Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Please allow the addition of Dinesh's new book and movie.

Movie: Dinesh's newest book 'Trump Card' will be release in August 2020.

Book: Dinesh D'Souza is announced the release of his new book "United States of Socialism: Who's Behind It. Why It's Evil. How to Stop It.," which will be released on June 2, 2020. Emirowas (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Emirowas, any sources other than the press release and his own site? Guy (help!) 17:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, here are a few:

Here are a couple other mentions of trump card: https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/trump-card-64446 https://news.yahoo.com/dinesh-d-souza-trump-card-223805851.html

And for USoS, here’s the publisher’s site: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250163783

Also, it is listed on almost every major book retailer: https://www.amazon.com/United-States-Socialism-Behind-Evil/dp/1250163781 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/united-states-of-socialism-dinesh-dsouza/1135457770 https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250163783 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emirowas (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Emirowas:

Not done for now - This seems like a reasonable addition, but you need to be specific about what text you want added and where. The following is from the template message on requesting an edit:

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

You should also cite your sources in Wiki format, noting where each piece of information came from. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please replace the nonexistent column below the book category row "2018," "Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party," "All Points Books (ISBN 978-1250163776)" with an added row column 1, last row: "2020," column 2, last row: "United States of Socialism: Who's Behind It. Why it's Evil. How to Stop It.," column 3, last row: "All Point Books (ISBN13: 9781250752529)"

Please replace the blank column below the film category with the following: column one last row: 2020, column 2, last row: Trump Card column 3, last row: Executive producer, director, co-writer, and star

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Change: 'Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-born American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, who is widely known as a far right political provocateur.'

Corrected: 'Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-born American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist, who is widely known as a right wing political commentator.'

You referenced a Guardian OPINION PIECE to support the claim that he is a 'far right provocateur' (in fact you merely copied the headline) which is riddled with bias. Prior to deciding on what title(s) to give a public spokesperson, it's important to read other, alternative source materials on said person to maintain partiality. Where I take issue with this is that Milo Yiannopoulos is described on your webpage as 'far-right[2] political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, writer and activist', which he undoubtedly is, but Yiannopoulos is more of a 'provocateur' than D'Souza is based on public speeches alone where as the latter person bases much of his public speeches on facts that can be verified. Admittedly, the language he uses in his films can be seen as provocative depending on where you lie on the political spectrum although much of it is 'tongue-in-cheek'. I find this an inaccurate representation of D'Souza's character as many other centrists would do. 86.23.74.177 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)— 86.23.74.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. All the sources you listed are links to his book that is coming out. Non of them prove the fact that he is not nor does it say anything about provocateur. I am declining this change. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Portal bar

Note the documentation of Template:Portal bar specifically says not to use it in a "See also" section: "This template does not belong in the "See also" section."

Please move or remove it. -- 109.79.176.37 (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Moved. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

I would like to change Dinesh D'Souza's political title from far-right, to conservative. He is not a far-right because he only holds conservative views. Jennijam009 (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)— Jennijam009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is questionable

Reading this up, one can clearly see this article promotes the one-sided (left) view point of this person. And of course it is protected from editing - looking through the history one can see any attempts to bring the page to a neutral view point were being shut down. This is a low example for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevel6 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

To call him a conspiracy theorist is an opinion based on whether you think his theories are a conspiracy. The article does not do enough to source this claim. TO call him a far-right provocateur wreaks of bias as well. You don't see anyone calling AOC a far-left provocateur or conspiracy theorist but I'm sure there are those that have that opinion of her. I don't usually see this level of bias on Wikipedia and I'm disappointed. I'm fine with this being stated as "detractors have labeled so and so as a conspiracy theorist" but to state it as a fact in the summary is misleading. It's very clear that whoever wrote this dislikes him or is racist against Indian Americans, calling him out as a convicted felon in the first sentence as if that's relevant in a high level summary. 209.63.121.212 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. All labels are supported by reliable sources: provocateur by The Guardian ([1]), felon in the next paragraph, and conspiracy theorist further down the article. You don't need to start a conspiracy theory to be a conspiracy theorist, and sources agree that he defintely spreads those ideas. I am going to remove felon from the lead sentence as his conviction is mentioned in the next paragraph. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mediaite as a source

@Jef poskanzer: you need to find something better. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." See also WP:WEIGHT which relates - no clearly reliable sources then we shouldn't use it. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I did find a better source and another deletionist came along and undid that one too, with a barely coherent explanation. I'm done, you guys (and I do mean guys) win again. Jef (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Stupid Tweet

Could we mention Dinesh D’Souza’s stupid tweet please, which says English, Australian and Indian people pronounce “Thailand” as “Thigh land”? Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That hardly warrants a mention? Did it garner any media attention? Finnegas (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hard to imagine that will meet the WP:10YEARTEST. VQuakr (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Very curious as to the lean of this article and why it has been strictly policed.

I am neither right or left identified, however I am very much concerned for the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a once-trusted source. I have heard from many circles how biased it is, but have always written them off as base untruths.

Through some very specific (unrelated) academic research I happened to come across this article. Again, I have no great horse in this game aside from having respected Wikipedia for quite some time and made the odd grammatical edit myself.

Is anybody here prepared to defend why this man's "headline" mentions he's a "convicted felon" and "conspiracy theorist", despite the latter being purely a matter of opinion, and the former being a relatively trivial campaign finance violation?

Especially when compared to prominent "left" leaning figures who have committed much more serious crimes and are known for promoting much more "conspiratorial" views? Yet none of this being so categorically pointed out in their headlines, and often buried in the article itself?

I once doubted Wikipedia's bias, but things like this make me very, very concerned. It suddenly speaks true to the "conspiracy" that the editing body of Wikipedia is no longer objective, but in fact is largely composed of left-wing types with a heavy editorial bias.

Again, prove me wrong. Or hide behind moderator status and act like the blatant double standards don't exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.208.5 (talk • contribs) 15:27, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We represent D'Souza as mainstream sources do. Mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative. Guy (help!) 15:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You are very right-wing as anyone checking your contributions can tell. Your first five paragraphs are anecdotal in its entirety, but in general boils down to "My alleged friends tell me Wikipedia is left-wing, and I, as a based neutral, denied this until I saw this page." and "Why refer to Dinesh as a felon for felonies he confessed to committed? I don't even think the felonies he committed were that bad! The left does worse, call them felons!" Anyways I'll answer your core questions, and in doing so I hope you see the left-wing bias on Wikipedia is simply non-existant.

Is anybody here prepared to defend why this man's "headline" mentions he's a "convicted felon" and "conspiracy theorist", despite the latter being purely a matter of opinion,

This was resolved in an archive dispute months ago in which a consensus was made. See here

and the former being a relatively trivial campaign finance violation?

I'm sorry, the question here is he a felon or not. How you view his felonious behavior is irrelevant to what he objectively is. A felon. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Very curious: Convicted felon in the first sentence

Hi 70.72.208.5. There was a bit of talk recently about what should go in the first sentence of a biography article, on a page where policy is discussed. I mentioned Mr D'Souza, among others. But I doubt that there will be change in the near future. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm jumping in the talk because of the same issue. I'm political neutral but consider this first sentence as very bias, a 20,000 dollar contribution felony prior to the titles of author and filmmaker? It has been widely advised Wikipedia is not a serious source, but I didn't feel that way until I see this article. It upsets me even further the article is "protected" at the state like this. Cid del Norte (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Peter Gulutzan! Nothing in that talk page sets a binding precedent it seems. The discussion was not properly concluded and the admin's final remark doesn't imply a definitive change either. She stated "So if a government works hard to stigmatize people who break the law, an encyclopedia should follow suit? Does that logic extend to "illegal aliens"? Because there are arguably people in the US government who are trying to stigmatize that even more than fraud these days. 'So-and-so is an American activist, blogger, and illegal alien.'" Her argument is extremely "appeals to emotion", but besides that, it attacks the US government for doing something every single country in the world does. Refers to those convicted of felonies as convicted felons. How that comes off as stigmatizing is beyond me, as it's merely reiterating fact. An encyclopedia should indeed stick to the facts on the individual in question, regardless of a personal opinion that referring to criminals as what they factually are, somehow stigmatizes them. The illegal alien argument fails on its face, because if someone being an illegal immigrant is absolutely central to talking about there experience in life, then we would be remiss not to mention it. We can't disregard large portions of someone's life because it's criminal or politically incorrect.

However, I think the "Good thing Wikipedia wasn't around when it was illegal to help slaves escape" argument is a pretty good one. What if the laws the convicted felon were inherently unjust, so they still be referred to as a convicted felon. I'd argue yes, as it's not Wikipedia's job to determine which laws are good or bad. Let the reader determine that being a convicted felon is not synonymous with being morally bankrupt and that some convicted felons are an example of a corrupt government rather than a corrupt individual. Let them see, by the obviousness of the wording, that the convicted felons who helped slaves escaped were more heroic, admirable, and, at a human level, more outstanding then everyone involved in their prosecution. Indeed, make it known implicitly that abolitionists were, for the time period at least, extremely magnanimous. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter, for sharing that discussion. I see that contentions have been raised over similar “loaded” opening paragraphs. D’Souza’s pardon is given equitable coverage in his article, but makes up only 4% of total article contents by my calculation, and does not support strong argument for it largely contributing to his notability.

I am going to remove the “pardoned convicted felon” role, and see if it is approved/sticks. This is purely with respect to MOS:ROLEBIO. My primary concern here, as an indifferent reviewer of BLPs for politically involved individuals, is what appears to be clear partisan-slant. Using something that could be perceived as a loaded label just comes off as tactless—especially right off the bat—and creates an appearance of bias within the Wikipedia editing community.

Reading through discourses on related opening paragraph critiques, it’s disconcerting to hear typical “we follow the sources” and “it’s what they're known for” talking points regarding situations like this. It seems way too easy to make arguments like these by stringing together articles from overwhelmingly mainstream, left-leaning news sources that push past roles/labels as largely conducive to a person’s notoriety, when holistically such is not the case. Tony Invader (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony Invader, it doesn't matter if the sources are left-leaning if what the source is claiming is objectively true. He is a convicted felon and no amount of propaganda from either side will change that. It doesn't matter if people see it as a partisan-slant, because nothing claimed in the first sentence factually untrue, it's the opposite. As I said, he is a convicted felon and that is a fact and sources (including government agencies) can back that up. The right always says "facts don't care about your feelings" so I don't see the issue here.

I think your best argument, however, is notability. Is him being a convicted felon notable enough to be on the first sentence? We can determine this by comparing this page to this page in which the person's conviction is a relatively minor part of their page, yet still remains. I don't think we need to set a new precedent with this page, especially when the David Duke page isn't the only of its kind (see this page of a convicted felon who's conviction makes up 1/6 of there page). We would have to convert countless pages to comply with this one if we agreed to set a precedent here. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Tony Invader, actually only the word "pardoned" should be removed: accepting the pardon means accepting guilt, so the conviction stands but he has been granted executive clemency. Guy (help!) 12:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

See also the December 2018 talk page thread Convicted felon. Looking at article history, I may be missing some edits but I see that "convicted felon" or "pardoned convicted felon" was inserted by Leofstan, removed by Anachronist, re-inserted by Moriori, re-removed by Anachronist, re-re-inserted by User:Avaron676, re-re-removed by CharlesShirley, re-re-re-inserted by Eggishorn, re-re-re-removed by Tony Invader. I expect that the next step will be a re-re-re-re-insert, but not a resolution. I added the subsection heading "Very curious: Convicted felon in the first sentence" today. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I'll stop using "re-" but continue the chronicle. Inserted again by GreenFrogsGoRibbit, removed again by CharlesShirley, inserted again by GreenFrogsGoRibbit. I don't think WP:1RR applies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) ... More update: removed again by Occurring. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) ... More update: inserted again by GreenFrogsGoRibbit, removed again by Ganbaruby. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ... More update: inserted again by Minatijeetii, removed again by Dimadick. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, I think I am going to add convicted felon back. I am glad that this page was brought up, so I could justify the edit. The arguments of that page are as follows. 1. Trump's pardon exonerated Dinesh or at the very least changed his status from convicted felon to something else. He is no longer a convicted felon. 2. "Convicted felon" is inappropriate to have on a Wikipedia page as its "too broad to be very informative" and includes those who commit murderers to those who engage in tax evasion. 3. Being a convicted felon does not define Dinesh. All three of these arguments are without merit and are not valid reasons to give Dinesh a unique exception that other WP:BLP pages do not have (more on this later).

The first argument is especially flawed as there are binding Supreme Court cases on this topic, that has not been overruled. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) tells us, "There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it". This was further re-affirmed in a District Court case Nixon v. Sampson, 389 F. Supp. 107 (D.D.C. 1975) when the court says, "And, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that President Ford has granted, and Mr. Nixon has accepted, a full and unconditional pardon. Such a pardon dispels any possibility that a fifth amendment claim could be cognizable." You can't invoke your fifth amendment against self-incrimination after a pardon, because you've already incriminated yourself. It's the equivalent to taking a plea deal. Finally, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit also concedes this point in Bjerkan v. United States, 529 F.2d 125, 128 n. 2 (7th Cir.1975) by saying, "a pardon does not ‘blot out guilt’ nor does it restore the offender to a state of innocence in the eye of the law as was suggested in Ex Parte Garland". There were a few more court cases that could have been brought up, but it would merely be redundant and further prove what has been established (i.e pardons don't exonerate convicted felons, but rather reaffirm they are a convicted felon). A Supreme Court case, Circuit Court case, and a District Court case suffice as valid enough precedent to deny what was claimed in point one. Ultimately, Wikipedia users do not interpret the constitution only courts empowered by Article 3 and when there is a conflict, the courts win.

Moving on, Anachronist tries to circumvent the fact he is legally wrong, by claiming Wikipedia policy does not allow for those who are pardoned to include the fact they are convicted in the very first sentence as it violates WP:BLP. Point 2 fails as an act of hypocrisy (on Wikipedia's part, not Anachronist) because Dinesh is not the only convicted felon to have this identifier on his Wikipedia page, after a pardon. In fact, multiple living citizens are noted as being convicted in the first sentence (or at the very least first paragraph) of there Wikipedia page despite there pardon, and to exempt this convicted felon (Dinesh) would be not only bias, but more importantly, inconsistent. To keep things concise, only three examples shall be given for pardon people who still have the term "convicted" in the first sentence of there Wikipedia page (just like for point 1). First example, involves a man pardoned by Trump and still has "convicted fraudster" in the first sentence of his page. Like Dinesh, this is a money crime. Second example, involves a woman pardoned by Clinton for civil contempt. "convicted of federal charges" ends the first sentence describing her. Finally, this girl was pardoned by Clinton and her page starts with "radical leftist who was convicted in connection with violent and deadly militant activities". Anachronist would have us change some countless amount of pages of pardoned individuals accurately referred to as "convicted" in the first sentence of there Wikipedia page for no legitimate reason. The argument that the term felon is vague, because "it covers everything from tax evasion to axe murdering" fails too. The first sentence of a Wikipedia page of a person (dead or alive) is merely a brief summary of the individual with specifics listed immediately after that sentence. "conspiracy theorist" could also constitute as "too broad to be very informative" if you look at the term at face value. It's only after one continues reading the page could one see how Dinesh constitutes as a conspiracy theorist in the things he says.

Finally, the weakest argument offered is "Being a formerly-convicted felon is not what defines him." which is as subjective as it comes. One could argue that, especially after his reaction from the pardon, he made it define himself. He used it on Twitter to mock the prosecutor who convicted him and Obama, then he bragged about it on Fox News while simultaneously claiming the "left" is threatened pardon. He, himself, made the pardon central to his identity and the pardon merely reaffirms his guilt. District Court cases and Circuit Court cases have proven this fact (the fact that an acceptance of a pardon is an acceptance of guilt) to be true, but even if they didn't, the SCOTUS did and they have precedent over all inferior courts regardless. Only a new SCOTUS decision or an amendment could change the fact that a convicted felon taking a pardon is just a confession to the crime.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge my fellow editors and admins not to undo the "convicted felon" addition to the first sentence on the grounds that it is legally valid and the pardon did not remove his guilt but rather reconfirmed it. Moreover, because this would not be the first, nor the last Wikipedia page that qualifies under WP:BLP to continue to refer to a convicted felon as "convicted" after a pardon. Finally, because the term "convicted felon" is not only true but central to who Dinesh's is and therefore deserves to be in the first sentence. This fact is relevant enough and central enough to be one of the first things new readers learn about Dinesh after researching him.

Respectfully Submitted,

GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 7:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that GreenFrogsGoRibbit's arguments above amount to (a) original research about judicial decisions, applying them specifically to the subject of this article, (b) WP:OTHERSTUFF examples to suggest that if other articles do something, then that's reason enough for this one to do the same, and (c) an assertion about what defines him that isn't grounded in the WP:LEAD guideline; that is, if a lengthy article devotes a brief section to a felony conviction, that by itself isn't necessarily a sufficient reason to mention it in the lead.

None of those lines of reasoning are convincing in terms of Wikipedia editorial rules.

That said, I have no objection to stating in the second sentence of the lead something like "He was convicted of a felony and pardoned by President Trump", but simply slapping the term "convicted felon" in the lead without context runs afoul of WP:LABEL. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The core question was, was in itself judicial. Does Dinesh remain a convicted felon now that he has been pardoned? It's not up for interpretation, that was the question of the initial dispute, with the consensus generally being the pardon exonerated him. Judicial precedent unequivocally says otherwise. I did not make up my own judicial interpretation, jurisprudence, or my own legal theory. Rather I cited legitimate court precedent one of which was from the Supreme Court, who's entire job pure the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution. Anachronist attempts to circumvent black and white judicial interpretation, by claiming it's "original research about judicial decisions" all while failing to explain why judicial interpretation from the highest court in the land should be disregarded as false when it has not been overruled by a court with similar "ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction". Ultimately, the court is very blatant that a pardon merely reaffirms guilt, and there's not a SCOTUS case nor Amendment which overrules this precedent. Legally, a pardon does not exonerate or expunge a conviction.

Next Anachronist attempts to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF to claim why the precedent of including "convicted felon" on the first sentence is without merit. This argument fails, not only because its invocation is incorrect, but also because the interpretation is invalid. First, the argument is only supposed to apply "...specifically on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, see WP:OTHERSTUFF..." [2] Because this page is not currently a candidate for deletions, it is wrongly invoked and therefore without merit. However, even if WP:OTHERSTUFF was correctly invoked, which it wasn't, it still fails as an argument. The page itself concurs, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case." Anachronist own source admits that if I could cite a "good article" that immediately references someone's conviction status it would be a "credible case". Here is a "good article" that immediately references someone's conviction status in the first sentence. With that argument thoroughly quashed, I'd like to invoke a source of my own now that we are done with that one. I invoke WP:PRECEDENT which states, " Whilst consensus can change, there is a broad body of precedent which can be drawn on for regularly recurring consensus that have been upheld in a variety of situations." and invoke WP:OTHER which states, "A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts...".

Next, Anachronist states, in sum and substance, that Dinesh conviction is not relevant enough to start off his Wikipedia page, in accordance with WP:LEAD. The argument "if a lengthy article devotes a brief section to a felony conviction, that by itself isn't necessarily a sufficient reason to mention it in the lead." fails, because his "Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon" section is about as long as his "Early life and career" section. Accordingly, if we were to remove "convicted felon" from the lead on the grounds of it not being lengthy enough, then we would also be obligated to remove "Indian-born American" from the lead for the exact same reason. Furthermore, Dinesh being a "conspiracy theorist" is only mentioned in "Views and perspectives" which is also of similar length to his "Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon" would have to be struck down for the exact reason and Anachronist cannot do that as that would go against WP:CONS, which states "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." and that Consensus was established on this page [3]. WP:LEAD either affirms "Indian-born American", "convicted felon" and "conspiracy theorist" found in the lead or renders the majority of the lead illegitimate.

Finally, Anachronist invokes WP:LABEL and while the invocation of WP:LABEL might be correct, the points listed in WP:LABEL actually goes against his stance and affirms mine. WP:LABEL tells us, "calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, 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". The question here, is if referring to Dinesh as what he factually is, well-sourced in the Wikipedia page or at the very least as sourced as the claims referring to him as a conspiracy theorist. The answer is an obvious yes. The very first source of this page mentions his conviction (see here) and there is countless more citations here. Ultimately, Anachronist own source, while applicable and relevant, destroys his point in it's entirely and adds strengths mine.

As a result, the page is valid as it stands. Every argument to move convicted felon to the second paragraph or lower is wholly without merit. The argument that immediately noting he is a convicted felon "without context" harms the page's quality in any compacity is meritless too. His conviction is incorporated in the second paragraph and reincorporated in "Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon", which is where the reader learns the nitty-gritty of why he is a convicted felon. Ultimately, this very argument could be used to strike down referring to Dinesh as an "author" in the lead, because that too is without context until the reader views "Authorship". Until checking that out, the viewer is forced to wonder what kind of author is he. Does he write fiction, non-fiction, romance, fantasy, or science fiction? This argument can also be used to challenge referring to Dinesh as a "filmmakers" in the lead, as that too is without context. What kind of filmmaker is he? Is it animation, live-action, gore-filled, political, sexual? The lead being vague and expanded on later in the paragraph does not render the lead illegitimate and is not a good or even decent reason to remove "convicted felon" from the lead. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi!GreenFrogsGoRibbit and everyone else! It has been a minute since I entered a talk page on Wikipedia or edited much I didn't even remember my username. But when I read this first part of the article I felt it was my duty to revert what I perceived as a bias recently added to a more stable form. I am disappointed that the article begins this way because I do believe it is rather biased. I think we need to work to edit this in a way that approaches a neutral place. People generally are not notable because they are "convicted felons." Simply put, I don't think that is a great way to describe who Dinesh D'Souza is, or what people looking back 100 years will think or what it will say in 100 years. He is a conservative activist and even these felony he has been convicted of is connected to the part of his work, as it was and illegal campaign contribution to a conservative cause. I see you are advocating for this wording to be retained. I don't think that makes or is what Wikipedia is about. I also disagree strongly with what you have written here, "As I said, he is a convicted felon and that is a fact and sources (including government agencies) can back that up. The right always says "facts don't care about your feelings" so I don't see the issue here." I fundamentally believe that Wikipedia is not a set of facts. It is an attempt to use encyclopedic narrative to make sense of facts that exist. There are lots of facts about Dinesh D'Souza. I'd also like to edit out the wording, "widely deemed a far-right political provocateur," as that contains what I understand to be peacock words. It's been a while since I edited Wikipedia, and I forgot many of the tropes, etiquette of debate in the talk page, and formatting things that being a serious editor entails. I mean no disrespect, I just very much believe in the power and beauty of Wikipedia and working even on a sentence to help improve this resource for the good of all. I'd like to change the wording to something like this: "Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-born American author, filmmaker, conservative activist. Born in Bombay, D'Souza moved to the United States as an exchange student and graduated from Dartmouth College. He became a naturalized citizen in 1991. (then maybe talk about the progression and evolution of his work here and at this point include the part about the straw donor contributions. What kind of movies does he make what does he write.) Maybe connect also his presidency of the King's College with his work and include that about how he resigned amidst allegations of adultery. Something like that. I'm going to do that now. Thank you. I just think the wording can be better! Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)— Hockeydogpizzapup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hockeydogpizzapup, that was your first ever post with this account, what have you been using until now? Guy (help!) 22:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Hi! I don't remember what I have used in the past. I tried to remember, but I couldn't remember it. I usually use my IP address for mostly minor edits. I tried to remember I've had at least two back in 2008 and stuff. It has been a while though. My apologies. I never really understood how all of this works. Did I get everything right form wise and all that?Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)— Hockeydogpizzapup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quite clearly a single-purpose account, but doesn't matter. He doesn't have the authority to edit this page regardless. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Very curious: General Comments

With the obvious leftist bias in the article, innuendo, and absolute lies, it’s a good thing even left leaning colleges won’t consider Wikipedia as a legitimate reference for research. HPSigmaGuy (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)— HPSigmaGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

HPSigmaGuy, yes, reality has a well-known liberal bias. Fortunately for him (and I guess you), d'Souza is quite untroubled by reality. Guy (help!) 21:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't even remotely a suggestion to make this page better. It's just "I believe D'Souza's conspiracy theories and because Wikipedia doesn't, Wikipedia is a leftist institute and no one even uses its seriously". GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon and that must be included in the first sentence to comply with WP:UNCENSORED.

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

---

This dispute has occurred enough times with a resolution for way too long. It's time to end the edit wars and disputes once and for all. Upon the victory of my stance, "convicted felon" shall remain in the first sentence and upon the defeat of this vote... well the opposite occurs. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The most recent removal of "convicted felon" occurred, due to the argument that its inclusion is redundant and irrelevant. It's first noted that D'Souza's crimes are established in the next paragraph, but that's not a good argument as conspiracy theories are established both in Paragraph 4 and is already implied by the title of his films in the first paragraph. Even without the "conspiracy theorist" identifier, it's blatant he dabbles in conspiracy theories. Accordingly, why not remove that as well? Because it was affirmed by WP:Consensus in the archives. Look, removing one identifier because paragraph 2 further explains it, but not removing another despite paragraph 1 and 4 further explaining it makes no sense. It's either all okay or none of it's okay and here it's all okay to comply with WP:NPOV. The idea that D'Souza being convicted isn't relevant enough to who he is fails because it's relevant enough for its own section. Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon is a massive section, and if it can feel that, it has to be central to his life, identity and article. Accordingly, it must be in the first sentence. With All Due Respect, GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It is unnecessary. It is undue. It is covered in the article. There is no censorship. A claim of censorship might be appropriate if the information was being withheld from the article, but it is not. D'Souza's legal situation is described in the article adequately. Just calling him a "convicted felon" without putting it in context is not neutral editing of the article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you voting or just commenting? Also, User:Leofstan, User:Moriori, User:Avaron676, User:Eggishorn & User:Minatijeetii, you guys all have a notably history of editing this page on this topic, so what do you think is the best course of action. It seems to be approximately 1 - 4 in keeping it gone. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How is his conviction status unnecessary and irrelevant, yet him being a conspiracy theorist isn't? It's very easily censorship as it hides a blatantly true and valid claim with the most notable argument being its bias, despite the sources directly mentioning it and it being more objective then him being a conspiracy theorist. D'Souza being a filmmaker is also adequately explained and established outside the first paragraph, so should that be removed as well? If not, why not? Claiming that just referring to him as a convicted felon (which is what he objectively is and as the sources describe him as) is a WP:NPOV violation is untrue, but its noninclusion is a violation of WP:PRECEDENT and WP:CENSORED. Plenty of other pages do it, and as it's very intelligently noted in WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT, in order to ignore WP:PRECEDENT you need WP:CONSENSUS that the page would be better by ignoring such. The claim that convicted felon is bias without context, but conspiracy theory isn't, lacks logic. This is just my personal belief though. Would love to hear your counter-argument. Sorry if I come off as a violation of WP:HOSTILE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per CharlesShirley. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The sentence is inserted ahead of multiple sources which speak of his conspiracy theorist status. His felony conviction is irrelevant to these sources, and is frankly not the most notable identification of D'Souza. It is far from career defining. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The first five sources establish that he is a conspiracy theorist and a convicted felon. His felon status is noted in three sources, while his conspiracy theorist status is mentioned in four. Him being an author and film maker is mentioned in all five while him being a "far-right political provocateur" is mentioned in two. His felony status is more well sourced, then his "far-right political provocateur" status. Either that's removed or convicted felon is added pursuant to this logic. As for the claim that D'Souza isn't notable as a felon, that's subjective and therefore a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. The core question is it sourced (which it is) and notable to the entire page (which it is). This is just my personal belief though. Would love to hear your counter-argument. Sorry if I come off as a violation of WP:HOSTILE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Very confusing. Are people giving their opinion on (1) the article heading which says "convicted felon must be included in the first sentence" or (2) "removal of "convicted felon" could be a sanctionable offense."? Moriori (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Moriori, Sorry, I reworded it to be more concise. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Procedurally invalid No local consensus of an infinitesimal handful of editors can create a sanctionable dictat. This is not actually an RfC so it can't even claim to establish such a local consensus. Even if it was one it would be closed because the opening statement is far from neutral. Attempting to tote up votes less than a day after opening it is highly irregular, as well. This sorry excuse for a discussion should be put out of our misery as soon as possible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your first sentence as it basically challenges WP:Consensus and WP:RFC as a concept. If you request the abolishment of such common and popular practices, you'd have to go to the WP:ARBCOM. There's no other way you could even attempt to establish such a massive WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT moment for all of Wikipedia right here. I concede your second and third point and dispute your fourth point as opinionated, not reliant on any cognizable policy, and therefore irrelevant. Ultimately, I concede that this dispute should be restarted in compliance with RFC and shall shut this down and make a new one. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated above. It's putting WP:UNDUE weight to include that in the first sentence. It's not something he's primarily known for. It should be in the lead overall, there's no question on that, but in the first sentence or even the first para? No. Ravensfire (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Dinesh D'Souza page missing two movies in his filmography on his Wikipedia page.

Dinesh D'Souza was interviewed in the movie released as a Fathom event on March 23rd, 2015 called "Four Blood Moons". This link talks about the book "Four Blood Moons" as well as it's movie adaption...

"The movie press release states: “Four Blood Moons” combines scripture, science, history and big-screen live action spanning centuries, including previous similar lunar occurrences and the earth-shaking changes around them. It also examines our four blood-moon cycle-and its possible meaning for Israel, the Middle East and the world.

An array of historians, religious scholars and commentators appear in “Four Blood Moons” and offer their insight-filmmaker, speaker and author Dinesh D’Souza; radio host and author Dennis Prager; and noted author and historian David Barton to name just a few."'

Here's another link...

Christian Cinema

An array of historians, religious scholars and commentators appear in FOUR BLOOD MOONS and offer their insight—filmmaker, speaker and author Dinesh D’Souza; radio host and author Dennis Prager; and noted author and historian David Barton to name just a few.

The other movie the page is missing is "Infidel" in which both Dinesh D'Souza, and his wife, Debbie D'Souza, executive produced, which comes out this Friday, September 18th, 2020. It had a limited release on November 8th, 2019 as well.

"“INFIDEL” Produced By D’Souza Media In Theaters September 18

You know Dinesh D’Souza as the creator of political documentaries, and his new documentary Trump Card will be released on video on demand October 9.

D’Souza and his wife Debbie are also executive producers on a feature film."

Here is another link...

Here is a quote from the above website advertising the film, it also advertises a book written later in the article by D'Souza in the above link...

"My wife, Debbie, and I are executive producers on this political thriller starring Jim Caviezel.

INFIDEL is a feature film that tells a story that Hollywood won’t tell and doesn’t want you to know.

Watch the trailer and go see INFIDEL when it opens in theaters September 18!"

Here is a link for the trailer of "Infidel" from the Dinesh D'Souza page on YouTube...

It's bad enough with Wikipedia's liberal bias that they slander D'Souza, but they could at least have his movie filmography complete. --Eman926 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about proposed rewritten of the first sentence of the lead

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

---

Should the first sentence of WP:Lead be written as Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian American far-right political provocateur, author, filmmaker, conspiracy theorist and convicted felon. or remain as it currently is? The question ultimately is about the following issue. Should WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT be invoked by WP:Consensus as WP:Precedent tells us this proposed first sentence is legitimate, seen here: Roger Stone, Joe Ganim and Paul Manafort. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The most recent removal of "convicted felon" occurred, due to the argument that its inclusion is redundant and irrelevant. It's first noted that D'Souza's crimes are established in the next paragraph, but that's not a good argument as conspiracy theories are established both in Paragraph 4 and is already implied by the title of his films in the first paragraph. Even without the "conspiracy theorist" identifier, it's blatant he dabbles in conspiracy theories. Accordingly, why not remove that as well? Because it was affirmed by WP:Consensus in the archives. Look, removing one identifier because paragraph 2 further explains it, but not removing another despite paragraph 1 and 4 further explaining it makes no sense. It's either all okay or none of it's okay and here it's all okay to comply with WP:NPOV. The idea that D'Souza being convicted isn't relevant enough to who he is fails because it's relevant enough for its own section. Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon is a massive section, and if it can feel that, it has to be central to his life, identity and article. Accordingly, it must be in the first sentence. The first five sources establish that he is a conspiracy theorist and a convicted felon. His felon status is noted in three sources, while his conspiracy theorist status is mentioned in four. Him being an author and filmmaker is mentioned in all five while him being a "far-right political provocateur" is mentioned in two. His felony status is more well-sourced, then his "far-right political provocateur" status. Either that's removed or convicted felon is added pursuant to this logic. As for the claim that D'Souza isn't notable as a felon, that's subjective and therefore a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. The core question is it sourced (which it is) and notable to the entire page (which it is). This is just my personal belief though. Would love to hear your counter-argument. Sorry if I come off as a violation of WP:HOSTILE. With All Due Respect,GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Leofstan, User:Moriori, User:Avaron676, User:Eggishorn & User:Minatijeetii, you guys all have a notably history of editing this page on this topic, so what do you think is the best course of action. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to ping the people in the above section too? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question because section Very curious: Convicted felon in the first sentence shows that many editors inserted "felon" and many editors removed it or objected. But GreenFrogsGoRibbit has chosen only to ping editors who inserted. So, GreenFrogsGoRibbit: have you read WP:CANVASS? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan & Emir of Wikipedia Sorry, just checking this page now. I didn't see a need to ping the original users, since I assumed they had "Watch This Page" on which is how they voted first time. In any event, I thought the official "rfc" would summon new people to vote and give their opinion as well as the original people I summoned. Either way, Wikipedia is not a democracy as illustrated here WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and therefore it wouldn't matter if I had twenty more votes if my argument was moot, so that was yet another reason I didn't see the need to ping everyone. Still, if anyone wants to ping more, I have no objections to it. The people I pinged haven't explicitly responded and given their opinion as opposed to others, so that' why I pinged them. I wasn't aware of WP:CANVASS and if I knew about it, I wouldn't have tagged anyone. At least going further I know not too. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

One concern I would have about putting the felon status right at the front is that later on, when it appears, the context is immediately provided. The term "felon" covers a great deal of ground - everything from sex crimes, to multiple murders, to tax fraud, and yes, campaign finance violations. I would think the extra care, conservative writing and concern for privacy requirements of wp:blp would weigh in favor of, if the felony does go in that very first sentence, just adding "for campaign finance violation". I know, it is wordy already. But it seems to me that if you don't do that, you are putting in this shocking fact, and in a way that is completely open ended and could indicate something a lot worse. The reader deserves to know...the fact in its context. Some readers might not read as far as the paragraphs that explain the nature of the offense.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I get your argument, but you also have to account for the fact that simply including "convicted felon" follows WP:PRECEDENT as we've done it before. Also, he is a convicted felon and the term isn't any more vague then calling him a conspiracy theorist which can mean a variety of things. I admit that felonies include a wide range of crimes, but he is still a felon regardless. It's not innacuarate and his criminal behavior is explained more in-depth in the WP:LEDE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Those do seem to be the things he is known for. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy So do you * Oppose or * Support GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose addition to the first sentence per the reasons pointed out in the previous discussion section. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This proposed sentence is (or is very similar to) what we had as the first sentence for a long time in the past and I think we should go back to that. I see no reason to remove "felon" completely other than to spare his blushes, which should not be a consideration for us so long as what we are saying is true and proportionate coverage. I would be open to adding a very few extra words to make it clear what he was convicted of (in the most general sense) so that the reader isn't led to speculate that maybe he was convicted of something worse than he was. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per User:Truth is King 24. There are ways to be "truthful" or "accurate" without being ethical, and this is a good example. We should strive for accuracy and fairness, which we could accomplish by saying felon only where the appropriate context is provided. WP:PRECEDENT isn't relevant here; it is a list of arguments to avoid in discussions that have come up multiple times over the years. With a few million articles, we could probably find "precedent" for lots of terrible ideas, but that essay isn't suggesting anything close to what is being argued here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Whilst consensus can change, there is a broad body of precedent which can be drawn on for regularly recurring consensus that have been upheld in a variety of situations." is the core point of WP:PRECEDENT. It is extremely relevant to this argument as the first sentence I propose is very similar to other first sentences of convicted felons Wikipedia pages (see example above). I agree with your precedent argument personally, but objectively WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT is clear. One needs a WP:Consensus to do just ignore it. Finally, your first point seems bizzare as who or what defines what is ethical? If something is accurate but unethical wouldn't that be in the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Larry Hockett, GreenFrogsGoRibbit I do think it is at least worth mentioning, GreenFrogs, that the items you cite to are essays, and not policy or guidelines. If I may paraphrase a bit, the guidelines say to be fair, and even considerate, to living persons. If, in some cases, the editors have not fully lived up to that guideline, there is no guideline that says we should now just chuck it (hey, unless you can find one). Truth Is King 24 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Truth Is King 24 Everything I cited except the ones on precedent, seems to be established policy. As for the paraphrasing guideline, which guideline are you referring to so we can be on the same page? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning in the first sentence of the lead, but mention later on with full context. Reasons as above section. Ravensfire (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit Yes, but the precedent part did form rather a major portion of your response to Larry Hockett. Regarding my paraphrasing, you have a good point, I'm referencing wp:blp#tone, wp:blp#balance and wp:blp#avoid victimization.

• Oppose in the first sentence, where it's UNDUE and just sounds like a gratuitous smear. His crimes and their relationship to his life's work need the context and detail that can only be provided in the article text. A throwaway mention up top is not conveying meaningful information. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - considering discussions made in the above section. Idealigic (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SPECIFICO above "in the first sentence, where it's UNDUE and just sounds like a gratuitous smear." It is given due weight and context where it is at present in para 2 where the crime is identified. I loath the little toad, but even I can see that this is not what he is primarily known for and is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS:FIRST The first sentence of the lede is already cluttered and overloaded enough. Use the first sentence to introduce D'Souza and then as per MOS:LEADSENTENCE "spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."Writethisway (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sentence as proposed would I think elicit a first-impression reaction in the mind of readers who don't know much about him (and thus have chosen to read the article) of "whoa this comes off as really strident and aggressive and I'm not even sure I want to keep reading further". Novellasyes (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Propagandist

D'Souza's films are a subcategory in American propaganda films. Should he not be listed in the Propaganda film directors category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.92.98.205 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)