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.
 

Synapsis of the Movie Missing[edit]

The section on the Obama:2016 movie seems overly "clipped", as if a bare minimum of facts with an absolutely equal political balance was the goal, and the article has been butchered to deliver that. I'm not saying it's POV, I'm saying it's TOO neutral, to the point that it's neutrality is the focus. As a reader, I'd like to read a bit about the movie. Not necessarily a full synopsis, but the only visual image this section creates for me hinges on the word "psychoanalyze" which I also have problems with. Was the word used literally, as if the D'Souza's intent was to perform Freudian Mental Health Care evaluation on President Obama, or was the word used loosely, metaphorically to give a more "overview" notion of D'Souza's intent. I doubt "A", and "B" is biased as that's the only real impression of the movie the wikipedia article gives. I appreciate the intense nature of the political pressures and the single-minded determination to make things "balanced", but in this case it's the balance that is the focal point, and not a useful and fair description of the movie.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point! -- AstroU (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Four Republican senators question indictment[edit]

Headline: Senators Demand FBI Head Answer Questions About Indictment of Dinesh D'Souza

Headline: Senators call FBI on carpet over D'Souza charges

Lists 12 questions for investigators to explain about developing case. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you understand that WorldNetDaily isn't a reliable source for anything, least of all for a BLP. So why are you posting this here? This isn't your Facebook wall. How does this relate to the actual content of our article? MastCell Talk 04:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been a while—no one noted this important letter by four senators on the Judiciary Committee. You can see what I added in the lede. At your suggestion, I used more acceptable sources: Politico and Washington Examiner. Where do you find a list of sources that are not acceptable? I'm sure you know that a source not usually accepted can be included upon proper appeal and review. And we both know that TALK-discussion is for improving the article here, (which explains my discussion here.) Thanks for asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Story: An elderly teacher told her young class on the first day of school, "There are no rules in my class, but if you break one of them, I'll tell you." I feel the same about the news sources on the 'black list' of Wikipedia. A year or two ago, I spent 30 minutes or more trying to find the WP list of news sources that would be immediately yanked, either by an editor or in some cases by the software. So I know there is a file somewhere (maybe I should ask the WP help desk.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — PS: What I did find was the WP article on 'black-list' and the history of black listing.

There is a software-enforced "blacklist", but sources are generally placed there because of spamming, rather than low quality. Outside of those obviously abusive cases, decisions about sourcing are supposed to incorporate common sense. Reliable sources are those with a good reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and quality. I don't think anyone could make a case, with a straight face, that WorldNetDaily meets those criteria, although you wouldn't be the first to try.

More generally, the goal of this project is to build a serious, respectable reference work. It should therefore be obvious that partisan punditry is of little, if any, use in creating serious encyclopedic content, unless the point is simply to illustrate what partisan ideologues think about a specific subject. This is where common sense comes in. The Washington Examiner is no one's idea of a serious journalistic endeavor; it's a partisan publication and a very poor source—especially in a biographical article, where our sourcing standards are much stricter. Politico is fine. MastCell Talk 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights! -- AstroU (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"VIDEO: Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Trailer Released"[edit]

Dinesh D'Souza was the keynote speaker at the annual Conservative PAC (CPAC) and received an ovation after showing his trailer for "America", to be released July 4, 2014.

Headline: "VIDEO: Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Trailer Released"

QUOTE: "D’Souza delivered the afternoon keynote address at CPAC, where he showed about 3,500 attendees the trailer. Later, he plans to show the video during an appearance on Fox News Channel." — [Watch the 2min video to improve the article here.] FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In the news again today:
Headline-2: Hot Trailer: Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘America’

QUOTE: "Having made the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time, the team behind 2016: Obama’s America is now, as promised, following up with America. Sending up some fireworks of his own to rival the ones 2016 generated, producer-writer and kind-of host Dinesh D’Souza says of his new docu, “We answer the central moral challenge of America’s critics, which is that America’s greatness is based on theft, plunder and oppression.” Watch the 2-min trailer." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-3: Production Notes from IMDbPro

QUOTE: "Credited cast: Russell W. Reed (Ford Theatre Stage Actor); John Koopman (George Washington); Tina Fortune (Hispanic Worker); Rest of cast listed alphabetically: Barack Obama (Himself) (archive footage); Bobby T(Ellison's Chief Slave) (rumored); Dinesh D'Souza (Dinesh D'Souza, himself)." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-4: Dinesh D'Souza to Take on NSA in Upcoming 'America' (Exclusive Video)

QUOTE: "The Obama administration is collecting private information on every American, for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism." -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal experts said D’Souza’s arrest was politically motivated[edit]

I just added the following to the article:

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

  • Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said of D’Souza’s arrest: “This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you... If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers... This is an outrageous prosecution and is certainly a misuse of resources. It raises the question of why he is being selected for prosecution among the many, many people who commit similar crimes... This sounds to me like it is coming from higher places. It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington.”Dershowitz, legal experts say vindictive D’Souza indictment came from higher up, bizpacreview.com, January 30, 2014
  • Former Federal Election Commissioner David Mason said of D’Souza’s arrest: “What struck me first was that it is unusual in cases like these for the FBI to go out and actually arrest someone, simply because it is not necessary... And even less so in this case because [D'Souza] has enough prominence that it is fairly obvious that he is not a flight risk. White-collar indictments are made lots of times without an arrest being made.”
  • Dominic Gentile of Gordon Silver, an expert on the enforcement of campaign finance law, conducted extensive research on other people who had done the same thing as D’Souza, and concluded: “Twenty thousand dollars? I’ve never heard of a $20,000 criminal case for campaign finance violations."

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

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

Convicted status[edit]

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

I think IP's comment has merit. What RS do we have that says the court has accepted the plea? What if the sentence handed down is less than 1 year (the term normally associated with felonies)? – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's the plea entry: [2] And even if the sentence is adjusted, the conviction for a plea will stand as a felony. The judge is not allowed to alter the felon status once a plea is entered because (A) the charge is a felony charge and (B) the plea deal states that he is pleading guilty to a felony level charge with a base offense level of 8. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's avoid original research and WP:BLPPRIMARY-type resources such as court records. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and assume that the New York Times is good enough to source it. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that it may be true but for example Wesley Snipes is a convicted felon as well but his conviction is referenced in a section of his article and not at the top when listing the things that he is. It just said film producer, actor, and martial artist. He was actually convicted and didn't plead and that in a way is a little more significant than pleading guilty. I agree that it should be in the article but I really don't think it should be at the top it just seems non-constructive. SantiLak (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, the commenter 173.79.92.24 is incorrect on another point of law. At the point when the judge accepted the plea deal in court (and set a sentencing date), D'souza was legally considered convicted and awaiting sentencing. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As stated above, we must avoid original research concerning the court records and import of the plea. When he gets sentenced, then secondary sources will report (if noteworthy) and we can change the article. Let's be patient until we can properly source the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Stating correctly a point of law is not "original research." 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also I'd like to point out that there is a section named "Election campaign finance conviction and allegations of political persecution." While I think the "allegations of political persecution" item should come off as undue weight (especially as the court found those allegations legally invalid with no evidence to back them up), the fact that the section states "Conviction" shows that the legal standard has been recognized by other editors. D'Souza has (A) pled guilty, (B) been formally convicted, and (C) a sentencing date set. He is as previously mentioned in a "Guilty awaiting sentencing" legal state. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you say (A) "statute x says this", and add it to (B) "D'Souza plead to that", and then reach conclusion (C) "he's a convicted felon" there is original research. Please be patient and the secondary sources will confirm his status. At that point descriptions can be changed. Until then we must strictly conform to BLP policies. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that unless someone uses the exact word "convicted", it cannot be used? That incredibly obtuse, like saying that the words "deceptive" or "misleading" can't be used as a synonym for "deceitful." [3] It boggles the mind to think that someone who has actually entered a guilty plea, been convicted in court, and had a sentencing date scheduled cannot be described as convicted. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we are at an impasse I have asked for outside opinions as per the dispute resolution process. [4] 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Known for money laundering[edit]

D'Souza is so well known for money laundering that the talk page is full of discussion, yet a user keeps removing that from the page. A little bit ironic there... ulterior motive? SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to assume ulterior motive. I can't speak for the others who undid you, but I undid once, and I know absolutely nothing about the man or his actions. I undid it because it was an unsourced controversial information about a living person. That's a BLP violation. And WP:BRD means that the edit should be discussed after the first revert, not that you get to keep making the edit. Meters (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not controversial. He is a convicted felon for money laundering and it's been all over the news: https://www.google.com/search?q=d%27souza+money+laundering&oq=d%27souza+money+laundering&aqs=chrome..69i57.4646j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=d'souza+money+laundering+guilty — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talkcontribs) 19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The issues with your edit have already been explained to you on your talk page before you put it in the third time. The article mentions that he was convicted of campaign finance law violations. That does not seem to justify uadding "money laundering" in the infobox. Meters (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A few points: 1. We do not use Google search results as a source. 2. "Money laundering is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets." There is no indication that he got money through the proceeds of crime. 3. While he pled to a felony count, I don't think the charge is within the Money Laundering Control Act. 4. The possible sentencing is a 10–16 month sentence. The actual sentencing may come in at less than the one year that felonies usually incur. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-illegal-campaign-contribution-106882.html

FELONY: "The single felony count D’Souza admitted guilt on..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-berkowitz/america-dinesh-dsouzas-de_b_5563541.html

"part of his problem is his conviction for illegal political campaign donations and money laundering," — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talkcontribs) 19:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The politico story doesn't use the term. The Huff piece is basically opinion and not reliable for this factual contention. Please look at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In this instance we cannot say he was convicted of a campaign donation violation and money laundering crime because he has pled to a single charge. In other words, Berkowitz is not reliable because he is using the term incorrectly. – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And even if it were a reliable source, a single opinion piece using the term is not enough to justify claiming in an infobox that a person is "known for money laundering". I think the inclusion of the term in the infobox is not justified. Meters (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. Use the term "Campaign Finance Fraud" instead. SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Two difficulties: 1. the sources do not use the term "fraud" and 2. putting the description (however it might be worded) in the infobox creates UNDUE problems. An infobox is used "to summarize key facts that appear in the article." (WP:IBX). I can't think of a single term to use which is WP:NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Too long[edit]

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

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

Political advisor and commentator[edit]

The claim that D'Souza was a political adviser to Ronald Reagan is poorly sourced and should be verified by sources other than D'Souza. It could be a false CV/resume claim. It reads like a gross overstatement especially when Reagan was in his last two years when D'Souza claims to have joined the staff. Considering D'Souza was not even a naturalized citizen at the time, it is highly unlikely he could have been even cleared to work in the White House, and was likely a low-level staffer working in some D.C. office no where near Reagan. This claim should be investigated, because D'Souza uses Reagan to puff up his own credentials. If the claim is false, D'Souza really becomes a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.10.168 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014[edit]

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

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

"Selective prosecution" claims[edit]

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

Facts illustrating that perhaps the claims of selection prosecution have merit aren't irrelevant. Since the prosecution has an entire section dedicated to it, and spends a big chunk of that discussing the the claim of selective prosecution, it's apparently already been deemed that the topic warrants significant coverage. It's just that previous coverage wasn't balanced. Of course the judge dismissed it. Selective prosecution isn't a valid defense, but that doesn't mean he wasn't selectively prosecuted or that being selectively prosecuted (or even a widespread belief of such a selectivity) isn't a noteworthy topic for us to cover. I'm at least restoring the WT as a source to support the paragraph's opening segment. VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The prosecution has a whole section because it is a formal legal process, and because he was convicted (and indeed admitted his guilt). The claims of selective prosecution are just opinions, with no evidence, from people unconnected to the case. That said, I'm fine with how it is discussed now. Nathan T 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
While the opinions are from people unconnected, they are legal scholars and they do provide noteworthy info. Also, the issue is legally settled. D'Souza may have reserved the right to appeal the issue when he pled, but we have no RS in that regard. His best bet will be to seek a pardon. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop including the history of Goa[edit]

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