Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Legal experts said D’Souza’s arrest was politically motivated

I just added the following to the article:

Numerous legal experts said that D’Souza’s arrest was politically motivated, and that many others who had committed far worse campaign finance violations were not arrested. Some examples:

• Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said of D’Souza’s arrest: “This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you... If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers... This is an outrageous prosecution and is certainly a misuse of resources. It raises the question of why he is being selected for prosecution among the many, many people who commit similar crimes... This sounds to me like it is coming from higher places. It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington.”Dershowitz, legal experts say vindictive D’Souza indictment came from higher up, bizpacreview.com, January 30, 2014

• Former Federal Election Commissioner David Mason said of D’Souza’s arrest: “What struck me first was that it is unusual in cases like these for the FBI to go out and actually arrest someone, simply because it is not necessary... And even less so in this case because [D'Souza] has enough prominence that it is fairly obvious that he is not a flight risk. White-collar indictments are made lots of times without an arrest being made.”

• Commenting on D’Souza’s arrest, former acting U.S. attorney general George Terwilliger of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius said that there were “legitimate questions that could be asked about the political motivation for bringing the case.”Media Not Very Curious about D’Souza Indictment, pjmedia.com, January 25, 2014

• Dominic Gentile of Gordon Silver, an expert on the enforcement of campaign finance law, conducted extensive research on other people who had done the same thing as D’Souza, and concluded: “Twenty thousand dollars? I’ve never heard of a $20,000 criminal case for campaign finance violations."

QbR54190dfcv (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All of this seems highly personal to me. Maybe have it as controversy or something instead? Because if you look at other's biographies they don't have this section when they've committed felonies. 76.178.147.134 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Convicted status

He is not a convicted felon. I. Fed court, there is no conviction until sentencing even though he pled guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.92.24 (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think IP's comment has merit. What RS do we have that says the court has accepted the plea? What if the sentence handed down is less than 1 year (the term normally associated with felonies)? – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the plea entry: [1] And even if the sentence is adjusted, the conviction for a plea will stand as a felony. The judge is not allowed to alter the felon status once a plea is entered because (A) the charge is a felony charge and (B) the plea deal states that he is pleading guilty to a felony level charge with a base offense level of 8. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid original research and WP:BLPPRIMARY-type resources such as court records. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and assume that the New York Times is good enough to source it. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it may be true but for example Wesley Snipes is a convicted felon as well but his conviction is referenced in a section of his article and not at the top when listing the things that he is. It just said film producer, actor, and martial artist. He was actually convicted and didn't plead and that in a way is a little more significant than pleading guilty. I agree that it should be in the article but I really don't think it should be at the top it just seems non-constructive. SantiLak (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the commenter 173.79.92.24 is incorrect on another point of law. At the point when the judge accepted the plea deal in court (and set a sentencing date), D'souza was legally considered convicted and awaiting sentencing. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, we must avoid original research concerning the court records and import of the plea. When he gets sentenced, then secondary sources will report (if noteworthy) and we can change the article. Let's be patient until we can properly source the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Stating correctly a point of law is not "original research." 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that there is a section named "Election campaign finance conviction and allegations of political persecution." While I think the "allegations of political persecution" item should come off as undue weight (especially as the court found those allegations legally invalid with no evidence to back them up), the fact that the section states "Conviction" shows that the legal standard has been recognized by other editors. D'Souza has (A) pled guilty, (B) been formally convicted, and (C) a sentencing date set. He is as previously mentioned in a "Guilty awaiting sentencing" legal state. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you say (A) "statute x says this", and add it to (B) "D'Souza plead to that", and then reach conclusion (C) "he's a convicted felon" there is original research. Please be patient and the secondary sources will confirm his status. At that point descriptions can be changed. Until then we must strictly conform to BLP policies. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that unless someone uses the exact word "convicted", it cannot be used? That incredibly obtuse, like saying that the words "deceptive" or "misleading" can't be used as a synonym for "deceitful." [2] It boggles the mind to think that someone who has actually entered a guilty plea, been convicted in court, and had a sentencing date scheduled cannot be described as convicted. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we are at an impasse I have asked for outside opinions as per the dispute resolution process. [3] 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Suspect section name: "Election campaign finance conviction and allegations of political persecution"

Given that the court found no evidence of selective prosecution or political persecution, I submit that placing "and allegations of political persecution" in that title is incorrect and gives undue weight to the legally meritless allegations. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Shortened. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Too long

As an "encyclopedia" wikipedia's greatest failing is that its articles usually are prepared by people favourable to the subject, his/her ideas, etc. who do not necessarily understand that encyclopedic writing should be concise and neutral. As with many other articles, this one is hopelessly biased and far too long, Contributors should ask themselves - "a hundred years from now, what will be/need to be remembered of this person/movement/event" and write accordingly. I have been a writer and editor for more than half a century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.48.200 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree! But the fact that you've been a writer and editor for more than half a century is irrelevant. I'm sure as a seasoned editor/writer you've run across the term ad hominem, often in conjunction with the word 'attack' and one of a classic list of logical fallacies; this is kinda like that, but probably even more it's an appeal to authority. Your CV doesn't make you any more right, or wrong. Maybe credible — but that's hardly something WP awards any points for. (Again, I happen to agree with you thoroughly. But that's also irrelevant. >;-) An argument's an argument and must stand/fail on its own merits, not its proponent's.) A Doon (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

In the Christianity section it should be noted that D'Souza professes to be a Christian. This is actually quite different than actually being a Christian. It is extraordinarily biased to call him a Christian as if it were really a demonstrable fact. The evidence of his life should be allowed to speak for itself while acknowledging that he does consider believe himself to be a Christian. 66.68.10.229 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Cite some reliable citations that support your information. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Selective prosecution" claims

In the absence of any evidence, the speculation of selective prosecution is nothing more than that and merits little space in the biography. I've left the claim from Dershowitz, but removed the one from the Washington Times. The claims about influence from Obama are strange and unsupported, and the reference to campaign finance issues in the Obama campaign are irrelevant. Nathan ^T 17:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts illustrating that perhaps the claims of selection prosecution have merit aren't irrelevant. Since the prosecution has an entire section dedicated to it, and spends a big chunk of that discussing the the claim of selective prosecution, it's apparently already been deemed that the topic warrants significant coverage. It's just that previous coverage wasn't balanced. Of course the judge dismissed it. Selective prosecution isn't a valid defense, but that doesn't mean he wasn't selectively prosecuted or that being selectively prosecuted (or even a widespread belief of such a selectivity) isn't a noteworthy topic for us to cover. I'm at least restoring the WT as a source to support the paragraph's opening segment. VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The prosecution has a whole section because it is a formal legal process, and because he was convicted (and indeed admitted his guilt). The claims of selective prosecution are just opinions, with no evidence, from people unconnected to the case. That said, I'm fine with how it is discussed now. Nathan ^T 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

While the opinions are from people unconnected, they are legal scholars and they do provide noteworthy info. Also, the issue is legally settled. D'Souza may have reserved the right to appeal the issue when he pled, but we have no RS in that regard. His best bet will be to seek a pardon. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop including the history of Goa

This page is supposed to be about Dinesh D'Souza, not the colonial history of Asia. If a reader wants to know more about the history of Catholics in Goa or other parts of India, (h)she can easily click on the link. There are countless number of articles about Indian Muslims, but I never see a line explaining why (s)he has an Arabic, Persian or Mongolian name. Why is it necessary here? AyanP (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Ayan

advocacy journalism

1. Do not revert all my edits because one is an issue; revert the one.
2. In regards to advocacy journalist, I removed a redirect. That's literally all I did. Now it is piped for your pleasure so that you can see how to revert a single change instead of removing all the edits.
3. Advocacy journalism does not need a definition because it has an entire wikipedia page devoted to it.

Thanks. Ogress _smash! 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Film description

Both terms – "documentary" and "anti-Obama polemic" – are used in the source. Why use one and not the other? – S. Rich (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Dinesh D'Souza

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Dinesh D'Souza. I managed to add archive links to 3 sources, out of the total 3 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150701110439/http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015527.php to http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015527.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090318060829/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=NzY3NjU1ZGNkNWQzNzE5NzlhODMyZGUxNDUyMGY1ZGI= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzY3NjU1ZGNkNWQzNzE5NzlhODMyZGUxNDUyMGY1ZGI=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081004060956/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=YjVjYjQzY2FkOWQyZDhkZTJjZWQyMzkzYWUxYThlOWI= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjYjQzY2FkOWQyZDhkZTJjZWQyMzkzYWUxYThlOWI=

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2015

In January 2014, D'Souza was indicted by federal prosecutors for campaign finance law violations.[95][96][97] He was arraigned in a Manhattan federal court on January 24.[98] The two charges were for making $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the New York Senate campaign of Wendy Long and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission.[99]

99.198.30.215 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The source says that the campaign in question was not named, but that probably it was Wendy Long. I'm not sure that's sufficient in the issue of BLP as it could be construed as slander? I'm not going to do it. Ogress _smash! 00:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I dug around a bit and found another source (NYTimes article), which just so happens to already be cited in this article multiple times. It's more more definite, so I've gone ahead and made the addition (and added the ref as well). I don't have any strong feelings either way on this so if someone feels the need to revert on BLP grounds, please feel free to do so and discuss here. For now, I'm closing this as  Done. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

In the third paragraph under the heading "Early life and career" Please change Catholic bidhops to Catholic bishops, as it is a typo. GuruMikee (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Convicted felon"

Is it really appropriate to identify D'Souza as a "convicted felon" in the very first sentence? This seems to be undue weight, especially compared to "political commentator" and "author". WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says, "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." I don't find that the felonies are "integral" for mention in the first paragraph; due weight should be given to being a political commentator and author. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Because RS do note DDS' conviction upfront and he comments on it himself in other contexts, this appears to be one of the principal noteworthy facts about him. To address your concern as to relative importance: There's little discussion of his views in manistream sources except where the source is reviewing specific works, so his thinking has not attracted mainstream attention or generated further discussion in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

We need to consider balancing aspects of this article, "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." In this sense, it is not a proper balance to include "convicted felon" with "political commentator" and "author", which are positions of enduring notability. What are the reliable sources that explicitly identify him as a convicted felon upfront like this Wikipedia article does? Per WP:LEADCITE, at the very least, this data point should have an inline citation. I will notify WP:BLP/N of this concern of mine. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be in there: "convicted felon" could mean any number of vile and horrible things. There's a paragraph later on in the lede that describes properly what the crime is. By removing "convicted felon" from the first sentence, the chances of misleading the lazy reader who doesn't go past the first paragraph decreases. Brustopher (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Came here after seeing a post at BLPN. The "convicted felon" does seem undue, I suggest including a more direct statement that he was "convicted of making illegal contributions in the names of others in 2014" or some-such, but still placing that prominently within the lede. "Convicted felon" could mean any number of things, we should be more specific about what he was convicted of. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear: he is, in fact, a convicted felon. We're saying it's undue weight because it's not saying what he was convicted of? His crime is certainly one that "emphasize[s] what made the person notable", as his was a prominent and visible crime defrauding the electoral process. Maulana Karenga mentions he's a convicted felon in the lede and doesn't say a single word in the entire article about what his crime was. Ogress _smash! 17:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maulana Karenga is not a reviewed article by any means. To evaluate that as a more historical comparison, though, this indicates that Karenga's felony is not mentioned upfront across three different encyclopedic entries. It is instead mentioned later on. Wikipedia's lead section for Karenga needs to be more comprehensive in general, and the felony could be mentioned as part of a more detailed section if it is in balance with other aspects of his background. For D'Souza, I agree with the point made above that we should not use the term without immediately putting it in context. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments here, and I now agree the previous placement gave undue emphasis. I have added a wikilink to the later text, which appears to have consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Christian apologist"

Per apologetics, "In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a plea for forgiveness for a wrong act. Implicit in this is an admission of guilt, thus turning on its head the 'speaking in defense' aspect of the original concept." The lead needs to be clarified to indicate that this word is not being used in its primary sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a wikilink; it's the lede, which isn't the place for that kind of discursion; it's a common English term and I'm confused by your assertion that it is somehow to be misread. Ogress _smash! 19:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's much clearer to say "practitioner of Christian apologetics" than "Christian apologist". This way, readers will not assume that he's apologizing for something he thinks is wrong with Christianity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there's no difference between the two if someone doesn't know what apologism is, but if it makes you feel better, it's not harmful to rephrase it the way you did. Ogress _smash! 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of "apologist" could not be more clear and is not the same as the meaning of "one who apologizes for something wrong." The current text is well-supported. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with the current text. The primary definition in the OED says, "One who apologizes for, or defends by argument; a professed literary champion." People may understand "apologizes" in its primary rather than secondary sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

It seems that the article writes that its subject is a "Christian apologist". This could not possibly be properly sourced to any website that begins with a neutral political stance before reporting. Replace this with "Christian" in keeping with Wikipedia's non-biased policies as an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics Removing Dune (talk • contribs) 23:56, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
• Christian apologetics is what D'Souza is known for. It is properly sourced multiple times throughout the article. Removing "apologist" from the article would eliminate a main part of the article. It would be POV to not include it. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Writings on Race?

It seems like the discussion of his career as a commentator is incomplete without discussing his work on race in the mid-90's. I imagine most people are just interested in all his why-I-hate-Obama books, but surely someone out there can fill in the gaps about "The End of Racism" (1996) and his Forbes article from about the same time "The One-Drop-of-Blood Rule." I don't know his work well enough to do this, but it seems like this would be good background for his later advocacy.... — Preceding comment added by 128.210.106.34 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

To the editors:

Dinesh D'souza is a "convicted felon" only because he is an outspoken and eloquent critic of the truly corrupt oligarchy whose far more massive crimes go unindicted, unpunished and unreported in the media organs they own. The "crime" of donating a paltry amount in excess of the "legal limit" is clearly an unconstitutional limitation on political speech. Candidates accept millions from special interests and then vote for those interests - all "legally". Dinesh did nothing corrupt. He donated a paltry amount over the limit with no expectation of any return except good government. Please consider this in your rewrite. Comments-R-Us (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please also be aware of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (apparently this got archived already?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Where is the edit button?

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)

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)

Text and source removed in case it's useful elsewhere in the article.

The book earned praise from atheist Christopher Hitchens for Dinesh's argumentative skills.

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

Page Protection Request

@Ferret: A suspicious IP very similar to the one that was edit warring at Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq is vandalizing Dinesh D'Souza as a "convicted felon" in the lead, violating WP:BLP. The IP's edit also alleges that D'Souza's "films have been criticized for being heavily partisan and espousing conspiracy theories," citing a Slate article that says nothing of the kind but was previously used by indeffed sock puppeteer User:Oneshotofwhiskey—who "is little more than a troll"—to make a similar claim. Oneshot recently caused Dinesh D'Souza to be page protected by edit warring over POV-pushing BLP violations such as replacing the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and (like the IP) accusing D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory." In fact, one of the things that Oneshot pushed most aggressively for was the language just reinstated by the IP—that D'Souza is a "convicted felon," even though that is not the main reason for his notability and the campaign finance violations are covered elsewhere in the lead. Talk page discussion and a lengthy RfC produced no consensus in favor of the "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theories" language (the RfC closed "not for no consensus, but with a consensus that D'Souza cannot be called a 'conspiracy theorist'"), but that obviously means nothing if the IPs continually restore it. In addition, another IP—which I mistakenly assumed was Oneshot's, but is apparently not, as it was actually reverted by Oneshot's IP—recently attempted to delete long-standing sourced material from the article.

Given this renewed interest in Dinesh D'Souza by a serial indeffed sockpuppeteer and the edit warring by multiple IPs, I hope you will consider protecting the page to require auto-confirmed users—and possibly remove the BLP violations that fly in the face of the established talk page consensus. Thank you.You'llNeverCare (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I see enough disruption at this time to warrant page protection, and the last apparent sock seems to have been blocked. Please feel free to request at WP:RFPP if disruption resumes. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 Feb 2016

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

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)

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)

Conviction

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)

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)

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)

Shocking claim

Oneshotofwhiskey is now claiming that The Young Turks know more about the law than Alan Dershowitz, using this claim as an excuse to mass delete Dershowitz et al. while retaining TYT and other critics of D'Souza. Oneshotofwhiskey, can you defend this insane position, or will you stop your disruptive behavior?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Now he's saying "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Does anyone think that's a valid rationale for deletion?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I can find another source other than the Young Turks if you like that says the same thing. As for Dershowitz, to be clear, I was not indicting him on those grounds. Since he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza, his opinion is a form of WP:SYNTH. He offers his anecdotal opinion without evidence to back up his claim and it is weasel words here to include it. D'Souza himself confessed to knowingly committing wrong doing when he told Judge Berman, "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." He was also prosecuted in a fair trial. We don't need to give false equivalence to the conspiracy theory that D'Souza was a political prisoner when it is a minority opinion. Look up how WP:CITE works. We do not owe people who believe the world is flat their due or say (or their fair side) when the consensus is that the world is round. The guidelines are very clear on trying to avoid giving the minority opinion too much weight, period. We have a guilty conviction and D'Souza's own admission to guilt. That is enough. It is still mentioned that D'Souza later tried to make claim he was a political prisoner. That we mentioned it here at all MORE THAN covers it. We don't need to make his case here when he has already conceded to the prevailing consensus that he was not a political prisoner.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

First topic for debate: D'Souza's photo

As I have already stated, I'm different to which photo we use here. Originally, I felt like we should include the cropped mugshot of D'Souza since he's presently obsessing over his time in jail. Clearly he is basing his identity around this idea that he's a self-proclaimed political prisoner and he is even devoting entire sections of his films and work toward this. However, I understand the other side of this as well which is that some might perceive this as an attempt to make him look bad. I get that. But I'm curious about what the other editors like SPECIFICO and whomever else visits this page. Please weigh in on this.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's an attempt to make him look bad. You already admitted as much when you told me your goal is to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)." You're WP:NOTHERE and in urgent need of a topic ban.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There you go again. You should know better than to make personal attacks like that. Also, I never said anywhere that "my goal is to expose D'Souza." You are purposely taking my words out of context. Please do NOT put words in my mouth or pretend to speak for me. That quip I made in the past was regarding an SPI where you falsely accused me of vandalism and socking. AT the time I thought it was hypocritical that you would accuse me of corruption when you yourself were defending a known convicted felon and biased political partisan like D'Souza. This is water under the bridge and has nothing to do with the conflict dispute in the present. You know where to find me if you want to have a civil dialogue about improving this article.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think it'd be difficult to defend using a mug shot on a BLP unless the arrest is the primary thing the subject is notable for. In this case (his obsessing over it notwithstanding) that doesn't really seem to be the case. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In inclined to agree with you. D'Souza truly is an odd case where he proudly wears his conviction on his sleeve, celebrating his notoriety and infamy to further his celebrity status. He plays it off like he is a bad boy intellectual, an outlaw, and carries that depiction into his movies with reenactments toward that end!haha...That was the only reason why I innocently included that, since D'Souza himself sees it as a positive. However, after one editor in this community reacted negatively to it, I quickly conceded ground to him. And I'm indifferent to it now. But I wanted to open this up to the community since this really was a bizarre unique case where, as you correctly noted, it is only notable if the subject at hand is known best for this. The truth is, he wants to be remembered as a political prisoner, but I do not think he will be remembered for that. So I agree with you that we should leave it out if that is what you are implying. D'Souza is most known for his partisan conspiracy theories rooted in coded racism and misogyny.(i.e. The stuff the Trump campaign has been peddling with birtherism, and, medical trutherism against Hillary). So, again, I agree with you to leave out his mugshot since there is no need to draw attention to his corruption, etc.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection

@Oshwah: Now that the page has been protected, I would suggest reverting back to the last stable version prior to the edit war initiated by User:Oneshotofwhiskey, namely the article as it was edited by Fuebaey on October 13. Since that date, Oneshotofwhiskey mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz seven times ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) claiming "Since (Dershowitz) was not involved in this trial of D'Souza, his opinion is a form of WP:SYNTH. He offers his anecdotal opinion without evidence to back up his claim and it is weasel words here to include it" (needless to say, that is not a proper application of the policy), and noting "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Oneshotofwhiskey also added over-the-top, BLP-violating POV language to the lead—"Both posit a conspiracy theory - based upon his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations"—despite the ongoing "conspiracy theory" RfC (which has yet to attract any outside comments) and his own pledge not to do so. The material Oneshotofwhiskey mass deleted has been in the article without controversy since December 2014, and no-one has endorsed his deletion. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that per WP:BRD, the WP:ONUS is on him to obtain consensus for deleting this long-standing material; the fact that he was a more aggressive edit warrior than myself certainly isn't a sound reason to retain his version as the default while the page is locked from editing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Any response to my request? Right now it really looks as though the administration has become the unwitting tool by which blatant BLP violations and unsourced commentary such as "Both posit a conspiracy theory - based upon his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations"—which Oneshotofwhiskey added despite the ongoing "conspiracy theory" RfC (which has yet to attract any outside comments) and his own pledge not to do so—and the mass deletion of over 2,000 bytes of sourced material that had been in the article without controversy since December 2014 have been locked in place—simply because Oneshotofwhiskey was a more aggressive edit warrior than myself, which is a fairly arbitrary reason to accept the status quo. I suggest restoring the last stable version prior to the edit war, namely the article as it was edited by Fuebaey on October 13, or an even earlier version if you prefer (although if you take that route, some other edits will get caught in the crossfire). Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course I disagree with TheTimesAreAChanging's request to revert the page back to the version he most prefers since that is what started this content war to begin with!lol..Doh! Thank you again for a fair decision, Oshwan.

I take this as authoritative by the admins, moving forward: "You two are to discuss the issues on the article's talk page and in a civil manner. Failure to do so, or engaging in further edits without consensus will result in discretionary sanctions." Clearly that would negate reverting the page for any reason at this point since consensus and discussions on the talk page should influence changes on the page. It would appear that the week long block is clearly was meant as a cooling off period for the page itself, so we can use that time to work out our difference.

Again, in the spirit of Oshwan's decision, it sounds like user TheTimesAreAChanging and I are supposed to work things out here and do so without name calling or muckraking. I think that is a great idea! And again, if it needs to be said, it obviously wouldn't be fair to revert this page back to the version that TheTimesAreAChanging prefers since that is tantamount to me having to ask him for permission for any change I would like (since he's defending the page as is before others came along to make changes to it). Since other editors are involved us than just he and I, I would like us to work on the consensus for what should or should not stay in the page out of respect for them as well. For my part, I had already conceded and removed many of my contributions on the page anyhow. Maybe user TheTimesAreAChanging overlooked that. The page as it exists for the moment seems to be a good starting ground for all editors involved. I take it that we are to start with a clean slate moving forward, which is why I am not requesting any version of the page I prefer. We should just leave it alone since this kind of debate is wasting time IMHO that could be spent on consensus building and dispute resolution. Again I think it is best to focus on the consensus instead and leave the page alone until a civil dialogue that respects all the editors involved is created. I will start a section now in that vein since user TheTimesAreAChanging is choosing to spend his time trying to essentially appeal the decision with this request. I invite him and others to join me in that debate.

Again, for the record: I request to leave the page alone for now and work out changes to it piece by piece as a litmus test to see which editors are willing to build consensus and be civil to each other.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to defer editing requests to another uninvolved administrator, since I was the one who protected the page. Pinging Zero0000, who participated in the AN3. He might be willing to look over this edit request, but that is entirely up to him. My point is: the more uninvolved administrators that can help, the more level-headed and fair that judgment calls are made. This is what I'm trying to achieve regarding this article and dispute. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that Whiskey is correct, that the spirit of page protection is that we do not care what the page looks like now. We discuss and agree to whatever changes represent a more recent consensus. It's the edit-warrior's mentality (that there is a "right" version during a content dispute) that has gotten the article on lock-down. I longtime editor such as Changing presumably knows that. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Marriage scandal"

Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The old section was written as vaguely as possible to cover up the reporting. If you look carefully at my contributions, I restored the true reporting of those citations. His scandal is no better or worse than Clinton's or Trump's or Schwartnezegger's marriage scandals. He was forced to resign from his job for it. Showing up with a fiance while you are still married at a Christian college you are working at is no small thing. I made sure to use neutral language in this and to only include what the citations mentioned without passing judgement. You are being ridiculous now and projecting your partisan leanings. Plus, D'Souza has made some pretty vicious attacks on Obama and Hillary without evidence to back up his claims, and the consensus from the press is that he engages in hitjobs on liberals. Certainly his own personal life, when he's embroiled in real-life scandals with real-life evidence to back it up, should be under the microscope as well....especially when they've caused him to lose jobs over his sexual indiscretions. You are engaging in WP:POINTY behavior. So noted. Good luck with that.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Here is the section that offends you so much. You would be hard pressed to point out where I'm being unreasonable. Have you read the Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods scandals sections? This is tame compared to them. Here it is:

"While serving as president of King's College he became embroiled in a marriage scandal where he had an alleged affair and became engaged to a young woman while still married.[117] In an October 16, 2012, article in World Magazine, author Warren Cole Smith reported on D'Souza's activities after a September 28 talk that year in Spartanburg, South Carolina.[113] Smith said that D'Souza, who was married at the time, checked into a hotel with another woman and left with her the following day. He confirmed that he had been engaged to Denise Odie Joseph – herself married to Louis Joseph. After an investigation of his affair by officials of at King's College, D'Souza stated that he had suspended his engagement to Joseph.[3] Smith noted that D'Souza filed for divorce on the date of Smith's inquiry after the marriage scandal broke.[118] D'Souza had "disturbed some Christians" by showing up at a conference with a "fiance", despite also being married at the time.[119] The trustees of the King's College announced after meeting on October 17, 2012, that D'Souza had resigned his position as president of the university in order "to attend to his personal and family needs".[120] He and his wife subsequently finalized their divorce in 2013" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneshotofwhiskey (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE:I would be careful to loosely use the word "vandalism" here. Vandalism constitutes exactly what it means. No where in that above section will you find personal attacks or insults or lies about D'Souza. We are not calling him a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, or an adulterer though outside of wikipedia it is certainly true. In fact, the judge in his case ordered him to undergo therapy precisely for those reasons according to his sentence and D'Souza has complied. Your continued exaggeration of false accusations about vandalism where there is none, or an agenda where there is none, will make it hard for anyone to talk you serious. Please leave the hot-headedness out of it, please. This had returned to a pleasant civil debate until you resumed with the emoting.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless the validity/relevance of the section, it is sloppily written.

• "He confirmed that he had been engaged" -- Who is he(1) and he(2)? Smith?
• " suspended his engagement to Joseph" -- which Joseph? Louis Joseph? Denise Odie Joseph? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• showing up at a conference with a "fiance", -- why "fiance" is in quotes?
• " In an October 16, 2012, article in World Magazine, author Warren Cole Smith reported on D'Souza's activities after a September 28 talk that year in Spartanburg, South Carolina" -- a completely redundant lengthy intro phrase. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Most important, do reliable sources describe this incident as "scandal"? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please suggest "editprotected" fixes. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is sloppy and can use improvement. So improve it. Does not require us to censor the content unless you simply don't accept the facts from the citations. Then use direct quotes and be done with it. The previous version was so vague you would never know he had this alleged affair. That much is public knowledge and accepted by the consensus in the press. D'Souza certainly doesn't deny it. Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace incorrect

Dinesh D'Souza was born in Bombay, not Mumbai. There was no "Mumbai" in 1961 when he was born. He has stated that birthplace himself:

" I’m, as I say, a person of color. I’m a brown-skinned immigrant to the United States. I was born in Bombay, India." -- Dinesh D'Souza, in an interview with Rush Limbaugh, July 30, 2016

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/rush-limbaugh-dinesh-dsouza-hillarys-america/

This needs to be corrected in the article, but editing currently appears to be broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)