Talk:Dinesh D'Souza: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dinesh D'Souza article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dinesh D'Souza. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dinesh D'Souza at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: India Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Goa Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Goa (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism: Intelligent design Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Asian Americans / Dartmouth Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire - Dartmouth College (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

It seems inappropriate and biased to not mention in the first sentence that the subject of this article is indeed a convicted felon, as much, if not most, of his notability comes from the fact that he is a convicted felon. Many people are only aware of the subject of this article because of his status as a convicted felon and not because of any other activites he has taken part in. It seems that those who have removed the mention that the subject is a convicted felon is to minimize this fact as to further a poltical agenda which benefits from the minimization and marginalization of this fact. 184.96.176.174 (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis and suggest the mention be returned to the lead sentence. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it is nec. to put in lead sentence, also 'convicted felon' is loaded, why not state (as now), wxactly what the 'felony' was. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in a previous discussion your preference does not seem not consistent with other wikipedia articles where a person's notability derives from their felon status, Pincrete. But would "convicted felon involved with campaign finance fraud" be acceptable consistent with your request? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that convicted felon belongs here. He also confessed to this when he plead guilty to avoid prison time. It's a fact, notable to the history of this man. We report, and let the readers decide. No reason to exclude it other than for political reasons.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments come from a random IP, a banned sockpuppet, and a brand-new account engaged in over-the-top POV-pushing (such as removing Alan Dershowitz and other reliable sources under the guise of purging "WP:synth ... and WP:OR" and replacing—sans explanation—the previously accepted photograph of D'Souza with his mugshot). Editors familiar with Wikipedia standards such as WP:BLP and WP:LEAD should know better than to identify anyone as a "convicted felon" in the first sentence—unless that is what the person is principally known for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Oneshotofwhiskey, I know a sock when I see one, and will likely be filing an SPI shortly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging, your own blind reverting and bad faith edit summary comments are not helping. I agree it is over emphasis to have "convicted felon" in the very first sentence - it is not what the individual is notable for, and his convicted felon status was also mentioned later in the lede, adding even more to the overemphasis. However, exactly the same is true for "Indian American" - yet TheTimesAreAChanging seems to think it is appropriate to have this bit of lede overemphasis and lede duplication. Alas, for me, this indicates partisan-based pov editing and not editing intended to attain a quality neutral article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to the old version. I'm not responsible for anything in the old version. If you want to change the established stable text, go ahead; if you are reverted, come to talk to seek consensus for your change. Is that really so hard to understand?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if someone is born in Mumbai and holds both American and Indian citizenship (as I presume D'Souza does), it is news to me that calling them "Indian American" constitutes "partisan-based pov editing"—thereby justifying the mass deletion of Alan Dershowitz and other prominent sources in a massive rollback.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more bad faith comments from TheTimesAreAChanging. (: TheTimesAreAChanging's repeated blanket reverts (like this [1] and [2] and [3]) result in the removal of many edits made by various editors covering various topics and issues. If this editor finds it that easy to pick out such-and-such a single issue after making the revert, in order to justify the revert, why did they not simply address that single issue through an edit that dealt solely with that issue? Repeated blanket reverts are unconstructive, promote conflict, and make it impossible to actually address and resolve specific issues. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've put both EW and DS warnings on his talk page, so if you have the time or energy this can be resolved on one of those boards. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, let's try this again. If you look at the handy-dandy "Revision history," you won't need to make vague, unsubstantiated references to "many edits made by various editors": You can see precisely which edits I reverted and why. Oneshotofwhiskey made almost two dozen insanely over-the-top POV-pushing BOLD changes on October 10, such as replacing the accepted picture of D'Souza with his mugshot. Therefore, on October 13, I reverted back to the last stable version before the POV-pushing began: The article as it was on October 7. Besides Oneshotofwhiskey, the only editor effected by this rollback was you—it did not change Cydebot's updated category, and rendered Calibrador's replacing the mugshot with a neutral photo moot. (In fact, you caused much more disruption with your own rollback!)

So let's review the edits I inadvertently deleted. Four of your edits were caught in the crossfire: 1, 2, 3, 4. Clearly, two of these edits were not particularly constructive (tagging a section name, deleting a fairly close paraphrase of a cited source as "POV"), but the other two were more reasonable, which is why in subsequent edits I restored your text. In response to subsequent criticism on my talk page, I replaced the Sowell paraphrase with a direct quote. Are you satisfied that this renders your blanket deletion unnecessary?

If so, there is, in fact, only one issue remaining. You tagged "Criticisms of Hillary Clinton" with ^{[clarification needed]}. I deleted the following two sentences, which you correctly pointed out are not criticisms at all, renaming the remaining section "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party":

• "D'Souza's film America features scenes depicting a 14-year-old Hillary Clinton meeting Saul Alinsky." (So what? Trivial detail.)
• "On July 7, 2015, D'Souza circulated a photoshopped image of Clinton, purporting that it showed her with a Confederate flag in the background. The original image had no such flag." (Yeah, of course it didn't. D'Souza was making a symbolic point about the history of the Democratic Party, which he believes went from enslaving blacks to buying their votes through dependence on the government dole, selling out black communities in places like Chicago and Detroit by convincing their constituents to be very, very afraid of Republican racism. You would have to be insane to think that was a real photo proving Hilary is a closet Klansman, and I highly doubt anyone actually took it that way. More wildly undue oppo-research taken from D'Souza's Twitter feed.)

Perhaps you approve of these deletions, perhaps you don't. Like the ironically-named SPECIFICO—who comes across like a robot, with every single one of his edit summaries so vaguely written and acronym-heavy it is impossible to guess what the underlying issues might be; see, e.g., "Restored well-sourced NPOV noteworthy. Use talk if you disagree. The criterion for article content is noteworthiness, not notability of each detail. The content is widely reported by RS as cited."—I really have no idea what you are still objecting to.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with the user SPECIFICO (sp?) and the other user Tiptoethrutheminefield (funny name) that the user TheTimesAreChanging is engaging in edit warring and bad faith. I would go further and suggest page-ownership violations at this point. The consensus here is clearly to support the NPOV additions to the page, including direct clarity about D'Souza's criminal convictions. Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda as alluded to you in the smug remark on my page threatening to delete my account, and accusing me of being a "political opponent" in the SPI. At the moment, the consensus is against you on this so respect these/our contributions moving forward. Cease editwarring or go to arbitration if you feel like this is unfair to you. My patience is at an end.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Oneshotofwhiskey, but WP cannot refer to "D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories" in its neutral voice. (Notice the stark contrast between my detailed, specific rationales and Oneshotofwhiskey's attempts to muddle the issues.) You're not going to get your way through mass reverts and mass deletions. If you want to change or delete something, you will have to come here on talk and explain why. There is only one line in your above rant that relates to the content disagreement, and I will respond to it: "The consensus here is clearly to support ... direct clarity about D'Souza's criminal convictions." What consensus? Pincrete ("I don't agree that it is nec. to put in lead sentence"), Tiptoethrutheminefield ("I agree it is over emphasis to have "convicted felon" in the very first sentence - it is not what the individual is notable for"), Spiffy sperry ("as stated before, this does not need two mentions in the lead") and myself all disagree. Neither the banned sock nor the IP carry much weight, so you're alone in refusing to accept normal WP:BLP standards—unless SPECIFICO wants to explicitly endorse labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" in the first sentence, or replacing the established photo with his mugshot.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many prominent journalists and critics pointed out D'Souza's "theories" are anecdotal observations and personal interpretation (without scientific methodology) of Obama, Hillary and other politicians he targets. And he targets politicians exclusively of a liberal bent. He based his entire movie of Obama, in fact, on his own irrelevant experiences growing up and his skewed reading (read: without proper investigating) of Obama's book. The citations out there certainly have called out D'Souza and his conspiracy theories. IN fact, the first third of his movie about Hillary alleges he was a political prisoner without a shred of real evidence. You are engaging in a page ownership violation, period. You don't own this page. My contributions are minor and expand upon what is already there, and all more than backed up by the citations. Yes, D'Souza is engaging in conspiracy theories as his theories have no credibility within the scientific and journalistic community. As for the rest - dropping "convicted felon" in the lead, the mugshot - I've have compromised on that. The remainder is neutral, factual, and accurate. WE report, we let the reader decide, and we ONLY report what is pertinent. To leave out anything I've humbly added would only be in service of your political spin. And if I am less than friendly, it is because you falsely accused me of socking and were called out for it by admins for "muckraking". You claimed oh so arrogantly that you "know a sock when you see it" and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations and WP:GAMING. Forgive me, then, if you faux-indignation falls on deaf ears. Respect the contributions of others, or seek arbitration if you think these changes are not fair. You should know better than to blindly revert the work of others without discussing it here first. All I did was add clarity to what was already there. Good luck.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere. Oneshotofwhiskey argues that the lead should accuse D'Souza of promoting a "conspiracy theory" about President Obama, citing the Variety review of 2016: Obama's America. I disagree, holding that such loaded language should probably not be repeated in Wikipedia's neutral voice. What do other editors think? (Remember: No consensus, no change.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would assume a prior consensus. There is no consensus that says we can not report that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist or engaging in conspiracy theories. The (reputable) sources stating this more than back up this assertion and were reported on accordingly. I can list more sources if you like. Prominent critic and entertainment journalist Owen Gleiberman dedicated an entire page of EW to this issue (in addition to his review). The sources disagree with you and are authoratative on this. Also, canvassing for your POV is against the rules for how you build an consensus. Respect the guidelines of WP:CITEand good faith. You were already once admonished by the admins in your faux-SPI for "muckraking". Also, you are now violating 3RR rule.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last stable version does have the presumption of consensus. Of course "There is no consensus that says we can not report that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist," but quoting an "entertainment journalist" is quite a different matter from making this accusation in WP's neutral voice, which requires very strong sourcing in a WP:BLP. While you clearly don't understand what WP:CANVASS is all about (hint: it's not just asking "What do other editors think?"), the fact that you would make such an accusation only underscores the unlikelihood that you are the month-old account you claim to be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, can you explain why WP's lead must be rewritten to reflect Owen Gleiberman's negative review, but Alan Dershowitz is not a RS even for his own attributed opinion?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to add his latest hardback title, but I can not find the edit button for this page. Or an indication that this page is locked due to vandalism. Who is allowed to update this page?209.242.149.240 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.242.149.240, make an edit request in the format of further up this page, give your reasons and the sources for the info. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book earned praise from atheist Christopher Hitchens for Dinesh's argumentative skills.^[1]

SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A para in the campaign finance section begins:

"D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution has received support from some conservative media legal scholars and commentators. Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, said..."

The first sentence should be changed to something like "commentators across the political spectrum". Or "conservative and even some liberal commentators." As it stands, the para is at best poor composition and at worst a non sequitur.Snarfblaat (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snarfblaat, I suspect there should be a comma after 'media'. I checked the source used, that actually only supports Con media (implicit) + Dershowitz + Republican Senators, so unless there is a better source, there is nothing to support your proposed change. I removed 'leg. sch' leaving 'media and commentators', though one or the other would probably be enough. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, I don't have additional sources, this isn't my area, I'm just arguing for internal consistency. What is the topic sentence of the paragraph? I assume the first, which states that "conservative media and commentators" have doubted the impartiality of the prosecution. What is the entire remainder of the paragraph? A discussion of the criticism of a law professor identified as "liberal". Do you agree that is intolerably poor drafting or even non sequitur?

As to the comma, do you mean "conservative" in "conservative media and commentators" only refers to "media" and not "commentators"? Then it should be disambiguated, because that's not at all how it reads now. There are any number of ways, but a comma after "media", to my ear, wouldn't be good English. One option would be to switch the order to "commentators and conservative media" (although this still has the issue that the para goes on to discuss a "liberal" professor's views).

prev. comment left unsigned by Snarfblaat

This isn't my area either, I happened to see your request and while looking, noticed the text was overstating the source (evidence of one news outlet, one commentator + Dershowitz). I'm UK so have no idea whether the news outlet used as a source should be described as 'conservative', Dershowitz is usually identified as 'liberal'. Possibly 1st sentence should go, leaving 'Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz etc'. If you remember, it originally said 'conservative media legal scholars and commentators', which is even more muddled, (I didn't know that the law relating to conservative media was a specialist scholarly area!). Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph discussing his conviction starts with this:

"However, D'Souza's admission of guilt upon which he was convicted has been cited as enough evidence of the appropriateness of conviction, with prosecutorial bias considered unlikely given that the sentence did not include any jail time despite a request for 10–16 months of incarceration by the prosecution."

which appears to be pure opinion, and biased. Furthermore, the sources cited are both politically biased commentators, yet the sentence implies that they would be impartial experts of law.

...

"Right-Winger Dinesh D'Souza Pleads Guilty to Felony". The David Pakman Show. May 22, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2015.

Jump up ^ "Dinesh D’Souza’s Ex-Wife Wipes The Smile Off His Convicted Face". The Young Turks. October 2, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2015. ...

These sources are just there to make the original sentence appear to be legitimate. They are not legitimate sources for this opinion-based statement.

'Has been cited' makes clear this is opinion, however I agree that undue weight is being given here to a fairly vague 'he deserved it' comment. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the text to make clear that NY Times verifies this content and it does not rely solely on the other sources, which are valid supporting references per WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D'Souza says in his guilty plea for his felony conviction,"I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids. I deeply regret my conduct." Including anything else from other lawyers or conservative commenters to dilute the reality of this or minimize his embarrassment has no place on a wikipedia article, other than for purposes of political spin. It is already mentioned succinctly in our reporting that D'Souza has since tried to allege government persecution for his crimes. But since he lists no evidence, there is no need to make his case for him. It's enough that it is mentioned. For the rest, we should keep to the legitimate sources and be direct about what we DO know: that he is a convicted felon who plead quilty to this crimes...that in his alleged affair while married he resigned from his position at a Christian school after showing up with a fiancé while still married, etc. It's not our job to defend these guys. It's just our job to report the facts and let the reader decide. Nuff said.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

His 2012 film is not the highest-grossing documentary produced in the United States (a claim made in the third paragraph of the introduction). Several sources online show that another film holds that title (Fahrenheit 9/11), and that D'Souza's film is not even on the top ten list. This statement is incorrect and should be removed.

References: http://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=documentary&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm

208.58.218.235 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: IMDB is not considered a reliable source MediaKill13 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Personal life" change the word "The" to the word "Their" in the second to last sentence of the section.

Change: The wedding took place at a secret location near San Diego, CA...

To: Their wedding took place at a secret location near San Diego, CA...

Jungleman606 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I don't think it's necessary. The paragraph talks about the marriage and then talks about the wedding. A&B were married X years ago, the wedding was nice. You don't need "their" in this case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Can we call D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice. If yes, what RS can be cited to support such a designation? SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes for the reasons cited by @Oneshotofwhiskey: in the discussion section below. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No. D'Souza's alleged "conspiracy theory" is that Barack Obama's political views were influenced by those of his father, Barack Obama Sr., based on D'Souza's reading of Obama's memoir Dreams from My Father. That's hardly in the same category as someone who claims the moon landing never happened. A negative review or two to the contrary seems to fall under WP:RSOPINION.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's making this claim as a statement of a fact, presented as a political theory about the President in the form of investigative journalism when the truth is that his movie and book are simply partisan commentary. His ridiculous comparisons between his personal life and that of Obama's is hardly investigative nor scientific but based as some sort of methology by D'Souza. He continues this approach with his Hillary film, presenting his felony crimes and incarceration as a government conspiracy to make him a political prisoner. Both a judge and D'Souza's own words negate that allegation. It's ever bit as ridiculous as the birther conspiracy theory and the moon-landing. Alan Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes. It's not outrageous to suggest D'Souza is peddling conspiracy theories since the consensus in the reputable press circles are backing this up. Again, I included the Slate source for a reason. This isn't just reviews at this point. And I can include more citations if need be. We report, and we let the readers decide.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variety's review of Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party labels D'Souza "a right-wing conspiracy wingnut." Therefore, User:Oneshotofwhiskey argues that referring to D'Souza as a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's neutral voice is entirely appropriate, as the Variety review satisfies WP:CITE. When dealing with a living person, however, I think it needs to be demonstrated that this label is not merely the opinion of one critic, but an overwhelmingly common description of what D'Souza is known for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in the main-stream press by reputable press outlets is that D'Souza is peddling conspiracy theories. That is the major indictment of his work. I even included a reputable source OTHER than a variety review. There are more if you like. There is one of many [4]. To "specifo's" concern: wikipedia reports all of the time on conspiracy theories. While it might not be necessary to call D'Souza a conspiracy theorist, his work certainly falls into that realm and is backed by the consensus of reputable sources (i.e. Breitbart, daily kos are NOT reputable, etc.) The JFK theory that Oswald didn't act alone, ROSWELL's UFO crash landing, the idiotic Birther theory that Obama wasn't born in the US, the theory that Hillary Clinton is secretly dying from health issues, the liberal theory that 9/11 was a plot by the CIA, are ALL conspiracy theories that should be reported as such. It's not a derogatory label. Conspiracy theories go back to JFK and Jack the Ripper. We can certainly report about them here if that is the question.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Until the edit war here and elsewhere under investigation in arbitration is resolved, I have no problem leaving out the language about conspiracy theories. However, since D'Souza does not approach his work scientifically and simply offers his own partisan and anecdotal opinions under the guise of forensic-investigative journalism, we don't owe him or the issue false equivalence. Until a consensus is reached on this, we should leave out the word "theory" all-together since a true theory implies vetting and research, which D'Souza has done none outside of simply reading Obama's book, watching news reports, and offering his own personal partisan anecdotal observations. I'm all for compromise. Let's have it.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]