Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

Removal of "Convicted Felon" mention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oneshotofwhiskey, maybe you really are a brand-new editor, and you have no flippin' idea how Wikipedia works or what I mean when I invoke WP:BLP. Perhaps, to you, Wikipedia is simply a blog for your own personal ramblings. It really doesn't matter—if you refuse to learn, you are being tendentious. Look at another BLP, any BLP. Try, say, Jeffrey Epstein: Do we call him a "registered sex offender" in the first sentence? Of course not—now it's on you to learn why we don't, why this is enforced across all BLPs, and thus why making an unprincipled exception for D'Souza would be a violation of all the norms of Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and condescending attitude makes it impossible to take you seriously. There are many articles about conmen, serial killers, convicted criminals and the like that wikipedia allow for direct language about them. Would I call Tiger Woods a serial cheater or sex addict in his lead? No, mostly because his adultery isn't central to his public identity as a golfing celebrity. Should we call Stephen Glass the liberal journalist who fabricated dozens of articles a serial fabricator? Maybe, though not in those words and certainly I wouldn't be against it since his fraudulent behavior is directly tired to his career. The problem with D'Souza is that he has made a career out of stalking figures like Obama and Hillary from afar with his personal crusade to expose their perceived political corruptions. So for this man to fall from grace because he himself broke the law and was imprisoned for true life felony political corruption and criminal behavior is certainly directly tied to his behavior, career and identity. This isn't slap on the wrist stuff. He wasn't fined for smoking a joint. He was found guilty and admitted to wrongdoing for the very thing he accuses Hillary and Obama for doing. No one is saying that we label him a fraudulent conman or propagandist even though he is certainly both of those. Stating he is a convicted felon is a statement of fact. I wouldn't label a registered sex offender "a registered sex offender." I would also label him a convicted felon. Then I would let the article go into the details. Now it is time for you to learn why we don't agree with your skewed understanding of BLPs, why there are in fact some articles across all the BLPs that are okay with that language in some cases, and why this isn't an unprincipled exception of any norms other than perhaps the personal politics of partisan political editors.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Survey

• Yes for the reasons cited by @Oneshotofwhiskey: in the discussion section below. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I also vote Yes. As this is the consensus moving forward, I will restore the censored material since it also more than satisfies WP:CITE. If more editors come along and change the current consensus, certainly we will respect that and revert the changes.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• No - shee, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR already. As for this being a BLP page -- unless he's self-declaring that, it seems kind of an WP:BLPGOSSIP unimportant insult to his bio. Any such offensive material should be stated as from someone not as a WP matter of OR, and presented in WP:DUE weight of prominence (which I think is microscopic) along with WP:DUE amount of the other views about the matter to comply with WP:NPOV. What's in the lead about that doesn't even make sense -- his speculating Obama got some attitudes from his father is not any kind of conspiracy. Frankly, this just sniffs like a political bit, and better to just revert to a 2015 version of the article until we're past the elections when potential motivations will be gone. Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:BLP and lack of reliable sources labeling him as such. Instaurare (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - If you look, there are actually quite a large number of reliable sources out there that suggest D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist. A few examples from a quick search: [4][5][6][7][8] - and that's avoiding sources that might be dismissed as biased like Slate, Salon, etc (there's plenty of sources like that that call him a conspiracy theorist). Not saying we need to claim it in wiki's voice necessarily, but it's not as outlandish as some of the comments above assume. Maybe pick a few of the best sources that characterize him this way and attribute the claim? Fyddlestix (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - One way or the other "based upon his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observation" does not appear to be very neutral wording. Further, two passing mentions of accusations of conspiracy theorizing do not justify inclusion of CT related content in the WP:LEAD, which itself is about as long or longer than the treatment of the topic in the body of the article. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• No If a few sources have referred to D'Souza's view as a 'conspiracy theory', it's a manifestation of the way the term 'conspiracy theory' has become a generalized insult, and a deterrent to critical thought. D'Souza's views may be unfounded and illogical, but his description of Obama's roots doesn't seem to involve any conspiracy. Furthermore: while some 'conspiracy theories' are bogus pseudoscience, other 'theories about conspiracy' are proven historical fact. So, I don't think 'conspiracy theory' is really working so well as a generalized insult any more. JerryRussell (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My comment is restricted to the particular use now in the text, describing D'Souza's theory about Obama. It's very possible that D'Souza has other views that would be properly labeled as 'conspiracy theory'. JerryRussell (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are, Oneshotofwhiskey hasn't pointed them out. The sole reference to the term is in the following context: "In 2012, D'Souza released 2016: Obama's America, a conservative political documentary film based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage. Both posit a conspiracy theory - based upon his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations - alleging that Barack Obama's attitude toward America derives from his father's anti-colonialism and from a psychological desire to fulfill his father's dream of diminishing the power of Western imperial states." As you note, there is no conspiracy there, so the term is invalid.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Question -- How's that conspiracy theory? With whom did Barack "conspire"? IMO this is term misuse. What are other English-language terms for kranky theories? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• No. This is not his whole life. Just the same we don't call him "convicted felon" in the lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Look, 'everyone', you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to flaunt conspiracy theories. Trump is not a conspiracy theorist. Yet he claims "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." Since that is a wild idiotic claim made without REAL evidence, it is a "conspiracy theory." Maybe an informal one, but a conspiracy theory never the less. Do what you will, but it actually offends me MORE when we call his partisan commentary a "theory" when there is nothing truly investigative about his work. And for him to quite clearly say that he was political imprisoned by Obama or the government which he went as far as to dramatize in his Hillary hitjob movie is certainly a conspiracy theory since there is zero evidence to prove that.
• !?WTF?! This entire discussion (above and below) has taken place without any reference whatever to the the definition of Conspiracy theory. Tapered (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, though an alternative formulation might be preferable (e.g. "who promotes conspiracy theories concerning..."). This is undoubtedly supported by sources. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• No Certainly his work is highly polemical, makes unsubstantiated claims and the reasoning leaves much to be desired. But that does him a conspiracy theorist and he does not seem interested in the main conspiracist interests: the Illuminati, the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, etc. There are no reliable sources that call him one. We should also consider "Contentious labels": "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." TFD (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Could you comment on @Jytdog:'s mooted list of RS that use "conspiracy theorist" above? SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, some editors are being misleading here. No one is saying that we want to label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist." But his most of his major 'theories' are conspiracy theories. His biggest, most defining one is his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him. There is no real evidence to support that claim, yet he devoted a major portion of his anti-Hillary propaganda piece to that conspiracy theory, stating it as if it were fact. The thing is that MOST controversial figures who put out conspiracy theories do NOT think those theories are on the fringe. They treat them as fact, as the truth. It is rare for those conspiracy theorists to come out and call their own theories "conspiracy theories." The sources certainly support this reality. The only reason to leave it out is for the purposes of political spin.204.96.25.202 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

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

The consensus in the main-stream press by reputable press outlets is that D'Souza is peddling conspiracy theories. That is the major indictment of his work. I even included a reputable source OTHER than a variety review. There are more if you like. There is one of many [10]. To "specifo's" concern: wikipedia reports all of the time on conspiracy theories. While it might not be necessary to call D'Souza a conspiracy theorist, his work certainly falls into that realm and is backed by the consensus of reputable sources (i.e. Breitbart, daily kos are NOT reputable, etc.) The JFK theory that Oswald didn't act alone, ROSWELL's UFO crash landing, the idiotic Birther theory that Obama wasn't born in the US, the theory that Hillary Clinton is secretly dying from health issues, the liberal theory that 9/11 was a plot by the CIA, are ALL conspiracy theories that should be reported as such. It's not a derogatory label. Conspiracy theories go back to JFK and Jack the Ripper. We can certainly report about them here if that is the question.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

One of D'Souza's conspiracy theories is supposedly that Obama chose to return a bust of Winston Churchill, which Entertainment Weekly called a "factual folly." Yet Obama recently confirmed that his conservative critics were right all along. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact, though they can be used for attributed opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a fallacy. I didn't say D'Souza was wrong about everything. And even there, you are taking that article out of context. The 'conspiracy theory' that Obama has an angry radical agenda based in Islamic thinking of some kind is absurd and completely not backed by any evidence, certainly not by D'Souza. His book and film are a combination of his personal introspection with his partisan opinion about Obama's book. Look, this coded nonsense by D'Souza and those of his ilk that Obama is a secret Muslim controlled by an angry, radical agenda has no basis in impartial empirical investigative journalism. But even if you found instances that D'Souza is right about some things - and the Churchill bust is a token thing, even if correct - then that is not proof that the rest of D'Souza's ridiculous conspiracy theory is sound. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. D'Souza has failed to satisfy any burden of proof with any compelling evidence. That D'Souza himself is a felon who broke the law for his own political corruption also hurts his credibility. You can have your own set of opinions, not your own set of facts.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall D'Souza ever saying "Obama is a secret Muslim." That's simply a strawman argument.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

One source making such a claim is not enough when dealing with a BLP. Instaurare (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. But there's a lot more than one source making the claim in this case. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the review is the opinion of its writer, Owen Gleiberman, who is Chief Film Critic, and he does not call D`Souza a "conspiracy theorist," but a "right-wing conspiracy wingnut." That is more a humorous condemnation of his work, than a critical assessment. Gleiberman's says, "“Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” might be described as propaganda that shades off into paranoia." So he places him in a middle position between dishonest polemicist and paranoid conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, this is an opinion expressed in an op-ed. As such it is not reliable for facts, the author is an expert in film, not conspiracism. TFD (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Some editors are being misleading here. No one is saying that we want to label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist." But his most of his major 'theories' are conspiracy theories. His biggest, most defining one is his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him. There is no real evidence to support that claim, yet he devoted a major portion of his anti-Hillary propaganda piece to that conspiracy theory, stating it as if it were fact. The thing is that MOST controversial figures who put out conspiracy theories do NOT think those theories are on the fringe. They treat them as fact, as the truth. It is rare for those conspiracy theorists to come out and call their own theories "conspiracy theories." The sources certainly support this reality. The only reason to leave it out is for the purposes of political spin.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • D'Souza's argument is that he was selectively prosecuted, and there is strong evidence to support that claim. For example, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz says "The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn't sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion ... I can't help but think that (D'Souza's) politics have something to do with it ... It smacks of selective prosecution"—as you well know, since you purged that material no less than eight separate times ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), even though it had been accepted without controversy since December 2014. Your mass deletion will surely be the next RfC, unless I decide to take your conduct to ANI.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Most people who have been prosecuted believe that they have been unfairly treated and lawyers routinely say that. We do not label all convicted criminals and defense lawyers conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

There is a difference between something believed with no evidence and a conspiracy theory. You are widening the definition beyond what is normally meant. Obama said, ""The Bible calls us to hope. To persevere and have faith in things not seen." He believes God exists, the Bible is the word of God, and the Holy Ghost comes down sometimes when preachers are preaching, but as you would say, there is no real evidence to support his claims. Are you going to add to the lead of his article that he too is a conspiracy theorist? TFD (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, TFD. But I don't buy your emotional reasoning. It is a fallacy to suggest, as you are, that the burden of evidence is on the accused. It is always on the accuser, natch. Here is the deal: I don't think we need to claim that D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist. However, D'Souza does not just claim that he is being framed. He actually made a movie where he puts forth a dramatization of his imprisonment and states as if it were fact that he was selectively targeted by Obama and the government, with zero REAL evidence to back this up. Sorry, but when people make this sorta claim, or put forth theories of crashed UFO government coverups without real evidence, or the existence of bigfoot without evidence, and other such nonsense, they are dealing in conspiracy theories. The government is on record disputing D'Souza's claim as false and there is nothing to suggest they are lying. For D'Souza and others to put forth the claim anyways that the government under Obama's orders imprisoned him without cause is to *drum roll please* put forth a conspiracy theory.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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 ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) 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)

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)

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)

List of reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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