was convicted of something worse than he was. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose per User:Truth is King 24. There are ways to be "truthful" or "accurate" without being ethical, and this is a good example. We should strive for accuracy and fairness, which we could accomplish by saying felon only where the appropriate context is provided. WP:PRECEDENT isn't relevant here; it is a list of arguments to avoid in discussions that have come up multiple times over the years. With a few million articles, we could probably find "precedent" for lots of terrible ideas, but that essay isn't suggesting anything close to what is being argued here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Whilst consensus can change, there is a broad body of precedent which can be drawn on for regularly recurring consensus that have been upheld in a variety of situations." is the core point of WP:PRECEDENT. It is extremely relevant to this argument as the first sentence I propose is very similar to other first sentences of convicted felons Wikipedia pages (see example above). I agree with your precedent argument personally, but objectively WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT is clear. One needs a WP:Consensus to do just ignore it. Finally, your first point seems bizzare as who or what defines what is ethical? If something is accurate but unethical wouldn't that be in the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Hockett, GreenFrogsGoRibbit I do think it is at least worth mentioning, GreenFrogs, that the items you cite to are essays, and not policy or guidelines. If I may paraphrase a bit, the guidelines say to be fair, and even considerate, to living persons. If, in some cases, the editors have not fully lived up to that guideline, there is no guideline that says we should now just chuck it (hey, unless you can find one). Truth Is King 24 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Truth Is King 24 Everything I cited except the ones on precedent, seems to be established policy. As for the paraphrasing guideline, which guideline are you referring to so we can be on the same page? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenFrogsGoRibbit Yes, but the precedent part did form rather a major portion of your response to Larry Hockett. Regarding my paraphrasing, you have a good point, I'm referencing wp:blp#tone, wp:blp#balance and wp:blp#avoid victimization.
  • Oppose in the first sentence, where it's UNDUE and just sounds like a gratuitous smear. His crimes and their relationship to his life's work need the context and detail that can only be provided in the article text. A throwaway mention up top is not conveying meaningful information. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - considering discussions made in the above section. Idealigic (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SPECIFICO above "in the first sentence, where it's UNDUE and just sounds like a gratuitous smear." It is given due weight and context where it is at present in para 2 where the crime is identified. I loath the little toad, but even I can see that this is not what he is primarily known for and is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MOS:FIRST The first sentence of the lede is already cluttered and overloaded enough. Use the first sentence to introduce D'Souza and then as per MOS:LEADSENTENCE "spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."Writethisway (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sentence as proposed would I think elicit a first-impression reaction in the mind of readers who don't know much about him (and thus have chosen to read the article) of "whoa this comes off as really strident and aggressive and I'm not even sure I want to keep reading further". Novellasyes (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dinesh D'Souza page missing two movies in his filmography on his Wikipedia page.

Dinesh D'Souza was interviewed in the movie released as a Fathom event on March 23rd, 2015 called "Four Blood Moons". This link talks about the book "Four Blood Moons" as well as it's movie adaption...

[1]

"The movie press release states: “Four Blood Moons” combines scripture, science, history and big-screen live action spanning centuries, including previous similar lunar occurrences and the earth-shaking changes around them. It also examines our four blood-moon cycle-and its possible meaning for Israel, the Middle East and the world.

An array of historians, religious scholars and commentators appear in “Four Blood Moons” and offer their insight-filmmaker, speaker and author Dinesh D’Souza; radio host and author Dennis Prager; and noted author and historian David Barton to name just a few."'

Here's another link...

[2]

Christian Cinema

An array of historians, religious scholars and commentators appear in FOUR BLOOD MOONS and offer their insight—filmmaker, speaker and author Dinesh D’Souza; radio host and author Dennis Prager; and noted author and historian David Barton to name just a few.

The other movie the page is missing is "Infidel" in which both Dinesh D'Souza, and his wife, Debbie D'Souza, executive produced, which comes out this Friday, September 18th, 2020. It had a limited release on November 8th, 2019 as well.

[3]

"“INFIDEL” Produced By D’Souza Media In Theaters September 18

You know Dinesh D’Souza as the creator of political documentaries, and his new documentary Trump Card will be released on video on demand October 9.

D’Souza and his wife Debbie are also executive producers on a feature film."

Here is another link...

[4]

Here is a quote from the above website advertising the film, it also advertises a book written later in the article by D'Souza in the above link...

"My wife, Debbie, and I are executive producers on this political thriller starring Jim Caviezel.

INFIDEL is a feature film that tells a story that Hollywood won’t tell and doesn’t want you to know.

Watch the trailer and go see INFIDEL when it opens in theaters September 18!"


Here is a link for the trailer of "Infidel" from the Dinesh D'Souza page on YouTube...

[5]

It's bad enough with Wikipedia's liberal bias that they slander D'Souza, but they could at least have his movie filmography complete. --Eman926 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/christian-post-four-blood-moons-book-to-feature-commentary-from-dsouza-prager-and-barton/
  2. ^ https://www.christiancinema.com/digital/movie/four-blood-moons
  3. ^ https://ent.eternalaffairsmedia.com/2020/09/07/infidel-produced-by-dsouza-media-in-theaters-september-18/
  4. ^ https://marypatriotnews.com/jim-caviezel-is-back-with-a-film-hollywood-elites-would-never-make-video/
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzjf8dq7LQ
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A minor contradiction

"Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-American far-right political provocateur" "D'Souza is generally identified as a neoconservative."

If D'Souza is generally identified as neoconservative, then surely he should not be introduced as a far-right political provocateur. One of these needs to be changed/removed. Unless it is the opinion of Wikipedia that neoconservatism is a far-right ideology, in which case the Radical right (United States) page should probably be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.115.212 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not only contradictory, but dogmatic. Conservatism/neoconservativism is not far-right politics; yet "consensus has it" that it is fine to textually show "far-right", yet direct the wikilink to Radical right (United States). If Wikipedia standardized the practice of applying commonly used terms used by the media to describe prominent individuals, vast issues would arise. One example, consensus would have it that the president should be described as fascist, authoritarian, racist, liar, etc., because hundreds of thousands of articles have been written to describe the president as such. Yet, the article is not and should not be introduced that way.
The current citations used to substantiate the alleged "far-right"-ness of D'Souza are feeble and worthless to justify labeling D'Souza as "far-right". The Guardian article only metions "far-right" in the headline, not the body.; 2nd citation by Newsweek does not mention "far-right" at all; 3rd citation by NYT does not mention "far-right" at all.; 4th article by NBC mentions "far-right" once – linking to this article which does not mention "far-right" at all; and the 5th article, once again, does not mention "far-right" at all. It appears the previous consensuses were either done dogmatically, ignorantly, or both. Two citations mention "far-right" in 1. the title, and 2. to an article that does not mention "far-right" at all. The Wikipedia article alone describes D'Souza as "far-right" once - the lead. Previous consensuses must have been WP:STONEWALLING to bias perception. Yet, four out of five citations (not NBC article) used describe D'Souza as "right-wing". If the consensus was properly done, D'Souza should be called "right-wing". Numerous RSs describe D'Souza as ndeoconservative, as you mentioned, which should be implemented. All previous Talks about this very issue had various users concerned about the labeling of and conjoining of conservatism/neoconservatism with far-right - 1, 2, 3. The likely compromise is to include a section of the media perception of D'Souza in the article, not the lead. Aviartm (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere, The Guardian does call him 'far right'. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right is a subset of neocon. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on labeling issue in lead

Eleven days has passed with no further input on the discussion (above this section), "A minor contradiction", brought forth by an unregistered user. Seeking a clear conclusion on this issue as the article contradicts as noted by the unregistered user, and the RSs used to back up the term, "far-right" is being misused, in addition to various users over time in different discussions regarding this voicing concerns. It is recommended to read the previous section/links to understand the issue. Aviartm (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep far-right. It's supported by The Guardian and NBC News, which are two of the highest-quality sources in the lead; Newsweek is low-quality and the Ross Douthat piece is an opinion piece, which means we definitely can't use it there - I think it's being used to support conspiracy theorist, but we have other sources for that and can't rely on an opinion piece. That leaves the majority of top-quality sources in the lead describing him that way (and the Atlantic piece certainly doesn't describe him in a way that contradicts it, so it doesn't help your cause.) More generally I disagree with the assertion that there is a contradiction here; all the sources indicate that his views have trended sharply rightward over time, so there's no contradiction between his having been described as a neoconservative in the past and far-right today. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep far-right. Supported by the available sources, such as the Guardian. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove far-right. Extraordinary claims, like labeling someone "far-right," requires extraordinary sources. Like the OP said in the discussion above, the only RS source that labels D'Souza as far-right is the Guardian--and only in the title. The NBC Article directly contradicts itself by labeling D'Souza as far-right in the body, but conservative in the title. In other NBC Articles (published in 2017, after the cited NBC Article), D'Souza is only referred to as 'conservative.' Additionally, the vast majority of sources label D'Souza as some combination of "right-wing" or "conservative":
  • Keep far-right. It is extremely well-sourced in the citations that follow the sentence. The sources provided enough evidence for the "far-right" addition to not be WP:Label, but rather fully compliant with WP:NPOV. Because of how central far-right is to D'Souza identity, it is not WP:Due. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-sourced. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a proper RfC? I do not see it in WP:RFC/A and I do not see an {{rfc}} tag. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propagandist

D'Souza's films are a subcategory in American propaganda films. Should he not be listed in the Propaganda film directors category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.92.98.205 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far right??!

There is no evidence that he is far right. He is a Conservative commentator. If you apply that standard, then please edit Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s Wikipedia page to state that she is a far left. Otherwise you’re nothing more than a left-wing liberal organisation masquerading as non-biased Jgeorge75 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh is a total hack and crackpot conspiracy theorist who tells credulous fools exactly what they want to hear. He's a variety of far-right like the John-Birchers and Ayn Rand cultists, meaning he believes that everything bad or negative done by any government throughout history is innately left-wing. The two major delusions on history he's been propagating for the last few years is about the Democratic Party and Nazis/Fascists, foisting the blame of right-wing extremism onto modern Democrats and leftists.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza&oldid=990617116"