Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject India / Goa (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Goa (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Creationism / Intelligent design  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans / Dartmouth (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire - Dartmouth College (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Writings on Race?[edit]

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

"Convicted felon"[edit]

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

Because RS do note DDS' conviction upfront and he comments on it himself in other contexts, this appears to be one of the principal noteworthy facts about him. To address your concern as to relative importance: There's little discussion of his views in manistream sources except where the source is reviewing specific works, so his thinking has not attracted mainstream attention or generated further discussion in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to consider balancing aspects of this article, "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." In this sense, it is not a proper balance to include "convicted felon" with "political commentator" and "author", which are positions of enduring notability. What are the reliable sources that explicitly identify him as a convicted felon upfront like this Wikipedia article does? Per WP:LEADCITE, at the very least, this data point should have an inline citation. I will notify WP:BLP/N of this concern of mine. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't be in there: "convicted felon" could mean any number of vile and horrible things. There's a paragraph later on in the lede that describes properly what the crime is. By removing "convicted felon" from the first sentence, the chances of misleading the lazy reader who doesn't go past the first paragraph decreases. Brustopher (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Just so we're all clear: he is, in fact, a convicted felon. We're saying it's undue weight because it's not saying what he was convicted of? His crime is certainly one that "emphasize[s] what made the person notable", as his was a prominent and visible crime defrauding the electoral process. Maulana Karenga mentions he's a convicted felon in the lede and doesn't say a single word in the entire article about what his crime was. Ogress smash! 17:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Maulana Karenga is not a reviewed article by any means. To evaluate that as a more historical comparison, though, this indicates that Karenga's felony is not mentioned upfront across three different encyclopedic entries. It is instead mentioned later on. Wikipedia's lead section for Karenga needs to be more comprehensive in general, and the felony could be mentioned as part of a more detailed section if it is in balance with other aspects of his background. For D'Souza, I agree with the point made above that we should not use the term without immediately putting it in context. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

"Christian apologist"[edit]

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

It's a wikilink; it's the lede, which isn't the place for that kind of discursion; it's a common English term and I'm confused by your assertion that it is somehow to be misread. Ogress smash! 19:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It's much clearer to say "practitioner of Christian apologetics" than "Christian apologist". This way, readers will not assume that he's apologizing for something he thinks is wrong with Christianity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there's no difference between the two if someone doesn't know what apologism is, but if it makes you feel better, it's not harmful to rephrase it the way you did. Ogress smash! 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of "apologist" could not be more clear and is not the same as the meaning of "one who apologizes for something wrong." The current text is well-supported. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I am okay with the current text. The primary definition in the OED says, "One who apologizes for, or defends by argument; a professed literary champion." People may understand "apologizes" in its primary rather than secondary sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Convicted Felon" mention[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015[edit]

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

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

Where is the edit button?[edit]

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.[edit]

The book earned praise from atheist Christopher Hitchens for Dinesh's argumentative skills.[1]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 Feb 2016[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016[edit]

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[edit]


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)