This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. 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). 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. 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). 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). 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. Literature Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature 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.

Template:Edit semi-protected - Indian American bio edit

In the first sentence, calling Dinesh D'Souza an Indian American is misleading. This means he was born in America and has Indian descent. However, he was born in India, came here for college, and became a naturalized citizen. To be accurate, it should make that distinction. Below are two options for editing the sentence to be accurate:

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is a naturalized American citizen of Indian descent, who is a conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and convicted felon.

OR

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian born, naturalized American citizen, who is a conservative political commentator, author, filmmaker, and convicted felon.

Dinesh D'Souza heavily contributes to the increasingly popular in conservative circles worldview that the political parties in the United States never switched their ideologies, meaning that Klansmen and slaveowners are "leftist", the southern strategy never happened, and welfare is a new form of slavery. This is very often cited by conservative outlets such as prageru, national review and so on. The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, his newest book, relies completely on this thesis as well.

This should be significantly featured in the article. Lazybanshee (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment in itself is biased. The parties never "switched sides" because why would one party choose to start being racist, xenophobic, chauvinistic, bigoted, and etc. This makes no sense. Perhaps both parties strive for the same goals and one party may have a problem with its history, being radical rather than leftist. The "switched sides" theory is both untrue and based on ignorance. Dinseh D'Souza's work is well researched and documented. ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article about his IQ, which is reputed to be EXTREMELY high. Few, if any,, of his critics have extremely high IQ's. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905041508/http://www.tkc.edu/abouttkc/president_pressrelease.html to http://www.tkc.edu/abouttkc/president_pressrelease.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616171236/http://www.tkc.edu/media/newsrelease.asp?id=335 to http://www.tkc.edu/media/newsrelease.asp?id=335
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031154139/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643668-update-video-replaced-david-silverman-debates-dinesh-d-souza to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643668-update-video-replaced-david-silverman-debates-dinesh-d-souza
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129201603/http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/is-islam-the-problem?-why-is-america-letting-bin-laden-define-islam%3F/d/1149 to http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/is-islam-the-problem?-why-is-america-letting-bin-laden-define-islam%3F%2Fd%2F1149

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half of his life was in India and that seems to have been conveniently left out. Please add his parents names including his mother's maiden name. It's important in understanding his background in India. Names are connected to all sorts of social and cultural information in India. I hope they weren't originally removed or left out for that reason. Without them this page is missing the depth that Dinesh himself seeks in most of his investigations and research. Also add any information about his family clan in India, family social status etc from India. There's a lot missing here. Add them. It will be most enlightening. 1.10.217.84 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of small changes here, in an attempt to improve the article, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. But a left-wing ideologue is undoing EVERY SINGLE EDIT, calling them "controversial", when the controversy exists only in his mind.

• "Media Matters for America" is a group bankrolled and run by hard left folks such as George Soros and David Brock. It was reported in mainstream media (such as Newsweek) after MMA brought down Don Imus, that MMA has full-time staffers monitoring talk-shows they deem conservative, listening for anything they can use to destroy the show's reputation. Portraying MMA as a neutral media observer is absurd.

• Alan Dershowitz is a life-long liberal, who recently has taken a handful of political positions that align with conservatives. This is not a matter of debate - Dershowitz has authored dozens of books, and is a frequent media presence; his liberal outlook cannot seriously be questioned. Lumping in Dershowitz as a conservative is simply false.

• Stating as fact, without any qualification, that the US "stole" Native American land, makes this page sound like a Howard Zinn exercise in anti-American polemics, and not like a Wikipedia page. Adding in the modifier "alleged" should hardly be deemed "controversial".

• And my last edit simply was for readability and clarity, and was in no way related to politics. That this editor removed that improvement as well, and somehow deemed it "controversial", reflects extremely poorly on his judgment.

It seems that Nicolas Maduro is masquerading as a Wikipedia editor. Vcuttolo (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the score on Rotten Tomatoes for "Hillary's America" the article omits the fact that the user reviews are 80% positive based on >13,500 reviews. 73.136.208.129 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the article text you are proposing to add, its location, and the source you propose to cite in order to verify the text. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidential announcement via Twitter on May 31, 2018 that D'Souza will be pardoned should be added to the felony conviction section.

The following text should be added:

On May 31, 2018, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter that D'Souza will be pardoned.^[1]

 Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that correct? If so, that description should not be removed from this article. ResistTheEnemy (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the one-sided political commentary from the "America: Imagine with World Without Her" section. This was selectively copied from America: Imagine the World Without Her, which references a whole variety of political commentary. There is zero reason for the section in this article to focus exclusively on conservative commentary. Either a summary of the variety of political commentary be included here, or readers can go to the film's article to read all available commentary in depth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this YET 'A DONE DEAL'? MaynardClark If the pardon has only been announced but not yet granted, should the Category be added at the bottom? (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is extensively sourced and uncontroversial. He hasn't "been criticized for espousing conspiracy theories" or whatever WP:WEASEL phrase was inserted into the article. When a bunch of RS say that D'Souza regularly promotes conspiracy theories, the RS are not "criticizing" him for it, they are merely describing him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review the RFC [1].

Then list the sources and relevant text that support Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist (emphasis on widely) and have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories. Reminder this is a BLP. D.Creish (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple RS cited - read them. The RfC is about whether D'Souza should be labelled a "conspiracy theorist" (which he definitely is, and I'm sure a proper RfC where I substantiate it with reliable sources would deliver a clear and resounding verdict in favor of the label), but that's something different from whether he's promoted conspiracy theories (which is clearly the language that RS use). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask whether there were RS. I asked you to specifically identify the sources and text that support those two claims, which WP:BURDEN requires you do. I'll wait but don't restore your edit until you do and without clear consensus. D.Creish (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are editors like this? Why is it so hard to just edit cooperatively? Do I really need to go and google "Dinesh D'Souza" + "provocateur", and then link the Google Search for you?[2] Do I really need to google "Dinesh D'Souza" + "polemic" and then link the Google Search for you?[3] The RS that are currently cited all explicitly say he's promoted unfounded and false conspiracy theories. You're editing the D'Souza page and you clearly know all of this. Why are you doing this, man? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the IDHT. You put two claims in the lede:

1. Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist
2. have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories

What you need to do before restoring that is (for the third time now) provide the specific sources and text that support each of those claims. A link to a google search isn't acceptable. I created a section below that you can fill in. D.Creish (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the many references regarding conspiracy theories, per@JzG::

• • Sammin, Kyle (15 August 2016). "If You Hate Hillary, You'll Love 'Hillary's America'". The Federalist.
  • Sacks, Ethan (March 7, 2016). "Dinesh D'Souza releases first look at 'Hillary's America'". NY Daily News.
  • Bowman, James (August 19, 2016). "Hillary's America — and Dinesh D'Souza's". The American Spectator.
  • Shephard, Alex (5 August 2016). "How Bad Is Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America? A Conversation". New Republic.
  • Weigel, David (27 January 2014). "Conspiracy of Dunces". Slate.
  • Hoffman, Jordan (18 July 2016). "Hillary's America review – Dinesh D'Souza says: beware racist Democrat super-villains". The Guardian.
  • Maloy, Simon (June 2, 2016). "Dinesh D'Souza returns: The credibility-free hack filmmaker has a bad theory of racial politics". Salon.
  • Nelson, Rebecca (22 August 2016). "Dinesh D'Souza on His Batshit Hillary Doc, Donald Trump, and Why He Doesn't Think He's a Conspiracy Theorist". GQ.
  • Peretz, Evgenia (May 2015). "Get a Rare Glimpse of Dinesh D'Souza's Life After Conviction". Vanity Fair.
  • Burns, Alexander (January 24, 2014). "The unraveling of Dinesh D'Souza". Politico.
  • Capehart, Jonathan (19 February 2015). "Rudy Giuliani dives into Dinesh D'Souza's anti-Obama dumpster". The Washington Post.
  • Healy, Gene (4 September 2012). "Dinesh D'Souza Is the Right's Michael Moore". Reason. That theory wasn't remotely credible when D'Souza advanced it in Forbes, and it's even more ludicrous on the silver screen.

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. JzG[reply]
SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC) @Jytdog: - fixing ping from preceding. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Daily News, which is iffy as RS, it says is at it again with a new film that promises to expose a conspiracy theorist's dream of dirt on the Democratic presidential candidate and her party That review is based on a 3 minute trailer, according to the article, and doesn't directly say he promotes conspiracy theories. That's why I said to Snooganssnoogans identify the specific sources and text that supports the edits. Linking to a google searche or dumping a bunch of refs that may or may not support it and saying "here" doesn't cut it. I created a section below you can fill in. D.Creish (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources clearly support the text - all you had to do was glance at the Google searches. I'm not going to waste my time listing them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D.Creish, NY Daily News is not - to my knowledge - considered a reliable source. It should be removed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair and one of many objections I have to the sources presented. But I'm not chasing around google searches or a haphazard collections for excerpts I think they think might support their edits. That's not how WP:BURDEN works. D.Creish (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were five RS cited for the statement that D'Souza "promoted conspiracy theories" and you deleted that from the article. Why on Earth would anyone waste their time listing more sources when you are obviously going to disregard them? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support D.Creish's take on this. As currently written in Wiki-voice, the text of the content in question is incredibly POV, with is a vio of NPOV as well as WP:BLP. I am reverting it back to the NPOV version while discussion takes place here. The NPOV version gets the point across and is best to remain in the article for now, even if consensus decides on different wording. Pinging MelanieN to this discussion as she has demonstrated a great ability to rewrite POV content to a better compromise between editors challenging prose and NPOV/POV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what the violation of WP:NPOV is. RS clearly say he's promoted false and unfounded conspiracy theories. I know you like to argue that RS are nonsense and should be disregarded, so are you next going to argue that birther conspiracy theories are true, the anti-semitic conspiracy theory about 14-yr old George Soros being a Nazi collaborator is true, the conspiracy theory that the Unite the Right rally was staged by the left is true? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm so because the Daily News is not a RS the guy is not a conspiracy theorist, despite the rest of the sources? Interesting way of arguing. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and text for disputed edits

• Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist

1. <fill in here>

• have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories

1. <fill in here>

A million reliable sources in just the last 24 hrs[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

A million reliable sources in just the last 24 hrs[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

Hello, all. I have been pinged to look at this discussion. AFAIK I have never been to this article before and I don’t care to dig deeply into it, so I will just confine myself to the two phrases being challenged here. You can consider me an uninvolved editor (not an admin in this situation) giving an editor’s analysis. Both phrases are currently in the last sentence of the lede. The key thing to look at is the sourcing, and many sources have been offered. I've done some searching of my own.

1. Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist

Dozens of reliable sources support “provacateur” as shown by Snoogans’ first Google search. They all call him that almost as if it was his title. So that is clearly includable.

“Polemicist” is not as strongly supported, but a search does find Time and Politico. We could probably leave that out. It’s not a widely recognized word anyhow.

2. have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories

“Promotion of conspiracy theories” has plenty of Reliable Source support at the second Google link, including the New York Times, HuffPo, Esquire, and Vox. Many specific conspiracy theories are mentioned including birtherism, a claim that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was staged, and a claim that the Las Vegas shooter was an anti-Trump activist.[6]

“False and unfounded” may be implied in “conspiracy theories” but I don’t find a lot of support for that precise wording. Individual false claims are mentioned such as the Obama “birther” claim and a claim that Hitler was not anti-gay, but I don’t find a general statement about him promoting falsehoods.

So I would suggest the clearly well supported wording “Widely characterized as a provacateur, D'Souza's films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of multiple conspiracy theories.” Do as you wish with it, but DON'T go putting it into the article immediately as if some kind of oracle had spoken. Discuss it here, see if it or a modified version of it gets consensus, then add to the article whatever the result of the discussion is. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]