Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Far-right claim is disputed and biased - should be removed from the lead

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.

---

As a leftist, I got quite shocked when I saw we add the label Far-Right To the lead of articles like Dinesh Dsouza article, but we don't have the same approach to the article of an actual far-left, such as Noam Chomsky. Being an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalism), Chomsky is self-evidently a far-left. He approved his ideology, but Dsouza didn't. He rejected the idea of being far-right, argued against it. Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists and lean to far-left (including the Atlantic). These sources aren't by any means valid in this particular situation, as they have political self-interest against Dinesh Dsouza and right-wing politics. According to that logic I will remove, far-right claim from the lead, and will add it to another lower section as claim from his critiques (who are mostly leftist, far-left and anti-right-wing). If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him). So far-right claim is biased, defamatory, disputed and consequently should be removed from the lead. Thank you very much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: If you would like to discuss changes to Noam Chomsky, please do so at Talk:Noam Chomsky. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT.

If you have reliable sources that refute the descriptor of D'Souza as far-right, please provide them. But the sources that currently describe him as far-right are adequate. I'm not sure why you're pointing to The Atlantic, as that source does not describe him as far right.

As for If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him), I would recommend reviewing WP:POINT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @TheStrayDog: there is an inconsistency in presentation of Wikipedia topics. I don't like slapping contentious labels onto article topics, especially in the lead, and especially when the label concerns ideology. All over Wikipedia whenever a label is used in Wikipedia's narrative voice, it stirs up debates on talk pages. The only policy I know of where it's permissible to apply a contentious label in Wikipedia's voice is WP:FRINGE topics (pseudoscience, alternative cures, paranormal stuff). Otherwise, we should use words that attribute the label to sources. We have no policy, not even WP:DUE that requires an article to put a contentious ideological label on a subject just because reliable sources choose to do so. We should be better than that. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As a political commenter and occasional candidate, I think we have to provide some brief sense of his political leanings in the first sentence, and I don't think we should avoid the widely-used term for him in favor of a less accurate one simply because people complain on the talk page about it more. If the sourcing generally describe him as "conservative" or "right-wing" then that's a reasonable argument for using that term instead, but if the sourcing tends to describe him as far-right then I think we should too. So far TheStrayDog has not shown that, though (and I am not super familiar with the bulk of sourcing on D'Souza; this page is on my watchlist for some reason but I haven't actually contributed to it all that much). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists" So what? We don't disqualify opinionated sources. Per Biased_or_opinionated_sources:

• "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
• "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." Dimadick (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling him 'far right' seems to be an opinion and suggests a political bias on the part of Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to use the term 'far left' in its articles? To suggest something is far to one side or the other would suggest that Wikipedia takes a political position from which to base other viewpoints from. Wikipedia should be neutral and avoid using such terms. With respect to sourcing it seems that using arbitrarily selected media outlets as sources to justify such a subjective label seems arbitrary and subjective.

It should also be noted that the term as defined by its own Wikipedia article states that it is defined as 'various ethnic supremacism'. What sources do you have that Dinesh D'Souza believes any such thing? He is Indian and he married someone that's partly from Venezuela so who exactly does he believe he is ethnically superior to and how? Sources? Throwing around these terms arbitrarily seems to diminish their original meaning and it seems that Wikipedia should be internally consistent with respect to terms that it uses to define someone and how it defines those terms. Perhaps the term itself needs to be redefined based on a more modern usage of the term but it would seem like the intended modern usage would be to associate people that don't meet the originally intended definition with those that do. Mainstream media is often about creating hyperbole and exaggerations because that's what gets more views and so it's not very unexpected when mainstream media sources misuse the term for viewers but Wikipedia should be more neutral and factual even if that is more boring and doesn't generate clicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.121.45 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources. Would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to use the term 'far left' in its articles? Sure, if reliable sources support it. You'll see that we do use this term in various articles. The sources supporting that D'Souza is far-right are cited inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only 2 of the 6 cited sources for the initial statement actually say "far right" -- NBC News and Buzzfeed. (The Guardian headline no longer counts because WP:HEADLINES.) If they're biased then the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy isn't being followed. But read above, this has been discussed more than once before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the lead sentence would benefit from a bundled citation that makes it clearer which source is supporting which statement... let me see about doing that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

He is widely described as far-right by reliable sources, and there is absolutely no valid reason to remove that well-sourced descriptor from this article. --Tataral (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tataral: Could you specify which? I did look around for additional sourcing describing him as far right and didn't find a whole lot beyond the two sources in this article—mediocre-quality sources or sources referring to D'Souza being popular among the far right, mostly. It didn't seem like a widely-used descriptor to me, particularly when compared to the number of sources describing him as a conservative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the user to provide you more sources. She seems to have a fixation on labeling people/organizations as "far-right" based on flimsy sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's more of an issue for a behavioral noticeboard than here, but they've already provided their sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian described him as a "far-right provocateur and key figure in US culture wars"[7]; Business Insider called him a "far-right author and pundit"[8]; Mother Jones noted that "D'Souza has a long record of promoting far-right, racist conspiracy theories"[9], to name some examples other than the sources already included here. --Tataral (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tataral: Thanks! Regarding The Guardian, there is a (fairly new) point in the RS policy, WP:HEADLINE, which specifies that News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. That is the case with this piece, which describes D'Souza as "far-right" in the headline only, but as "conservative" in the body. As for Business Insider and Mother Jones, they are not the strongest sources. There is no consensus for the reliability of BI (WP:RSP#Business Insider) and while Mother Jones is generally reliable, it is also one of the most left-leaning sources we use. In this case, it is also describing the conspiracy theories he promotes as far-right, rather than D'Souza himself, and while one could make the leap that people who promote far-right conspiracy theories are probably themselves far-right, that is a jump we shouldn't be making for contentious claims. In this case I would be inclined to go with the bulk of the strong RS, which describe him as conservative, and then add the Mother Jones source about his conspiracy theories (probably with attribution) to the article body. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Far-right" is questionable, but he is a very biased conservative and ideologue who seems unlikely to step down from his viewpoints. Btw, I consider myself to be rather leftist in most respects Jasper Heart Baron (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Dinesh D'Souza should have "conspiracy theorist" removed. That is all. 208.81.157.158 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The term is reliably sourced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you defending that he isn't a conspiracy theorist? If he makes stupid statements, that are clearly a falsehood, and they are well-documented, i think it's a fact that he is a conspiracy theorist, not a subjective topic. Don't defend the indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.32.56.152 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The term "Conspiracy Theorist" should be removed from the lead in this article. This is a loaded pejorative term that clearly does not apply to D'Souza's work. There are six sources cited to justify the use of this term. All six sources are opinion pieces that criticized the pardon of D'Souza. Two of the sources did not contain the word conspiracy. Two others used the term as a pejorative adjective but did not offer any explanation or example. Two others offered examples, but the examples do not conform to the commonly understood meaning of the term. Prominent examples of conspiracy theories include The Illuminati, Area 51, Q-Anon. These are elaborate stories in which the facts are made up or distorted to support incredulous claims about a secret plot without any credible evidence. By contrast, the given examples of D'Souza's "conspiracies" are books in which D'Souza examines the early ideological influences of prominent politicians and posits a theory about the impact that those early influences had on those politicians. This is a fairly common practice in political writing. D'Souza does not allege any secret conspiracy in these books. -The Nation: this is an opinion piece from a left-wing opinion journal in which the author criticizes ABC News for allowing D'Souza to appear on their broadcast. She refers to books by D'Souza in which he examines the ideology of early intellectual influences on Clinton and Obama (Saul Alinsky, Obama's father). The main point of the opinion piece is that news organizations like ABC should not give a platform to right wing authors like D'Souza. - The New Republic: another opinion piece from a mainstream liberal opinion journal that appears to justify the "conspiracy" claim with reference to the same book describing the anti-colonial views of Obama's father. The author states "The conservative intelligentsia is filled with scam artists like D’Souza, who are dressed up as serious thinkers when their real purpose is to attack the left, to defend a reactionary ideology and, increasingly, to simply troll." Does this sound like an authoritative source that should be used in a Wikipedia article? - CNN: an opinion piece (CNN is a news organization, but this piece is categorized under CCN Opinion) in which the author criticizes the pardon and refers to D'Souza as a conspiracy theorist but does not offer any explanation of why. - Radio National podcast: contains conspiracy theorist in title but offers no explanation - Buzzfeed news: does not mention conspiracy theorist - Daily Beast: a political blog post describing a monologue on the Daily Show (a TV comedy program) in which Trevor Noah criticizes the pardon, but makes no mention of conspiracy theories.Dsgillette (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't required to provide an "explanation" to satisfy your personal demand. You're also wrong about the Buzzfeed News piece: President Donald Trump said Thursday he would grant a "full pardon" to far-right commentator and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D'Souza, the second time he's rewarded a vocal supporter with clemency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Please address the main point in the request. All six sources are opinion pieces written by partisan political writers with the intent to discredit the subject (actually 5 opinion pieces and one riff by a comedian). Partisan name-calling is common in opinion pieces. It has no place in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia deals in facts, these are rhetorical opinions, and they are clearly presented as opinions. Noone would mistake any of these articles as objective news reporting. This is supposed to be a biographical profile of a well-known political writer. One of the sources refers to D'Souza as a "scam artist". Should that be in the lead to the article as well? Try googling "Al Sharpton Con" or "Jesse Jackson Shakedown" and see how many opinion pieces you can find that use those terms. Yet the lead to Sharpton's Wikipedia article describes him as "an American civil rights activist, Baptist minister, talk show host and politician." (as it should). There is a section within the article under the heading "Reputation" that briefly mentions both positive and negative opinions about him (attributed to others), but it is not in the lead sentence of the article. Wikipedia is a valuable resource precisely because the rules do not allow it to be used as a platform for partisan name calling in biographical articles. Please keep it that way. Dsgillette (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I can provide more references.

Quote: "The US conspiracy theorist and pro-Trump commentator Dinesh D'Souza accused Soros of being 'a sponsor of domestic terrorism'"

Langer, Armin (2021) "The Eternal George Soros: Rise of an Antisemitic and Islamophobic Conspiracy Theory" in Andreas Önnerfors and André Krouwel (eds) "Europe: Continent of Conspiracies: Conspiracy Theories in and about Europe" published by Routledge.

and

Quote: "Most recently the conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souzaaccused Soros of supporting antifa, that is, of backing domestic terrorism."

Whitfield, Stephen J. "The Persistence of the Protocols", Society 55 (5): 417-421. DOI:10.1007/s12115-018-0282-6

Given that these are academic sources, I hope your fears about partisanship are assuaged. I would appreciate if someone could add these sources, as I don't understand the formatting that allows several references under one footnote. OsFish (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This will be my last post on this topic, I promise. I am very disappointed by the response to this suggested edit. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Using a loaded pejorative description in the opening sentence of an article about a well-known political pundit is not neutral. This should be a no-brainer. The fact that it isn't does not bode well for the future reputation of Wikipedia. You could find multiple published references to support using pejorative adjectives to describe any controversial political pundit. I searched through the Wikipedia articles for several well-known controversial liberal and conservative pundits, and haven't seen a single example where such a term is used in the opening sentence. Usually, controversies and criticism are contained in a section dedicated to that topic. Using this term in the opening sentence puts D'Souza into the same category as Alex Jones. That is exactly the intent of partisans who apply that term - to discredit an opponent. Wikipedia is not supposed to be partisan. I have always had faith in Wikipedia precisely because I know there is a rigorous process to ensure neutrality. That process has failed in this instance.Dsgillette (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dsgillette: Right now, we have multiple reliable sources (both media and academic) that prominently describe D'Souza as a conspiracy theorist, and I have not yet seen someone provide a source that contradicts it. Your suggestion that such terms ought to be relegated to a "criticism" or "controversies" section is actually contra to our best practices (see WP:CSECTION). That you haven't been able to find another article that uses the term "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence sounds like an issue with your searching more than anything, because they're easily found: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Shiva Ayyadurai, and Lauren Witzke (politician) are a few examples you may be familiar with. You're quite right that there are rigorous processes to ensure neutrality, and they are being followed here. If you think that is not the case you're more than welcome to seek broader input at a venue like WP:NPOVN or WP:RfC, but I would recommend familiarizing yourself a bit more with our policies first. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare You can add Mark Dice, Andrew Anglin, Baked Alaska, Glenn Beck and about 1/4 of the entries at Category:American conspiracy theorists, and those are just the American ones. It would be surprising to see a claim like this made by someone who clearly wants to edit an encyclopedia (a task which requires a strong ability to do research) if it weren't so distressingly common on any article that touches on the subject.

Dsgillette Your complaints about partisanship are, quite frankly, not our problem. Our articles follow what the best sources have to say about the subjects, and calling someone a conspiracy theorist is a rather drastic step that's very rarely done without extensive discussion, and never done without extensive discussion on pages of figures as public as this. In all of those cases, there are a significant number of high-quality sources calling them that, and no high-quality sources disputing it. Furthermore, to get a consensus to apply the label, we must show that the spreading or inventing of conspiracy theories is one of the features that makes the subject notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. In other words, the problem is not us, the problem is that these people absolutely are conspiracy theorists, and any denial of that is a denial of reality. If you take issue with this, you'd be better served by reading the article and the sources, and coming to an understanding as to why we call D'Souza a conspiracy theorist than you would be by advocating for the removal of the term here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add: here's an explanation of what conspiracy theories D'Souza has spread and here is an RfC which concluded that we should call him a conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention David Brooks talked about this guy tonight on PBS and that he was disgusted that the guy was making fun of the Capitol police testimony, so obviously many share these negatives views, and David Brooks is a conservative commentator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We’ve been this over and over again. It’s well sourced and not getting removed. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Tweet re 6 January 2021 event

Isi96 added on 26 September 2021 a paragraph about "In January 2021, after the United States Capitol attack, D'Souza claimed without evidence that leftist agitators were responsible for the attack ..." (slightly modified since). The source is Mother Jones but Mother Jones's cite is to a tweet by Mr D'Souza. In what seems to be a response to another tweet about breaking windows (which Twitter has deleted), he tweeted on January 7: "This seems consistent with several of the Trumpsters who insist the people who broke the windows were not #MAGA at all". So: not about the whole affair just about window-breaking, and not saying it was leftist agitators just saying other tweets might be consistent. This is yet another example why it's better to follow WP:RS/QUOTE rather than rely on a biased source which pretends to be telling us what a person said, and why WP:BLP requires good sourcing that directly supports a contentious statement. I think the addition should be reverted but will wait in case there's consensus for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That was my bad. Thanks, I'll undo that particular change. Isi96 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Twitter section growing to UNDUE proportions

The Twitter section continues to gradually expand. IMHO, pretty much all of it is WP:UNDUE. Twitter is riddled with "controversial" tweets, by millions of people, notable and unnotable. Someone, somewhere, ALWAYS gets their asshole in a pucker over what someone else said. This is a BLP. No question, no waffling - he's said some stupid and outrageous things. Outrage doesn't confer notability to the event, particularly when the outrage lasts barely one news cycle - not even that, when we get into the semi-reliable rags that are being used as references that pretty much exist to amplify outrage. I would say that degree of outrage - wide numbers of people, 'bipartisanly' condemn the comments, and it lasts for more than a day. That however, is my own synthetic metric. Particularly the last two recently added bits - okay, he made a comparison of Greta Thunberg to Goebbels propaganda - and the best references that could be found are the Jerusalem Post and the Indian Express. Really? Reuters, AP, NYT had little/nothing to say about it, but it merits inclusion? And the last one is too stupid to even mention, this is not notable by any metric. Okay, that's my screed of the morning. I think the section bears condensing down to about one fifth its current size if it's to be kept within notability guidelines.Anastrophe (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I've noticed there has been a steady stream of edits to the page for some weeks now. I know Wikipedia is always a work in progress, but if he's not been in the news recently, the article doesn't need to be constantly changing.Xenologer48 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Indian American article [5] cited to provide evidence that he is a conspiracy theorist makes no mention of conspiracy theory or his link to any. Should be removed.

Indian American article [5] cited to provide evidence that he is a conspiracy theorist makes no mention of conspiracy theory or his link to any. Should be removed. 2600:1017:B8AA:C211:882B:532F:C52D:9DC4 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please provide links to the article text and reference citation that concern you. You can provide links by copying the browser URL and surrounding it with single brackets as you did the numeral 5 above. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If I understand the request correctly, it is referring to a group of citations that is being used to back-up a number of independent claims in the first sentence of the article. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:REFCLUTTER. The first citation in the group (currently labelled "[5]") is intended to justify the "Indian-American" descriptor, not the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

It doesn't list him as a convicted felon in the description 174.29.8.161 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the lead (last paragraph) and there's section dedicated to it. There is not sufficient weight to include this in the first sentence description or the infobox. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The bundled citations under Conspiracy theorist label in the lead are horrendous for Wikipedia Standards and will be removed

There was a previous talk page discussion about the veracity of a certain citation not having any mention of Dinesh D`Souza being a Conspiracy theorist, which led me to go check out all the citations that were bundled under that label. These citations are atrocious.

Lets do a break down of all the bundled citations:

1) Springer Link -- I honestly don't know what I'm looking at here. Dinesh D`Souza is located no where anywhere on this page/article

2)The eternal George Soros -- same deal, don't know what the context is for this being a citation for Dinesh (Once again mentioned nowhere on this citation article/page). Looks like a book synopsis for something not written by D`Souza.

3)Radio National -- Trump pardons right-wing conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza — World News with Matt Bevan - This plays a 7 minute audio clip from a pod cast that talk about North Korea accompanied by a short article calling Dinesh a Conspiracy theorist but with no supporting facts supporting the claim?

4)Buzzfeed.news -- Trump Says He Will Pardon Far-Right Commentator Dinesh D'Souza - This article does actually name D`Souza as a Conspiracy theorist and is from a reliable source.

5)The Nation - ABC News Helps Dinesh D’Souza Hype His Latest Conspiracy Theory -- albeit from a reliable source, this is just WP:HEADLINES, because nowhere in the article does it call him a conspiracy theorist. The only use of the word is here:

 "To her credit, Raddatz introduced D’Souza’s recently released movie (currently number twelve at the box office) by saying, “[you] essentially have a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama turning this nation into a socialistic nation"

6)New Republic - Grifters All the Way Down -- This calls him a conspiracy theorist, but has no supporting facts.

7Daily Beast - Trevor Noah Compares Trump-Pardoned Dinesh D’Souza to KKK ‘Grand Wizard’ -- Daily Beast is considred a biased source on WP:RSP, this labels him a Conspiracy theorist but has no supporting facts.

8)CNN - Trump is turning his pardon power into a shield -- CNN is a reliable source, but here in this article the only mention of him being a conspiracy theorist is in this following sentence:

"Some of the President’s pardons rewarded Trump partisans like right-wing conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza"

Now, out of 8 sources. The only reliable source citation that actually labels him as a conspiracy theorist and gives supporting evidence is Buzzfeed.news. Just one. so time to remove the other 7. That leaves one. One single article claiming somebody is a conspiracy theorist is not popular opinion. WP:BLP specifically WP:REDFLAG makes very clear you can't do stuff like this. I will be removing these links as well as conspiracy theorist label from the lead paragraph. Eruditess (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

So, as far as 1), I don't know if you just clicked the article link, but it looks like the link just goes to the abstract. You have to buy the article. Same for 2). 3 is Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which I think is a reliable source. I don't think there is enough justification to remove the word or the citations. If you still disagree, put out a RfC. Xenologer48 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Source 1 was easy to find and says "The United States gave him refuge but could not spare him from slander, from right-wing efforts to disseminate outrageous falsehoods about him. Conservatives might normally be expected to see in Soros the workings of the invisible hand of the marketplace, but instead he has become an exemplar of the hidden hand. Most recently the conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza accused Soros of supporting antifa, that is, of backing “domestic terrorism.” No evidence whatsoever of that support exists. Yet the petition submitted to http://www.whitehouse.gov drew over 138,000 signatories, demanding of President Trump (who pardoned D’Souza, a campaign-law violator, in late May, 2018) that the chief executive “declare George Soros a terrorist and seize all of his related organizations’ assets under RICO.”"[10] Source 2 says "The US conspiracy theorist and pro-Trump commentator Dinesh D'Souza accused Soros of being ’a sponsor of domestic terrorism' for supposedly financing anti-fascist organisations (D’Souza: 2017). No evidence whatsoever of this exists." Doug Weller talk 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Forgot, we don't need reliable sources to provide supporting evidence. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources that don't provide supporting evidence aren't necessarily reliable, WP:RSCONTEXT comes into play and if WP:BIASED could be established then mere name-calling could be dismissed. So a proposal to remove a citation is worth discussing. However, an RfC in 2019 decided "conspiracy theorist" is okay and I don't encourage a new RfC unless you can show reason for believing consensus could have changed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Few if any sources are inherently reliable. But there is no requirement for evidence. And for me, context always matters. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Greenock125 on 27 November 2017 inserted what is now the article's Awards and nomination section. I looked at the content, saw that the award is not actually a result of serious review (Wikipedia describes Golden Raspberry Awards as a "parody award show"), and I reverted it on 4 April 2021 with edit summary = "Undid revision as of 27 November 2017 by blocked user Greenock125. Looks like some sort of joke." Valjean on 5 April 2022 re-inserted with edit summary = "Reverted good faith edits by Peter Gulutzan (talk): Removal of long-standing content should be discussed first. This content is accurate." Actually WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has no clause that if something is long-standing then Valjean can re-insert without discussing first. But to avoid more back-and-forth reverting I ask for other opinions: is there consensus for the re-insertion of the section? This is not about the mentions of the so-called awards elsewhere in the article, this is solely about additionally devoting a section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This was not "some sort of joke." Dinesh had this to say when he received the award: "This is absolutely fantastic. My audience loves the fact that you hate me. Thank you." If this had been unsourced negative content, then BLP would apply, and I would not have restored it, but this is a well-known and widely-covered award given each year, and this content is accurate. D'Souza did receive it for Worst Picture, Worst Director, and Worst Actor. (Here's the latest news for a 2022 recipient: Bruce Willis's 2022 award was rescinded after news of his diagnosis. This has been widely reported. There are times when you don't make someone the butt of a joke. That would be tasteless. Good for them to realize this.)

It is indeed a parody award, similar to the Ig Nobel Prize. They are always widely covered in RS, so we also cover them. We even have an article for the few recipients who actually meet up to accept it! Dinesh did it. "Most winners, with some exceptions, have not attended the Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony or personally accepted their award." See his listing at List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards.

Dinesh D'Souza was recognized at the 37th Golden Raspberry Awards with awards Worst Picture, Worst Director, and Worst Actor, for the 2016 documentary Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. He appeared in the video announcing the award winners, accepting the Razzies his documentary had received. D'Souza mockingly stated, "The reason you are giving it to me is because you are very upset that Trump won. You haven't gotten over it, you probably never will" and "This kind of award is really good for my career. See, if I'd gotten an Oscar, I'd be done. I couldn't make another movie, my audience wouldn't even show up. They'd have think I would have become one of you." He helps conclude the video by saying "To win a Razzie, being dissed by you guys? This is absolutely fantastic. My audience loves the fact that you hate me. Thank you."

My restoration is simply based on the fact that it's accurate content and not a joke. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's fine if your opinion is that the Razzies are serious or deserve long mentions twice in the article. But I asked for "other opinions". If there are none, I'll try WP:3O. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Twice? You hadn't mentioned that. I'm away from my PC, so it's difficult to examine the whole article on my phone. Without seeing the duplication, I'll accept that the issue should be resolved in some way that doesn't mean total deletion of the subject. Go for it. I'm sure you can do that in a fair manner. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Valjean: I did mention it. Apparently you didn't read or comprehend what I posted above -- "This is not about the mentions of the so-called awards elsewhere in the article, this is solely about additionally devoting a section." Apparently you didn't read the article either, eh? I'll wait a day and if there's nothing further in this thread then I'll again remove what Greenock125 inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I vote we keep the raspberries.Xenologer48 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Xenologer48 Are you saying you think the section should stay in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless the sources are not reliable. The Golden Raspberries are notable enough.Xenologer48 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Xenologer48, I fear you are missing the point. The issue isn't whether we should mention the Razzies (we should), but whether we should do it twice. The table is flashy but the mention in the body (at #Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)) is more thorough and does the job fine. Therefore let's get rid of the table at the bottom. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Rename the section Recognition -- to make clear these are not awards in the sense most readers would expect. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You're saying you think the section should stay in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There's no doubt it passes due weight, but there seems to be some reasonable objection to calling the Razzies "awards" in wiki-voice. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether we should mention the Razzies (we should), but whether we should do it twice. The table is flashy but the mention in the body (at #Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)) is more thorough and does the job fine. Therefore let's get rid of the table at the bottom. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe we should include it in a table. If it's already described in the article, that's good enough. He doesn't have any other awards or recognitions, so why would we make a section just to highlight that he won an award for being a horrible filmmaker? I mean, all you have to do is watch the film to figure that out... HappyMcSlappy (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I undid the blocked user's revision a second time. Three editors favour removal of the section, two editors favour keeping. The pro-keepers have not responded to the explanation that this only means the awards aren't described at length twice. So there's either consensus against re-insertion or at least no consensus for re-insertion, and I hope the pro-keepers will accept that's required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Conviction of bundling.

No discussion of the reasons he gives as to how he was singled out for prosecution, please add context. Very biased. 74.4.61.177 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2022

The description of Antifa is not quite correct, I would to provide a more accurate description, or in this case, short description where is mentioned.

Thank you, best regards Ungajack (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 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.Xenologer48 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion for recent edits on the 2000 mules section

@Brenr I've reverted your edit again. If you have something you would like to discuss, please do so.Xenologer48 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Noah is not a reliable source and this is serious BLP vio stuff. soibangla (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I don't necessarily object to that small part being removed. It was the other things that were not mentioned in the edit summary that altered the presentation of 2000 mules. They changed some words to make 2000 mules appear to be accurate while reliable sources (such as the AP report in that section) report otherwise. I have no objection to removing the Daily Beast citation, as there are more than enough other sources calling him a conspiracy theorist.

Thanks for replying. I'll go ahead and make that edit.Xenologer48 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

STOP! Soibangla, you are missing an important point here. Noah is not cited for this content. The source is one of many RS used to document the view that Dinesh is a conspiracy theorist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I will not change anything then. Xenologer48 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is confusing as it covers Noah and 2000 Mules, two very different topics. Maybe start a new thread? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

As long as Brenr's initial edit remains reverted, we're okay. There was nothing wrong with the status quo version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Add the category Former Roman Catholics

He was raised Catholic, but is now a non-denominational. I cannot edit the article. So please add that. 73.148.104.166 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It already says "D'Souza grew up in a middle-class family; his parents were Roman Catholics from the state of Goa in Western India," "While stating that his Catholic background is important to him, D'Souza also says he is comfortable with Protestant Reformation theology and identifies as a nondenominational Christian." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Falsehoods?

I don't see any citation of a confirmed falsehood. #25 only talks about campaign contribution fraud. A citation is required or the claim should be removed. 68.4.97.55 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There are references, but the articles for both films give even more detail and references. This is totally unsurprising as "D'Souza has a history of promoting false and misleading claims." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we tighten this article? FCS, he is a convicted felon who knowingly plead guilty admitted wrongdoing for serious election fraud crimes, a felony! There is no need to add Alan Dershowitz since he wasn't part of his trial, a biased right wing commentator on Fox no less, and one of many trolls offering a worthless opinion. Again, D'Souza confessed before a judge that he was properly convicted of wrongdoing, and his own wife (who he cheated on in major scandal costing him his job at Xtian university) denounced D'Souza in a letter to the judge condemning him for being pathologically dishonest AND of poor moral character. Yet, the way much of his fluff piece is written, you'd never know this. A convicted felon is a convicted felon and wikipedia doesn't owe him anything in the way of PR. Can you make some 'tweaks' to this as well?2601:282:8100:D3E0:D4F3:3459:35E8:1800 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Judge & Jury?

Why does the 2000 Miles description state that the movie "falsely alleges" voter fraud? Are you the judge and jury in this situation, because I just watched a whole lot of video evidence of some very questionable voter ballot box stuffing that doesn't look like "false allegations" to me.... This data is new, so I find out hard to believe that you can jump to the conclusion that it "falsely alleges" anything yet until you know whether it can be validated or not! 206.128.78.207 (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The AP reports that these allegations are false. We go with reliable sources over D'Souza.Xenologer48 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Although this isn't concrete evidence one way or the other, D'Souza's reputation for dishonest propaganda doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he is suddenly being honest. No, he remains a propagandist. The same applies for anything coming from Trump or Project Veritas. The default assumption, based on history, is that these people and organizations are likely lying to us.

The more solid reason is that their so-called "evidence" is so faulty as to be worthless, and that's what RS tell us, so our content is based on that. The burden of proof that such voter fraud has happened is on D'Souza, and his "evidence" does not back his claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You admit in your opening statement that there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion. This is a textbook disputed fact and should not be stated as truth. It can easily be framed as disputed and not outright false but after reviewing many of your edits across the wiki I can see, Valjean, that you are not attempting to add context to the narrative but add your personal bias as to what is the truth.

Regardless of what your option on the director, his past, or the contents of the film the veracity of the claims should not be labeled as false as long as the evidence is still disputed awaiting further review.

It does not matter if the evidence is convincing to you Valjean, the point of the page is to give context to the reader. You making statements of fact on the evidence is inappropriate.

I encourage you to approve an edit to rephrase the evidence as disputed and offer context from both sources as to why such evidence is either valid or invalid. 73.127.23.159 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Attacking the motives of editors isn't going to get much traction. The only context that needs to be given is that which is provided in reliable sources. D'Souza's reputation for dishonesty is well documented and undisputed in reliable sources, in particular the word "falsely" with respect to claims made in 2000 Mules. That's all that matters. Nobody is injecting personal opinions into this. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You admit in your opening statement that there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

That's not what they said. What they said is that D'Souza's reputation for dishonest propaganda is not concrete evidence.

Everything else you wrote is also a misunderstanding. Jibal (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why does the 2000 Miles description state that the movie "falsely alleges" voter fraud?

Because it is false, as established by numerous reliable sources.

I just watched a whole lot of video evidence of some very questionable voter ballot box stuffing that doesn't look like "false allegations" to me

a) What you watched and how it looks to you is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. b) The claim that it was "very questionable voter ballot box stuffing" is simply a repetition of the false allegation--there is no truth to that claim. Jibal (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s 2022, RS has exhaustively described every single notable allegation of voter fraud as baseless or false, and the onus is on the accuser rather than the accused. Are we seriously doing this discussion again? Tyrone (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Felon should be added to his top line description

His felony is integral to a clear evaluation of his credibility. It is directly related to his political career and should be made prominent on his page. 2603:6081:6506:BA52:8CE0:4C39:E000:580 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before, and there is a general agreement that it's not appropriate for the first sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure that this is the most relevant to put that in there. I don't understand why it should be in the top line. I am actually posting in the village pump because I don't know that it is necessarily that useful to include the phrase "convicted felon" in the first sentence in many instances including this one.

However this is something I feel strongly about and I might not be able to see this in a neutral way. I just find that "convicted felon" is on one hand vague, and on the other hand loaded and stigmatizing.

It seems he has been convicted of a felony and this should be a part of the article. Perhaps even in the first few sentences. But I think it would be more accurate in this situation to describe how he is this right-wing commentator and how he got into legal trouble in that venue.

07:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hockeydogpizzapup's village pump post is here. "Convicted felon" is not currently in the first sentence of this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it vague or loaded and stigmatizing when he is a convicted felon? Anyway, the words aren't there. Jibal (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Curious about “provocateur” in the first paragraph

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

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

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

An agent provocateur is a person who commits, or who acts to entice another person to commit, an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation of, or entice legal action against, the target, or a group they belong to or are perceived to belong to. Wikipedia

Pointing only to his promotion of "birthirism" and his (2000 mules) film in which extraordinarily thin "evidence" is paraded as proven fact, it's very clear that D'Souza's central objectives include promotion of illegal acts (disenfranchisement), reputational damage (birthirism) and enticement of legal action against (presumed legal voters) groups and individuals. *Please consider signing your comments in future posts. Jhall 3rd (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Assertions without argument can be ignored. Jibal (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that provocateur was removed from the lead with the summary "not an occupation"] and without reference to this discussion here, which bothers me a bit. MOS:LEAD says we should list "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." So the fact that it's not an occupation isn't a reason for removing it. Is it "contentious"? Looking at the various discussions on about the term "conspiracy theorist" on Wikipedia talk:MOS, the consensus appears to be if there are enough good quality sources for a possibly contentious term, then it can go in. At present, still in the lead as sources for the term, are the Guardian, BBC, LA Times and NPR, all headlining articles about him with the word "provocateur". Isn't that good enough for inclusion? OsFish (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be reinserted. It was removed without consensus and the reason was bogus, as you note. Jibal (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

no it shouldnt: MOS:LEAD is clear: "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." --FMSky (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes - dishonest summing up

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

BUT why does it not also say that the publics assessment of the film is 84% positive? This should be put in for the sake of honesty. Rustygecko (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: I have no objection to including that if it were cited to a reliable source. We have other articles with similar statements; for example the article on The Accountant (2016 film)#Critical response says that critics rated it low but audiences rated it high, and cited all the sources needed to support those claims. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

For a reliable source just go and look at Rotten Tomatoes. Rustygecko (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

But, thinking about it, this exposes a deeper problem. Whoever put that in new that they were being intellectually dishonest and biased against the subject.

If you read the whole article in fact it looks like nobody supports what he’s saying at all. It’s a more of an attack piece rather than a balanced view of the subject. Rustygecko (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for summarizing reviews by professional film critics. It is not considered a reliable source for audience reaction, and the film in question is clearly subject to demographic skew. Following the Manual of Style is not being intellectually dishonest and biased against the subject. Instead, it is what editors are expected to do. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

What is RS?

So you are saying that Wiki doesn’t present fairly an idea that the authors dislike? Doesn’t that make Wiki very dominated by the zeitgeist rather than giving objective information? Rustygecko (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: The acronym "RS" is shorthand on talk pages for "reliable source". Articles report what reliable sources say. That is the standard of objective information here. Read Valjean's reply again now that you know what RS means. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)