This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dinesh D'Souza. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dinesh D'Souza at the Reference desk.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
An approved editor just a few hours ago edited this entry to note that D'Souza believed in the conspiracy theory that George Soros assisted the Nazis against the Jews and that this assertion is untrue. However, George Soros himself plainly admits he helped the Nazis against the Jews in a 60 Minutes interview available here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QSyczwuTQfo. Starting at 6:57 you can hear the story of how Soros helped get his fellow Jews arrested, ultimately leading to the death of many. Soros himself freely admits this in this 60 Minutes interview aired on CBS television in tbe U.S. This, therefore, needs to be corrected since it accuses D'Souza of propogating an untruth. I will check back soon to see if this gets corrected. Thanks! 97.119.116.69 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the interview Soros asserts that as a very young boy (14) he "accompanied" his godfather on visits where the Nazis would confiscate belongings from Jews. He also points out that the experience instilled deep within him the idea the evil does exist and ought to be acted against actively rather than passively. When you do check back to see if your claims have been included in this bio please do tell us exactly how you know that he was "helping the Nazis" arrest Jews and thus causing their condemnation to death. Even if this were to be true -and it may be- it would be very misleading and unfair to make the statement that "George Soros assisted the Nazis against the Jews" as a stand-alone comment without mentioning the crucial fact that he was 14 years old, ensconced in a plan made by his father to save his son via placement with this godfather figure and clueless as to what was happening or it's significance. Please people - let's be a bit more detailed in pushing startling statements like this as informational when they paint a very small part of the overall picture. Jhall 3rd (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the audio wasn't working correctly when you watched the video because none of your claims are correct. At 10:00 Soros says that he was a spectator and played no role in taking property. There isn't anything at all about getting Jews arrested. Jibal (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the veracity of this claim is, but I have a very big problem with referring to it as a conspiracy theory. "Conspiracy theory" has become one of the most overused terms, seemingly used to refer to any political theory one disagrees with. Either Soros helped out the local Nazis or he didn't - either way, there would be no conspiracy involved. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article states that
“ The similar website Rotten Tomatoes-surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus”
But, thinking about it, this exposes a deeper problem. Whoever put that in new that they were being intellectually dishonest and biased against the subject.
If you read the whole article in fact it looks like nobody supports what he’s saying at all. It’s a more of an attack piece rather than a balanced view of the subject. Rustygecko (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for summarizing reviews by professional film critics. It is not considered a reliable source for audience reaction, and the film in question is clearly subject to demographic skew. Following the Manual of Style is not being intellectually dishonest and biased against the subject. Instead, it is what editors are expected to do. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rustygecko, you write: "If you read the whole article in fact it looks like nobody supports what he’s saying at all. It’s a more of an attack piece rather than a balanced view of the subject." You describe an issue unrelated to Rotten Tomatoes. It's related to reliable source coverage, due weight, and how we avoid a false balance and promotion/advocacy of fringe POV. The sources and people (including editors) who believe and support D'Souza are fringe and are given low weight here. (Such editors are often blocked or banned.) Such views are underplayed because they are fringe and unreliable.
To get their POV about D'Souza covered here, it must be covered in RS, and then we cite those RS, with the shading and framing from the RS, IOW we present and attribute it as clearly fringe and untrustworthy. You will find that our articles on fringe personalities, fringe topics, and conspiracy theories will have this framing, and that's how it should be. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We do not present mainstream and fringe views as of equal worth. They are not. Anyone who is fringe and who wants better coverage here should drop their lies and conspiracy theories, let that improvement change their reputations, and then get published favorably in more RS. Until then, the coverage of them here will make them look bad, and that's fair and proper. We give more weight to RS, so it's an unavoidable situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is RS?
So you are saying that Wiki doesn’t present fairly an idea that the authors dislike? Doesn’t that make Wiki very dominated by the zeitgeist rather than giving objective information? Rustygecko (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A writer of Christian apologetics, D'Souza has debated against prominent atheists and critics of Christianity on religious and moral issues. His debate opponents have included Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, David Silverman, and Bart D. Ehrman." Shall we add he debated Alex O Connor? BenDoleman (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph states his movie "2016: Obama's America" is the "highest gross political film of all time" with two source links. The first source links to a list of documentary box office receipts where the film was ranked #17 in 2012. The second source is an article from Entertainment Weekly that includes the quote "the highest grossing conservative documentary of all time", but provides no sources for this statement either.
As it stands in September 2024, his film "2016: Obama's America" does not rank first on any publicized "list" of box office gross or "success". This statement is false and should be removed. Lamarketingguy (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this.
On wikipedias own list of political films Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 is listed as a political film and that film made 222.4 million at the box office which is alot more than the 33 million that "Obamas America" made.
Serious citation neededXenologer48 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)