Wikipedia

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza/Archive 8

< Talk:Dinesh D'Souza
Latest comment: 3 years ago by GorillaWarfare in topic Far right??!
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

A minor contradiction

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-American far-right political provocateur" "D'Souza is generally identified as a neoconservative."

If D'Souza is generally identified as neoconservative, then surely he should not be introduced as a far-right political provocateur. One of these needs to be changed/removed. Unless it is the opinion of Wikipedia that neoconservatism is a far-right ideology, in which case the Radical right (United States) page should probably be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.248.115.212 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not only contradictory, but dogmatic. Conservatism/neoconservativism is not far-right politics; yet "consensus has it" that it is fine to textually show "far-right", yet direct the wikilink to Radical right (United States). If Wikipedia standardized the practice of applying commonly used terms used by the media to describe prominent individuals, vast issues would arise. One example, consensus would have it that the president should be described as fascist, authoritarian, racist, liar, etc., because hundreds of thousands of articles have been written to describe the president as such. Yet, the article is not and should not be introduced that way.
The current citations used to substantiate the alleged "far-right"-ness of D'Souza are feeble and worthless to justify labeling D'Souza as "far-right". The Guardian article only metions "far-right" in the headline, not the body.; 2nd citation by Newsweek does not mention "far-right" at all; 3rd citation by NYT does not mention "far-right" at all.; 4th article by NBC mentions "far-right" once – linking to this article which does not mention "far-right" at all; and the 5th article, once again, does not mention "far-right" at all. It appears the previous consensuses were either done dogmatically, ignorantly, or both. Two citations mention "far-right" in 1. the title, and 2. to an article that does not mention "far-right" at all. The Wikipedia article alone describes D'Souza as "far-right" once - the lead. Previous consensuses must have been WP:STONEWALLING to bias perception. Yet, four out of five citations (not NBC article) used describe D'Souza as "right-wing". If the consensus was properly done, D'Souza should be called "right-wing". Numerous RSs describe D'Souza as ndeoconservative, as you mentioned, which should be implemented. All previous Talks about this very issue had various users concerned about the labeling of and conjoining of conservatism/neoconservatism with far-right - 1, 2, 3. The likely compromise is to include a section of the media perception of D'Souza in the article, not the lead. Aviartm (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Elsewhere, The Guardian does call him 'far right'. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Far-right is a subset of neocon. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

change "far-right" to Republican.

remove "provocateur"

remove "conspiracy theorist"

remove"...due to their promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods,[15][16][17][5][18][19] as well as for their incendiary nature.[5]" AccurateInformationNow (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: All of these terms are taken directly from independent published sources. If you disagree with their characterization, please take it up directly with the publishers of those sources. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not neutral. I can find “sources” to say anything. Needs looked at POV Patriotfactchecker (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Patriotfactchecker: Dinesh D'Souza#References includes 160 sources you can peruse. They are cited inline so you can determine which citations support which claims. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Patriotfactchecker: Yes, you can find "sources" to say anything. Wikipedia has standards for reliability though. If you can present reliable sources, then do so. Put up or shut up. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We all know it’s left wingers here. Conspiracy theorist? Really? How do you reliably source that? Lol. We all also know this is a waste. He should sue lol Patriotfactchecker (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There are four sources cited inline, and even more at the bottom of the lead paragraph. Feel free to read them. If reliable sources say he is a conspiracy theorist, we do as well. If you have reliable sources that contradict that statement, feel free to provide them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
None of the listed 4 citation links call him a conspiracy theorist.[1][2][3][4] Nobody checked this before? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I only found one link later in the lead that explicitly calls him a conspiracy theorist. Buzzfeed News.[5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I added one more along with the buzzfeed one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "far-right" descriptor in the lead sentence be replaced?

Latest comment: 3 years ago57 comments35 people in discussion
RIGHT-WING
There is a strong consensus to remove the descriptor of "far-right" in the lead and to replace it. Among the alternatives presented, there is a moderately strong consensus that the lead should reflect a designation of "right-wing" for D'Souza, rather than describing him as a "conservative" in the lead.

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

Should the "far-right" descriptor in the lead sentence be replaced?

  • Yes, replace with "conservative" (Option A)
  • Yes, replace with "right-wing" (Option B)
  • No, retain "far-right" (Option C)

GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News and NBC are the two sources that currently describe D'Souza as far-right. But BuzzFeed News also describes him in various other articles as conservative: [6], [7]. NBC describes him in the cited article as both far-right and conservative, and in other articles just as conservative: [8], [9]. It's pretty clear to me that the most widely-used term for D'Souza is "conservative". I could see the argument for "right-wing" as well, but "far-right" is not a universal term for him. It is inarguable that some of his views are far-right, and I've seen at least one of his documentaries described as far-right also; both of these things can be discussed in the article body. But I think when describing him in the lead sentence we need to mirror the terminology most widely used when describing him, the person, in RS.
As a note to those above who've objected to the far-right descriptor, providing this kind of breakdown of the existing sourcing when making your comments would have been helpful. Not everyone who watchlists a page is super familiar with the available sourcing on the topic, and so it's hard to evaluate proposals when sources are not provided alongside them.
Support options A or B as proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, and thank you for it. My added words were for anyone who might have been unaware of the change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
On other occasions, the Guardian uses 'far-right' in the body, as well as headings and sub-headings.Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -Wow, such a thorough analysis. It's unbelievable that no one had raised similar objections 4 months ago: [10] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    Damn, I didn't notice the previous discussion on the same, though I should've since it's right there. I'll ping those folks just so they're aware. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A and C with "conservative" in Wikivoice. I would like to see "far right" maintained somehow with attribution, as in "...and is characterized by mainstream media outlets as 'far right'" or something similar. This guy isn't just a conservative in the way that William F. Buckley was conservative, by comparison this guy is a right-wing nut. I wouldn't want the lead to paint him with the same brush as other conservatives who can think deeply and rationally without resorting to fabrication or conspiracy theories. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Far-right should at the very least be retained somewhere in the the lead. Whether it belongs in the first sentence, and whether we should also include other descriptors is another matter. In many American sources, the word "conservative" is now used in a way that bears absolutely no resemblence to what is understood as conservativism in Europe or the rest of the world, and rather in a way that is synonymous with what Europeans would regard as far-right. It is therefore not surprising that someone considered far-right by a number of sources would also be referred to, or refer to themselves, as "conservative", especially in U.S. discourse, but that doesn't mean that the more globally accepted and well-defined descriptor far-right is inaccurate. The idea that someone described in this article as "a right-wing conspiracy wingnut, the kind of "thinker" who takes off from Barack Obama birther theories and just keeps going" is "conservative" just seems absurd from a non-U.S. perspective, so it would reflect a narrow U.S. perspective to only describe him as "conservative". --Tataral (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As I discussed here again I repeat my rationale in order to emphasize what I said as I find it important for you to be informed of it:

    we can't have both, because far-right is an spectrum, it consists of different ideologies, which some of them are actually paradoxical. For example some of intellectuals who happen to be leftist consider fascism and Nazism far-right, despite this fact that both emerged from socialism and are anti-capitalist and anti-right-wing ideologies, and also authoritarian. In the same time, you have Anarcho-capitalism as far-right which is pro-capitalism and anti-authoritarian, making it paradoxical to Nazism & Fascism. So it would be irrelevant to call people by that wide spectrum of far-right. Also it is not safe to say that every far-right is a conservative. For example Anarcho-Capitalists are not conservatives. What you are discussing here is pretty like calling a Jew or a Christian Abrahamic, as both are Abrahamic religions! So this logic is not valid and should be dismissed. D'Souza should not be called far-right in the lead and this label should disappear from every single right-wing-article's lead or headline. Any claim of far-right should be transferred to the sections specified for criticism. I repeat it again, Noam Chomsky is an Anarchist (Anarcho-syndicalist), but we don't write FAR-LEFT on the lead of his article, because it is irrelevant. Just like adding far-right to the lead of Dinesh Dsouza article.

    The Stray Dog Talk Page 03:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. GorillaWarfare brings up several good points here. Again, it's worth noting that even though D'Souza is sorta a right-wing nut (i.e. "far-right" certainly can be applied to him), "conservative" is almost certainly the better term, since it's broader and universally agreed upon, while "far-right" is debatable due to both the connotations and denotations of said word. Also, I don't know if this means anything, but I've noticed even the most liberal, left-leaning political commentators, pundits, and politicians typically aren't described as "far-left" in their articles' leads. We should follow that precedent with D'Souza's article too. CitizenKang414 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "right-wing" (not "conservative"). I agree with removing "far-right", the bar should be high for such a term and if the sources aren't clear that's what he is, then it makes sense to replace it. I'm not adamantly opposed to "conservative" (I can see the sources using the term interchangeably with "right-wing"). However, I think on balance the nuances of the sources are more accurately reflected by describing him as "right-wing" than "conservative", see the discussion below for my full rationale. Jr8825 • Talk 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B or C I mean, he is called far-right in reliable sources, so I don't think it's unfair to call him such in the lead. If you could find reliable sources that provide a good reason not to call him far-right, that would be different. The guy is definitely a conspiracy theorist, and maybe it's just me, but it seems being right wing and a conspiracy theorist sort of make you far-right anyway (at least here in the US). On a somewhat related note, there has been a lot of vandalism on the Trump Card article from IP editors, one of whom threw a tantrum in the talk page, deleted it, then moved here and posted on this talk page. I'm willing to accept that I might be in the minority here, but I don't think we should be afraid to acknowledge that D'Souza isn't mainstream and acknowledge that RS don't consider him mainstream. Respectfully, Xenologer48 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, this discussion already happened and was resolved in October. It's the first section on this talk page. Did something change in the last few months?Xenologer48 (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
No, as I mentioned in my reply to Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d I somehow completely missed that talk page section. When I looked through the available RS on the term it didn't seem like the best descriptor to use, so I started this discussion; I've pinged everyone from the October discussion so they're aware of this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think conservative is inaccurate and misleading in his case. But the sources do not think so, and we always follow the sources. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "right-wing" per the discussion below. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I wouldn't mind some allusion to the "far-right" characterisation, but for the main claim I'm far more comfortable with "right-wing". 81.2.93.172 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "right-wing" It's very important we not devalue the term "conservative" as its been applied to US politics over the past 75 years. There is ample sourcing for something more precise, and "right-wing" is widely used in RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "right-wing" It seems there are specific nuances associated with the word "conservative", particularly in a WP:GLOBAL context. The set of people described widely and accurately by the word "conservative" is significantly smaller than the set of people described by "right-wing", so while "right-wing" and "conservative" are both used by reliable sources that does not mean we should infer they are equally accurate descriptors. Regardless of that, both of the terms would be far better than "far-right". Volteer1 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and I also support replacing it with "right-wing" as per above. GyozaDumpling (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "Right wing". The problem is that the meaning of the label "conservative" has recently shifted in American discourse. It increasingly means something distinctly partisan rather than someone adhering to what we would ordinarily recognise as conservative principles. Perhaps it is simply prudent to avoid using an unstable term and use "right wing", the meaning of which is more stable.OsFish (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "Right wing" I think it is in character with Dinesh's last decade to describe him as "right wing" rather than conservative. A conservative would indicate having conservative views on either economics or social issues. Dinesh is in the 'right wing conspiracy theory' camp rather than having actual thoughs related to economics or social issues. Tchouppy (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain far-right per my long-standing opinion that "far-right" and "conservative/right-wing" do not contradict each other, but rather "conservative/right-wing" is a broader category that "far-right" lies within. What people are doing on this RfC is like claiming ten sources that call D'Souza "American" override two sources describing him as "Texan". Loki (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    My concern is not that the "far-right" statement contradicts the other two—I agree with your comment that "far-right" is a subgroup of both conservative and right-wing. My concern is more that we are using as a primary descriptor for him in this article a descriptor that is comparatively rarely used for him in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think it matters how rarely it's used in RSes, just that it is used in RSes and no source contradicts it. Again, if we had one source saying he lives in Houston, Texas, and ten sources describing him as living in America, we would say in the article that he lives in Houston, and we would not say those sources override the one that says he lives in Houston. We would only be justified in keeping that information out of the article if we had some source that said he lives somewhere other than Houston. Loki (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    This is not a simple dispute about supersets and subsets. WP:LABEL is also relevant here, since "far right" is a contentious label. Even if some sources call D'Souza {far right, it would still not be a justified label in Wikivoice unless a large number of sources use it. Furthermore, I think that it would be more reasonable to interpret sources that merely call D'Souza a conservative as support for using only "conservative" in Wikivoice, since if they thought being far right was a salient feature about D'Souza, they'd be mentioning it. Jancarcu (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Options A or B based on preponderance of those references in notable media. There is no checklist I'm aware of you can go to see "if someone holds 5 of the following 8 beliefs, they have wandered into the far-right as opposed to just being conservative" and in the absence of that it seems like we have to go with the preponderance of references in notable media. Novellasyes (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "right-wing" as I agree with the arguments above that right-wing seems to be best compromise of the options above. Andromadist (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with "Right wing" This is by far the better descriptor. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I prefer far-right, but the problem we have here is that the Republican Party is, by now, so far to the right that we're not far off reclassifying Reagan as a liberal. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with right wing Lack of conclusive sources available for 'far right'. Shankargb (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain far-right "Conservative" is basically a watered down, overused, generic term which actually says or means very little these days. It almost means mainstream to many folks. "Right-wing" has always had POV issues for me. But it also doesn't say much. How many "wings" are there? And are there "sub-wings" for divisions within them? For me, it basically just opens up more questions than it answers. Since "radical" would be clear POV and pejorative at that, it's out. But D'Souza is known for views that go further to the "right" than "mainstream" right; which I believe even he would agree with. He is a provocateur. Almost by definition, they are "far-something," either left or right. So "far-right" seems, not only the most bias-free; but here, the most accurate. It may not be the most popular, but again, I believe it is the most accurate. Most importantly, there's certainly sufficient RS to support it. As well as more than amble opportunities within the article itself to say "conservative," "right-wing" and even "radical" - or worse (sourced, of course.) So what he's called in the lead sentence alone, really isn't much of a hill to die on. X4n6 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A or B. Far right is a strong term and should not be used in wikivoice unless a vast number of sources support it, per WP:LABEL. Has been called "far right" by some sources may be used instead if supported by due weight. Jancarcu (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Option A/B per GorillaWarfare.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support options A and B Both options A and B seem appropriate to me, but if I had to choose I would go for right-wing since there isn't a consensus among sources on whether he is a conservative or adheres to a political ideology on the far-right of the political spectrum, 'right-wing' encompasses both conservatism and those ideologies on the far-right.
Furthermore, Buzzfeed, which is one of the two websites describing him as far-right, besides from being incosnsistent, since they also label him as a conservative in other articles, is widely regarded as politically left-wing biased source. In the case in both 'right-wing' and 'conservative' combined, there are eleven sources labeling them as such, whereas in 'Far-right' there are only two, one being Buzzfeed, which, as previously mentioned before, also calls him a conservative in other articles and is criticized for being biased. -Fvoltes (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support options C I'm gonna get overruled, but I say leave it as it is. There's no reason to change what isn't broken. Thanks for the tag, GorillaWarfare. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support option B or C – Cleaner, as the article discusses his classical liberal influences. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support C, i.e. to retain far-right. The examination of sources helpfully provided above by GorillaWarfare should be revisited. Although the term "far-right", as such, is not encountered all the time, it is implied in so many words in enough sources as to claim descriptive rights in the article and the opening paragraph. Almost all descriptions of D'Souza's ideology place him clearly beyond standard "right-winger" or "conservative":
•An article in The Atlantic pointedly offers D'Souza as the main example of what the magazine sees as "the decline of conservatism," which places D'Souza beyond "mere" conservatism;
•in a Time editorial about David Horowitz, the comparison is made to D'Souza, stating that Horowitz makes "the antiblack rantings of Dinesh D'Souza seem like models of fair-minded social analysis", and "anti-black [i.e. racist] rantings" are evidently not what a run-of-the-mill right-winger engages in;
•the Dartmouth Review itself, a paper once edited by D'Souza, has him down as "ultra conservative";
•we find the same description in The Times of India where we read that "ultra conservative" D'Souza is "the darling of the extreme right";
•the Washington Post does not use the term "far-right" but a periphrasis, pegging D'Souza as "one of the most inflammatory voices on the right," again not something with which one would characterize a typical "conservative";
•the New York Times have "hero of the right" D'Souza's work being "criticized as inaccurate and excessively incendiary...by other conservatives," which clearly places him beyond vanilla conservatism; and so on, and so forth.
We cannot, per sources, place D'Souza in the same category of right-wing or conservative politics as people like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and the like. The term "far-right" is succinct, accurate, and reflecting sources. -The Gnome (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A/B, but leaning towards B. The preponderance of sources do not indicate that he is a mainstream conservative, but far-right is a bit of a stretch. Per MOS:LABEL, we do not use contentious labels unless they are widely reported by reliable sources. If most sources do not call him far-right, this would be a terrible WP:NPOV violation. I've been noticing this problem with a lot of controversial articles lately. We really need to be more careful. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Why can't we have both? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking I would hesitate to describe someone in a lead sentence as "far-right and conservative" because it's safe to assume anyone in the far-right is a conservative. My preference would be to call him a conservative in wiki-voice in the lead, and then mention with attribution the handful of descriptions of him as far-right, or specific far-right views/works he has produced elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. That's basically what I said in my 'support' comment above. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare, Anachronist, and Emir of Wikipedia: Greeting! To Emir, no we can't have both, because far-right is an spectrum, it consists of different ideologies, which some of them are actually paradoxical. For example some of intellectuals who happen to be leftist consider fascism and Nazism far-right, despite this fact that both emerged from socialism and are anti-capitalist and anti-right-wing ideologies, and also authoritarian. In the same time, you have Anarcho-capitalism as far-right which is pro-capitalism and anti-authoritarian, making it paradoxical to Nazism & Fascism. So it would be irrelevant to call people by that wide spectrum of far-right. To GorillaWarfare, No, it is not safe to say that every far-right is a conservative. For example Anarcho-Capitalists are not conservatives. What you are discussing here is pretty like calling a Jew or a Christian Abrahamic, as both are Abrahamic religions! So this logic is not valid and should be dismissed. D'Souza should not be called far-right in the lead and this label should disappear from every single right-wing-article's lead or headline. Any claim of far-right should be transferred to the sections specified for criticism. I repeat it again, Noam Chomsky is an Anarchist (Anarcho-syndicalist), but we don't write FAR-LEFT on the lead of his article, because it is irrelevant. Just like adding far-right to the lead of Dinesh Dsouza article. Best regards! The Stray Dog Talk Page 02:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I went ahead and made this a proper RfC, to draw additional participation and so that there will be a close date at some point. As a note to anyone who eventually closes the RfC: this was originally formatted as a discussion about "should 'far-right' be replaced with 'conservative'", and so some of these votes from before when I reformatted the discussion as an RfC with multiple options just say "support" rather than option A. See Special:Permalink/1004911565#Proposal to replace "far-right" in lead with "conservative" for the discussion in its original form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing vs. conservative

I think we should replace "far-right" with "right-wing", rather than "conservative". I think the nuances of the sources are more accurately reflected by describing him as "right-wing" than "conservative" for 3 reasons:

(1) Conservative can be used as a more precise term than "right-wing" (and in this usage it would therefore be less accurate). Conservative can be used to describe beliefs that are perceived as moderate and centrist (status-quo in Western democracies), in addition to the broader conservative (right-wing) spectrum. The sources are clear he's anything but moderate: the BBC (which has a tendency to pussyfoot around political issues) describes him as not just a "conservative author" but an "all-around political provocateur" (BBC), The Guardian refers to him as a "far-right provocateur" in its article title, before then going on to describe him as a "conservative commentator" (The Guardian 1). Even if there D'Souza isn't far-right, he certainly isn't on the centrist side of the conservative spectrum.

(2) The sources say he's controversial (and disavowed) by many moderate Conservatives (BBC: "although D'Souza had become somewhat of a persona non grata in more genteel conservative circles, his pardoning has already been celebrated by some on the right." Die Zeit: "Even the neoconservative Weekly Standard has criticized D’Souza" [Selbst der neokonservative Weekly Standard hat D’Souza kritisiert]).

(3) I think Tataral may have a point about non-US sources being more critical of views that are accepted as "conservative" in the US, as illustrated by the fact that British quality newspapers tend to describe D'Souza more commonly as "right-wing" (The Independent, The Guardian 2), or "far-right" (The Evening Standard, The Guardian 1). The Economist described D'Souza as an "extreme movement conservative", and his views as "a disgrace, an excrescence, and a crude exercise in McCarthyism" back in 2010. Jr8825 • Talk 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter raised a similar point above. Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote in my proposal, I could see the argument for "right-wing" as well, so consider me a support for this option also. Keep in mind WP:HEADLINE when it comes to that one Guardian article, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The source marked "Guardian 2" uses "rightwing" in the headline and the text; "Guardian 1" applies "rightwing" to his anti-Clinton film, though not directly to D'Souza himself. The Washington Post does something similar [11]. The WaPo has also referred to him as a right-wing commentator [12], as do the New York Times [13], Rolling Stone [14], and The Daily Pennsylvanian [15]. CNBC goes with right-wing firebrand [16]. Vanity Fair goes with right-wing conspiracy theorist [17]. FactCheck.org describes him as a popular right-wing personality [18], and Vox lists him among prominent right-wing personalities and brands [19]. That last is in the context of Parler, as is US News and World Report describing D'Souza as a right-wing political commentator and filmmaker [20]. The Oregonian calls him famous in right-wing circles and one of the most prolific right-wing voices in recent decades [21]. So, at the very least, "right-wing" is attested. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since when is Buzzfeed a reliable source? And unlock the page while you're at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.147 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News is a reliable source: WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News. BuzzFeed.com not as much. Talk pages are not the place to request unprotection of the page, as generally speaking those who have the ability to do so who are engaged in substantive discussions about the article content are considered WP:INVOLVED and shouldn't be using the admin tools on the page. You could try requesting the page be unprotected at WP:RFUP, but given the years-long history of vandalism to the page that's probably not going to happen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"Right-wing" is Generalization
  • All-Left Sources: first, the sources which claim Dsouza is far-right are all left-leaning sources which have political self-interest against right-wing. On the other hand, Far-Right claim is repeatedly questioned by right-wing sources. Since it is WP:BIGDEAL we have to have efficient sources, from different sides.
  • Similar to far-right, right-wing is an spectrum too - not a certain ideology or group. It is a generalization approach. It's like calling a German person European in the lead of an article! We only need to call them by the name of the group they are in, not the large category of groups! That doesn't belong to the lead, specially if that's self-evident. Also, I searched the wiki-categories but I found an imbalance in the approach, we have toward right-wing & left-wing. It's not common to add the term "left-wing" to the lead of articles of the left-wing politicians and/or activists, but we much more easily add the term "right-wing" to articles lead! The imbalance is measurable, and we can track a possible Anti-Right-Wing Systemic Bias In Wikipedia - which might be as a result of a bigger population of Left-wing Wikipedians, which that includes myself too, or if not, for other reasons. In order to end the bias, this discussion is not enough, so I am most-likely going to make an RfC in MetaWiki about this topic. BUT, we should stick to the logic that I gave an example about above, otherwise, we will have this problem for ever. At the end I have to say I'm sorry for not catching up, I'm very busy with my disease. So thank you very much for reading! The Stray Dog Talk Page
    Are you saying there are right-wing reliable sources that actually contradict the descriptor? Or do you just mean that are right-wing sources that use other terms for him? If the former, can you provide them? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace with right wing Dinesh's character describe him best as a right-wing not conservative.Sea Ane (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    We go by what reliable sources say, not by our own opinions of a subject's character. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conspiracy Theories

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

What conspiracy theories has Dinesh used, when I looked through the 2 sources for calling him a conspiracy theorist one is from ABC in a headline for an article that is barely a paragraph long and that I can't really find anywhere online. If you just search up "abc dinesh dsouza pardon" onto google, over here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pardons-conservative-commentator-dinesh-dsouza-treated-unfairly/story?id=55560055 they refer to him as conservative commentator, over here: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/president-trump-says-he-will-give-a-full-pardon-to-conservative-commentator-dinesh-dsouza as well, and in this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-05/donald-trump-presidential-pardon-dinesh-dsouza-us-constitution/9831420they refer to him as "conservative film producer and television personality" The other side to make this claim is buzzfeed which as a rule of thumb has a pretty strong centre-far left bias, but going beyond that buzzfeed seems to be the among the few newspapers considering him a "conspiracy theorist" and the ones that do it are all relatively left wing sources meaning it would be silly to take it as objective: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/buzzfeed-media-bias. 73.70.228.14 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Anish631

It may be worth going into more detail in the article about the various conspiracy theories he has promoted. It does mention that he has suggested the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts were fake, and the section on his books mention his conspiracy theories about Obama carrying out his father's anti-colonialist agenda, but doesn't go into detail about many others. Some conspiracy theories of his have included that the Unite the Right rally was staged,[1] Hitler was not anti-gay,[1][2] the Clintons were behind Epstein's suicide,[3] George Soros collaborated with Nazis when he was in Hungary,[2] George Soros has paid protesters and/or antifa,[2] Jews are responsible for 9/11,[2] and birtherism.[4]
One can be a conservative commentator and a conspiracy theorist, so I'm not sure what you're trying to show with these sources. Do you have any sources that contradict that he is a conspiracy theorist? As far as I'm aware, D'Souza himself is the only one who's denied it, and he would, wouldn't he? It's straightforward enough to find a handful of new cites to support the descriptor; I'll pick a few that are green at WP:RSP and add them to the cite bundle. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that it is a little overstating the content of your source to say that his theory is that "Jews are responsible for 9/11". According to the Forward article cited, he had a list of people that he blamed for creating anti-American attitudes in the middle east leading up to 9/11 and "Of the 22 people listed in the 'Cultural Left,' a full 10 are Jewish, including Al Franken, Tony Kushner, and Norman Mailer." While the sub-headline of that section of the article, "He blamed famous Jews for 9/11", seems a little inflammatory, by the content of that section of the article, passed the editorializing, it really just says as a factual matter that he blamed a list of people, the majority non-Jewish but with a significant number of Jews on the list, for anti-American attitudes leading up to 9/11. As objectionable as one may find that, I think that when you say that someone thinks that "Jews are responsible for 9/11", they have a very different impression than that. JMM12345 (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
Here's four more sources: [22]. Maybe I'll add a section about the theories themselves when I have more time; I agree they're underrepresented. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the others are reasonable, but I don't think it's at all reasonable to characterize blaming the "cultural left" angering Muslims, if of the 22 people listed in the “Cultural Left,” a full 10 are Jewish, as a conspiracy theory about Jewish involvement in 9/11 – I'd be baffled if you thought one followed from the other. I'm also not really sure that claiming Hitler wasn't anti-gay is invoking a conspiracy of some kind, rather than just being... stupid, or incorrect. The label is fine though.Volteer1 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
"He blamed famous Jews for 9/11" The Forward
"D’Souza also has written that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler “was NOT anti-gay,” arguing that Hitler had refused to purge gay members of the Brownshirt militia. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, around 100,000 men were arrested between 1933 and 1945 for violating Nazi anti-homosexuality laws, and up to 15,000 died in concentration camps." The Forward
"Mr. D’Souza has frequently been criticized for making incendiary or conspiracy-promoting remarks, including...his incorrect claim in October that Hitler was not anti-gay." NYT
This was just a quick summary of what a few RS have said, and not necessarily what I will introduce to the article; I will certainly look for multiple RS making the characterization before introducing anything to an article. You're correct that some of these may be better characterized as "incendiary statements" rather than conspiracy theories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/politics/dinesh-dsouza-facts-history.html
  2. ^ a b c d https://forward.com/fast-forward/402155/4-times-dinesh-dsouza-should-have-kept-quiet-about-the-jews/
  3. ^ https://theweek.com/speedreads/858426/dinesh-dsouza-tried-use-time-behind-bars-bolster-epstein-conspiracy-theory-failed
  4. ^ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/390029-trump-to-pardon-dinesh-dsouza

RFC on labeling issue in lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion
See formal RfC at #RfC: Should the "far-right" descriptor in the lead sentence be replaced? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Eleven days has passed with no further input on the discussion (above this section), "A minor contradiction", brought forth by an unregistered user. Seeking a clear conclusion on this issue as the article contradicts as noted by the unregistered user, and the RSs used to back up the term, "far-right" is being misused, in addition to various users over time in different discussions regarding this voicing concerns. It is recommended to read the previous section/links to understand the issue. Aviartm (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Far right??!

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
See formal RfC at #RfC: Should the "far-right" descriptor in the lead sentence be replaced? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

There is no evidence that he is far right. He is a Conservative commentator. If you apply that standard, then please edit Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s Wikipedia page to state that she is a far left. Otherwise you’re nothing more than a left-wing liberal organisation masquerading as non-biased Jgeorge75 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Could not agree more with Jgeorge75. D'Souza is a center-right conservative in the mould of Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, and other such conservative figures. If being "anti-Clinton" means one is on the far right, why aren't all the Democrat politicians who opposed Trump labelled far left on Wikipedia? People are really sick and tired of Wikipedia's flagrant, outright Left-wing bias. ENOUGH ALREADY! Tpkatsa (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dinesh is a total hack and crackpot conspiracy theorist who tells credulous fools exactly what they want to hear. He's a variety of far-right like the John-Birchers and Ayn Rand cultists, meaning he believes that everything bad or negative done by any government throughout history is innately left-wing. The two major delusions on history he's been propagating for the last few years is about the Democratic Party and Nazis/Fascists, foisting the blame of right-wing extremism onto modern Democrats and leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elder La Follette (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That disjointed and confused paragraph of proof by repeated assertion fails to present one single piece of credible evidence to justify the description "far right". Is this what we do on Wikipedia now - repeat propaganda and redefine well-known words in order to lie to the public? 81.2.93.172 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below — you have commented in an old discussion, but there is an active one also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza/Archive_8&oldid=1048053134"