Jump to content

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Removal of "Convicted Felon" mention

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comment - I think ending the first line with 'convicted felon' is technically the correct legal term and suitable, see under other article discussions that it is a conservative way to state a noted life-change. On the other hand, the Hilary photo stuff is improperly stated -- it's not that important and thedailybeast is not correctly conveyed -- this sounds like he made it but the tale is he just forwarded a fake in ignorance. ("duped") Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. This was an important life-defining and career defining event for this man. Add to this, that he isn't trying to move on from it. Quite the contrary, he obsessively identifies with his felony status and makes it front and center in his movies. In his Hillary hit job piece, he spent a considerable amount of time discussing his imprisonment, going as far as dramatically recreating it in order to use it as part of his political narrative. He paints himself as a former political prisoner. So, including it certainly is notable as far as WP:LEAD is concerned. This non-sense that we are including it 'twice' is contradicted by the fact that the lead also mentions his films and political activism. So do we also remove the summary that he is a filmmaker or political commentary as well since further down the lead we mention his movies and political work? Nonsense. The only reason to exclude it is because partisan editors are doing so for reasons of spin. Notability demands we include it for readers wishing to learn about the subject, period.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oneshotofwhiskey, maybe you really are a brand-new editor, and you have no flippin' idea how Wikipedia works or what I mean when I invoke WP:BLP. Perhaps, to you, Wikipedia is simply a blog for your own personal ramblings. It really doesn't matter—if you refuse to learn, you are being tendentious. Look at another BLP, any BLP. Try, say, Jeffrey Epstein: Do we call him a "registered sex offender" in the first sentence? Of course not—now it's on you to learn why we don't, why this is enforced across all BLPs, and thus why making an unprincipled exception for D'Souza would be a violation of all the norms of Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Your personal attacks and condescending attitude makes it impossible to take you seriously. There are many articles about conmen, serial killers, convicted criminals and the like that wikipedia allow for direct language about them. Would I call Tiger Woods a serial cheater or sex addict in his lead? No, mostly because his adultery isn't central to his public identity as a golfing celebrity. Should we call Stephen Glass the liberal journalist who fabricated dozens of articles a serial fabricator? Maybe, though not in those words and certainly I wouldn't be against it since his fraudulent behavior is directly tired to his career. The problem with D'Souza is that he has made a career out of stalking figures like Obama and Hillary from afar with his personal crusade to expose their perceived political corruptions. So for this man to fall from grace because he himself broke the law and was imprisoned for true life felony political corruption and criminal behavior is certainly directly tied to his behavior, career and identity. This isn't slap on the wrist stuff. He wasn't fined for smoking a joint. He was found guilty and admitted to wrongdoing for the very thing he accuses Hillary and Obama for doing. No one is saying that we label him a fraudulent conman or propagandist even though he is certainly both of those. Stating he is a convicted felon is a statement of fact. I wouldn't label a registered sex offender "a registered sex offender." I would also label him a convicted felon. Then I would let the article go into the details. Now it is time for you to learn why we don't agree with your skewed understanding of BLPs, why there are in fact some articles across all the BLPs that are okay with that language in some cases, and why this isn't an unprincipled exception of any norms other than perhaps the personal politics of partisan political editors.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC -- Can we call D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice ?

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)

Survey

I also vote Yes. As this is the consensus moving forward, I will restore the censored material since it also more than satisfies WP:CITE. If more editors come along and change the current consensus, certainly we will respect that and revert the changes.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • No - shee, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR already. As for this being a BLP page -- unless he's self-declaring that, it seems kind of an WP:BLPGOSSIP unimportant insult to his bio. Any such offensive material should be stated as from someone not as a WP matter of OR, and presented in WP:DUE weight of prominence (which I think is microscopic) along with WP:DUE amount of the other views about the matter to comply with WP:NPOV. What's in the lead about that doesn't even make sense -- his speculating Obama got some attitudes from his father is not any kind of conspiracy. Frankly, this just sniffs like a political bit, and better to just revert to a 2015 version of the article until we're past the elections when potential motivations will be gone. Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No per WP:BLP and lack of reliable sources labeling him as such. Instaurare (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you look, there are actually quite a large number of reliable sources out there that suggest D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist. A few examples from a quick search: [4][5][6][7][8] - and that's avoiding sources that might be dismissed as biased like Slate, Salon, etc (there's plenty of sources like that that call him a conspiracy theorist). Not saying we need to claim it in wiki's voice necessarily, but it's not as outlandish as some of the comments above assume. Maybe pick a few of the best sources that characterize him this way and attribute the claim? Fyddlestix (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - One way or the other "based upon his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observation" does not appear to be very neutral wording. Further, two passing mentions of accusations of conspiracy theorizing do not justify inclusion of CT related content in the WP:LEAD, which itself is about as long or longer than the treatment of the topic in the body of the article. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No If a few sources have referred to D'Souza's view as a 'conspiracy theory', it's a manifestation of the way the term 'conspiracy theory' has become a generalized insult, and a deterrent to critical thought. D'Souza's views may be unfounded and illogical, but his description of Obama's roots doesn't seem to involve any conspiracy. Furthermore: while some 'conspiracy theories' are bogus pseudoscience, other 'theories about conspiracy' are proven historical fact. So, I don't think 'conspiracy theory' is really working so well as a generalized insult any more. JerryRussell (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
My comment is restricted to the particular use now in the text, describing D'Souza's theory about Obama. It's very possible that D'Souza has other views that would be properly labeled as 'conspiracy theory'. JerryRussell (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
If there are, Oneshotofwhiskey hasn't pointed them out. The sole reference to the term is in the following context: "In 2012, D'Souza released 2016: Obama's America, a conservative political documentary film based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage. Both posit a conspiracy theory - based upon his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations - alleging that Barack Obama's attitude toward America derives from his father's anti-colonialism and from a psychological desire to fulfill his father's dream of diminishing the power of Western imperial states." As you note, there is no conspiracy there, so the term is invalid.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Question -- How's that conspiracy theory? With whom did Barack "conspire"? IMO this is term misuse. What are other English-language terms for kranky theories? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No. This is not his whole life. Just the same we don't call him "convicted felon" in the lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Look, 'everyone', you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to flaunt conspiracy theories. Trump is not a conspiracy theorist. Yet he claims "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." Since that is a wild idiotic claim made without REAL evidence, it is a "conspiracy theory." Maybe an informal one, but a conspiracy theory never the less. Do what you will, but it actually offends me MORE when we call his partisan commentary a "theory" when there is nothing truly investigative about his work. And for him to quite clearly say that he was political imprisoned by Obama or the government which he went as far as to dramatize in his Hillary hitjob movie is certainly a conspiracy theory since there is zero evidence to prove that.
  • !?WTF?! This entire discussion (above and below) has taken place without any reference whatever to the the definition of Conspiracy theory. Tapered (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No Because of the above mentioned, I have to say no. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions except in some extremely scary dark corners of some vandal's userspace. Adotchar| reply here 11:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but thankfully the final word on D'Souza isn't wikipedia if you guys succeed in turning this back into a spin page. He's a pariah in the mainstream for a reason (for fun, read this) [[9]]

In the meanwhile, for what should be considered encyclopedic or not, refresh your self on the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat

This part is authoritative about D'Souza and and emotionally-reasoned'theorists' like him: "But you may encounter some who'll strenuously maintain that a particular "breakthrough", "notable" or "controversial" idea, belief, or theory deserves more consideration than it has received in the academic world." Pay especially close part to the part discussing conspiracy theories and how to deal with them.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That last three in particular make it clear that even conservatives like David Frum have backed away from him as he gone more and more loony. The 1st ref above is right-wingish. The 2nd is generally right-wing. I am not aware of GQ having politics. The others are probably considered lefty. So... this is pretty across-the-board, which is plenty broad to say it in WP's voice. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for those extensive and exhaustive citations. This should put to rest the concerns of the other disruptive editor that there are we are solely relying on a sources from a couple of reviewers. I would've included more since this debate re-opened, but we must await the page being unlocked from protective status. It is clear from those sources that are from reputable sources on all sides of the political spectrum that D'Souza is advancing conspiracy theories. There should no longer be a question of whether or not we include it as WP:DUE and WP:CITATION demand we accurately call this duck that quacks like a duck the duck it is.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, though an alternative formulation might be preferable (e.g. "who promotes conspiracy theories concerning..."). This is undoubtedly supported by sources. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No Certainly his work is highly polemical, makes unsubstantiated claims and the reasoning leaves much to be desired. But that does him a conspiracy theorist and he does not seem interested in the main conspiracist interests: the Illuminati, the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, etc. There are no reliable sources that call him one. We should also consider "Contentious labels": "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TFD (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Could you comment on @Jytdog:'s mooted list of RS that use "conspiracy theorist" above? SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, some editors are being misleading here. No one is saying that we want to label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist." But his most of his major 'theories' are conspiracy theories. His biggest, most defining one is his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him. There is no real evidence to support that claim, yet he devoted a major portion of his anti-Hillary propaganda piece to that conspiracy theory, stating it as if it were fact. The thing is that MOST controversial figures who put out conspiracy theories do NOT think those theories are on the fringe. They treat them as fact, as the truth. It is rare for those conspiracy theorists to come out and call their own theories "conspiracy theories." The sources certainly support this reality. The only reason to leave it out is for the purposes of political spin.204.96.25.202 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No – My comments are posted in the Threaded Discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Summoned by bot. Leaning to no based on my reading of the article. My sense is that it is not warranted in this case. However, I would like to gently chastise the drafter of this RfC for not taking the time to set forth the issues in a neutral fashion and/or providing a diff of where it has been used. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No - The article already mentions "conspiracy" more than enough for a BLP. If he is to be described as a "conspiracy theorist", in-text attribution MUST be given. Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No - he's a documentary filmmaker not unlike Michael Moore. Such a claim is opinion which should be cited to whatever RS makes the claim, and not made as a statement of fact in Wiki voice. Atsme📞📧 20:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No , endorse remarks by Meatsgain "If he is to be described as a "conspiracy theorist", in-text attribution MUST be given", which I interpret to mean "persons X, Y, Z described him thus", or "persons X, Y, Z described this or that theory thus". Apart from the neutrality issue, this is a label that does little to inform, in the way an attributed criticism does. Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

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)

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 [10]. 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)
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)
One of D'Souza's conspiracy theories is supposedly that Obama chose to return a bust of Winston Churchill, which Entertainment Weekly called a "factual folly." Yet Obama recently confirmed that his conservative critics were right all along. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact, though they can be used for attributed opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a fallacy. I didn't say D'Souza was wrong about everything. And even there, you are taking that article out of context. The 'conspiracy theory' that Obama has an angry radical agenda based in Islamic thinking of some kind is absurd and completely not backed by any evidence, certainly not by D'Souza. His book and film are a combination of his personal introspection with his partisan opinion about Obama's book. Look, this coded nonsense by D'Souza and those of his ilk that Obama is a secret Muslim controlled by an angry, radical agenda has no basis in impartial empirical investigative journalism. But even if you found instances that D'Souza is right about some things - and the Churchill bust is a token thing, even if correct - then that is not proof that the rest of D'Souza's ridiculous conspiracy theory is sound. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. D'Souza has failed to satisfy any burden of proof with any compelling evidence. That D'Souza himself is a felon who broke the law for his own political corruption also hurts his credibility. You can have your own set of opinions, not your own set of facts.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall D'Souza ever saying "Obama is a secret Muslim." That's simply a strawman argument.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Errrr is the President of the USA not allowed to re-arrange the ornaments in the White House, (and return borrowed ones), without it being a big political issue? Replacing a (duplicated) British ornament with that of an iconic American, seems a sensible move. This is hardly blowing up the statue of Lincoln and barely worthy of comment, let alone the need to find a sinister motive, as D'Souza succeeds in doing. Obama likes his visitors to see King's face each morning, Bush and Blair wanted them to see Churchill's ..... Errrr there's a moral in there somewhere. Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
One source making such a claim is not enough when dealing with a BLP. Instaurare (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure. But there's a lot more than one source making the claim in this case. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that the review is the opinion of its writer, Owen Gleiberman, who is Chief Film Critic, and he does not call D`Souza a "conspiracy theorist," but a "right-wing conspiracy wingnut." That is more a humorous condemnation of his work, than a critical assessment. Gleiberman's says, "“Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” might be described as propaganda that shades off into paranoia." So he places him in a middle position between dishonest polemicist and paranoid conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, this is an opinion expressed in an op-ed. As such it is not reliable for facts, the author is an expert in film, not conspiracism. TFD (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz offered his personal opinion. He did not investigate or research this case. He was not involved directly or indirectly. There is not strong evidence for your conspiracy theory that D'Souza was selectively prosecuted. In fact, there is NO evidence for it. Only partisan right wing blogs and propaganda sites make this claim. This is WP:UNDUE and fails WP:CITATION. Please do an API so you can learn the hard way that we don't use Wikipedia to slander the President. Speaking of BLP, what you are claiming is that Obama and the government imprisoned D'Souza which suggests Obama broke the law and that the government engaged in unconstitutional behavior without real evidence to support that claim. We dont do that here. D'Souza himself before a judge confessed to knowingly engaging in wrongdoing. The rest is your WP:OR. So perform your API or move on.204.96.25.202 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between something believed with no evidence and a conspiracy theory. You are widening the definition beyond what is normally meant. Obama said, ""The Bible calls us to hope. To persevere and have faith in things not seen." He believes God exists, the Bible is the word of God, and the Holy Ghost comes down sometimes when preachers are preaching, but as you would say, there is no real evidence to support his claims. Are you going to add to the lead of his article that he too is a conspiracy theorist? TFD (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, TFD. But I don't buy your emotional reasoning. It is a fallacy to suggest, as you are, that the burden of evidence is on the accused. It is always on the accuser, natch. Here is the deal: I don't think we need to claim that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist. However, D'Souza does not just claim that he is being framed. He actually made a movie where he puts forth a dramatization of his imprisonment and states as if it were fact that he was selectively targeted by Obama and the government, with zero REAL evidence to back this up. Sorry, but when people make this sorta claim, or put forth theories of crashed UFO government coverups without real evidence, or the existence of bigfoot without evidence, and other such nonsense, they are dealing in conspiracy theories. The government is on record disputing D'Souza's claim as false and there is nothing to suggest they are lying. For D'Souza and others to put forth the claim anyways that the government under Obama's orders imprisoned him without cause is to *drum roll please* put forth a conspiracy theory.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not know what you mean by "emotional reasoning," isn't that an oxymoron? If so I would suggest that you clearly state what you mean and avoid sarcasm which hinders discussion. If you are agreeing that we should not call D'Souza a conspiracy theorist, then you are agreeing with me and your criticisms of me are irrelevant to the discussion. I would point out though that while in polemical and popular writing the term conspiracy theory is loosely applied, it has a strict meaning and of course includes the supposed government cover-up of the Rosswell incident, but does not include convicted persons saying they were victims of injustice. It is not just that conspiracy theories are made without evidence but that an irrational line of argument is required to rebut the official theory. The claim that the DOJ targeted D'Souza because of his political beliefs, while unproved, is not beyond the realm of possibility. TFD (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In support of my No !vote above, I have a few comments. A few months ago I "hosted" a discussion about whether Hillary Clinton should be called a CT. (See: Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 40#Conspiracy theorist category. The closing was a no.) Many of the comments mentioned the derogatory nature of the label. Well, those comments are valid here. Since we see various partisan and non-partisan pundits (in the refs provided) using the term to WP:LABEL his opinions, we must avoid using the term in WP's voice. Those pundits who are critical of D'Sousa can be mentioned (and quoted) WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. But unless we have a clearly academic and non-partisan authority (such as Prof. Kathryn Olmsted) using the term we should avoid this BLP violation. Also, we must consider WP Policy regarding opinions (footnote 3). – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

List of reliable sources

SPECIFICO asked me to comment on Jytdog's list of sources.

First, in order to support a claim, what is needed is not lots of sources that make the claim, but one good source that makes it. We can then follow the footnotes to see why support the writer had for the claim, use Google scholar to see if anyone has refuted the author's claim, or see whether it has been retracted. Someone wishing to refute it can then bring a different source and we can examine which one has received more attention in the literature. Bear in mind that since there are thousands of articles about D'Souza, the fact that one presents one source or many makes no difference to showing how accepted that view is.

The provision of multiple sources is often an attempt to compensate for the quality of sources with quantity and is therefore not persuasive. Unfortunately it means that anyone refuting the claim must expend considerable energy by being required to analyze multiple sources. They in fact have to spend more time on the claim than the editor who makes them, which is unfair. Since I do not think I should be forced to do that, I ask that Jytdog provide what they think is the best source. In the meantime, I will assume they are all of the same quality and reply to the first, Kyle Sammin's movie review in the The Federalist.

"News organizations" says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So the source fails rs.

It also says, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." The author however is a lawyer and writer, not an expert in conspiracy theorism.

It further says, "Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces." This is not a scholarly piece. It is debatable whether it is a reliable summary. Certainly reviews by esteemed reviewers such as Roger Ebert meet that level, but it is not clear what expertise this writer has in film.

Furthermore, it is questionable how reliable the publication itself is. Unless someone subscribes to its right-wing ideology, it is unlikely anyone would go to it for information. I doubt for example that Jytdog is a dedicated reader. Their reason for using it is I think to provide an implicit argument, which they mention at the end of their post: "the last three in particular make it clear that even conservatives like David Frum have backed away from him as he gone more and more loony. The 1st ref above is right-wingish." That argument is disingenuous. What difference does it make if the paper is right-wing? Surely it would not be a valid reason to call a "left-wing" person a conspiracy theorist because a film critic in The Federalist called them one.

Finally, the source does not support the claim. Sammin writes, "[the film] falls into the traditional flaw of conspiracy theories in presuming that one’s enemies are all-seeing superhumans of vast vision and profound wickedness. Like most conspiracies, it also falls before Occam’s razor. Hillary Clinton is not a single-minded evil genius. She’s something much more pedestrian: a corrupt politician." These comments seem reasonable and no doubt more eminent film critics would say the same thing." First, it is not clear that the author is using the term conspiracy theory in a technical or general sense. Does D'Souza say that Clinton is all-knowing, all evil and all powerful, or does he just say she is knowlegable, evil and powerful. In other words, is his theory a possible but unlikely theory or is it fantastic paranoia? For example, while D'Souza says that Alinsky pays tribute to Lucifer, he explains that Alinsky was an atheist and did not literally believe in the Devil. So the connection with absolute evil is metaphorical. We would require an academic article or textbook in social science to determine whether D'Souza's views met the criteria for a conspiracy theory.

Also, the source does not call D'Souza a conspiracy theorist, he says that the film "falls into the traditional flaw of conspiracy theories." IOW the film promotes a conspiracy theory. Saying that a work by someone promotes a conspiracy theory is not the same thing as saying someone is a conspiracy theorist. Many people believe some aspects of conspiracy theories, especially, relating to the murder of President Kennedy and 9/11. But we do not call them conspiracy theories, and "Contentious labels" suggests we do not even in egregious cases.

TFD (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughful discussion. I mounted this RfC, but I don't have an opinion on it yet. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

lots of over-reading of one source; failure to deal with what the wealth of reliable sources say. if there is any "overcompensation" here, it is... well, i won't follow TFD down that road. In any case it is entirely to valid to say D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist. The guy went completely off the rails even to the extent that his former colleagues on the right have walked away from him. This happens to people. Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It takes a lot of time to evaluate each source and if you did not think this one was good you should not have presented it. Your tactic appears to be to search for "Dinesh D'Souza"+"conspiracy theorist", present your results and force other editors to examine each one. This is a lot of effort to get zingers into the lead of Clinton opponents, and time would be better spent actually improving those articles. TFD (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's see a fair & balanced list of sources. Atsme📞📧 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
YES, by the way. When I responded to the RFC request to participate, I unfortunately slogged through this entire TALK page from the top, including through the endless reliable source citations provided that soundly establish D'Souza as indeed being a conspiracy theorist of the first order. I was not previously aware of his court case, though he ascribes his prosecution to be a grand conspiracy against him. If anyone was against him, it was he, himself, as he ranted and raved in the courtroom, before entering his guilty plea, so much so that the judge gave him much less than the prosecution requested, but included his getting mandated therapy during and after his halfway house residence (not "jail") as part of his sentence. This label is hardly unknown in Wikipedia. For instance: "Alexander Emerick 'Alex' Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio show host, documentary filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist." Also, "Mumbai" is modern version of a traditional name for the place where D'Souza was born, rather than a version of the one given to the city by a Portuguese explorer back in the 17th Century. Activist (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Activist (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Most recently relevant introduction content below the fold

The most chronologically recent introduction content is currently below the fold produced by the Table of Contents on the page. This seems especially strange as it leaves the last item in the above-the-fold introduction being about Mr. D'Souza's felony conviction, so does make it clear to a reader that he has additional public works afterwards. This sentence is what I'm referring to in particular "In 2016, D'Souza release a documentary based on his own story, book and detailing the origins of the American democratic party called Hillary's America.[13] The controversial film went on to be the highest grossing documentary of 2016.[14][15]"

I'm new to Wikipedia, so rather than directly make the edit I'm raising the question here of why this sentence is below the fold instead of above the fold as it appears to be part of the preceding paragraph?

Thanks. 46.25.188.254 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

DONE. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dinesh D'Souza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"Bombay", not "Mumbai"

D'Souza was born in Bombay - the city wasn't called "Mumbai" until 1995, and Wikipedia uses historically accurate names for cities in biographies - see Immanuel Kant for example. Genealogizer (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

But was it historically accurate? Is there a policy or guideline on that? I notice some terms such as "the Ukraine" are no longer used although they were common at one time. TFD (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
MOS:BIO does not give a preference regarding the names for POBs. But note that Bombay redirects to Mumbai. Given that D'Souza's own webpage uses Mumbai, and the fact that Bombay is likely an ersatz English version of the original name, we ought to stick with Mumbai. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not the way we handle it in other cases. Look at the Battle of Stalingrad, or the Free City of Danzig. Genealogizer (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You are presenting an WP:OSE argument, but the article topics are entirely different. The battle was a particular event known by the particular name. The free city existed for 19 years, and that was it. – S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with S. Rich. This seems more like the English spelling (and pronunciation) was changed to reflect the spelling in several Indian languages. It's similar to Peking now being known as Beijing. I would be willing to reconsider if you can show that contemporary writing normally uses the term Bombay when referring to the city before 1995, but I don't think they do. TFD (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Look at the article for Mother Teresa - it refers almost exclusively to "Calcutta". Genealogizer (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but what one article does is not a guide for what other articles should do. TFD (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlike Peking/Beijing, which was just a change in the preferred romanization of a foreign word, the change from Bombay to Mumbai reflects an actual change in the official name of the city. Bombay/Mumbai is much more like Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg than Peking/Beijing, which is more comparable to Owhyee/Hawaii. Places that were officially renamed are usually referred to by the name used at the time of the event on Wikipedia. Genealogizer (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that its name in Marathi and Gujarati did not change and remained Mumbai. The city claimed that it was "correcting" the English translation. English is not indigenous to India and is not the native tongue but used because more people understand it. TFD (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that Bombay/Mumbai was a change in the city's official English name. English isn't indigenous to North America or Australia either, but it is still an official language in most parts of those continents. When a city is officially renamed, the convention on Wikipedia is to use the historically accurate name when talking about events that occurred there in the past. Genealogizer (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Genealogizer, you mention "convention", but you do not cite any Manual of Style guidance to support this idea. In fact, there is no such convention. Please look at this MOS thread I started about the question. Given the lack of guidance, I think the only course of action is to accept what interested editors think is best for this page. Since only 3 editors have commented, you might post an RFC and see what other members of the community think is best. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza/Archive_3&oldid=1136663331"