Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sea Ane (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 25 February 2021 (→RfC: Should the "far-right" descriptor in the lead sentence be replaced?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:43, 25 February 2021 by Sea Ane (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Should the "far-right" descriptor in the lead sentence be replaced?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dinesh D'Souza article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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 sourced must 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity: India Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia: Goa Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Goa (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCreationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Asian Americans / Dartmouth Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire - Dartmouth College (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dinesh D'Souza article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 25, 2018.

RFC on labeling issue in lead

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)

  • Keep far-right. It's supported by The Guardian and NBC News, which are two of the highest-quality sources in the lead; Newsweek is low-quality and the Ross Douthat piece is an opinion piece, which means we definitely can't use it there - I think it's being used to support conspiracy theorist, but we have other sources for that and can't rely on an opinion piece. That leaves the majority of top-quality sources in the lead describing him that way (and the Atlantic piece certainly doesn't describe him in a way that contradicts it, so it doesn't help your cause.) More generally I disagree with the assertion that there is a contradiction here; all the sources indicate that his views have trended sharply rightward over time, so there's no contradiction between his having been described as a neoconservative in the past and far-right today. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep far-right. Supported by the available sources, such as the Guardian. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove far-right. Extraordinary claims, like labeling someone "far-right," requires extraordinary sources. Like the OP said in the discussion above, the only RS source that labels D'Souza as far-right is the Guardian--and only in the title. The NBC Article directly contradicts itself by labeling D'Souza as far-right in the body, but conservative in the title. In other NBC Articles (published in 2017, after the cited NBC Article), D'Souza is only referred to as 'conservative.' Additionally, the vast majority of sources label D'Souza as some combination of "right-wing" or "conservative":
  • Keep far-right. It is extremely well-sourced in the citations that follow the sentence. The sources provided enough evidence for the "far-right" addition to not be WP:Label, but rather fully compliant with WP:NPOV. Because of how central far-right is to D'Souza identity, it is not WP:Due. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-sourced. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this a proper RfC? I do not see it in WP:RFC/A and I do not see an {{rfc}} tag. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove should say "conservative" or "right-wing". I think Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d put it best. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Far right??!

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "far-right" to Republican.

remove "provocateur"

remove "conspiracy theorist"

remove"...due to their promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods, as well as for their incendiary nature." 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. Misplaced Pages 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. 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. 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)

Far-right claim is disputed and biased - should be removed from the lead

As a leftist, I got quite shocked when I saw we add the label Far-Right To the lead of articles like Dinesh Dsouza article, but we don't have the same approach to the article of an actual far-left, such as Noam Chomsky. Being an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalism), Chomsky is self-evidently a far-left. He approved his ideology, but Dsouza didn't. He rejected the idea of being far-right, argued against it. Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists and lean to far-left (including the Atlantic). These sources aren't by any means valid in this particular situation, as they have political self-interest against Dinesh Dsouza and right-wing politics. According to that logic I will remove, far-right claim from the lead, and will add it to another lower section as claim from his critiques (who are mostly leftist, far-left and anti-right-wing). If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him). So far-right claim is biased, defamatory, disputed and consequently should be removed from the lead. Thank you very much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: If you would like to discuss changes to Noam Chomsky, please do so at Talk:Noam Chomsky. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT.
If you have reliable sources that refute the descriptor of D'Souza as far-right, please provide them. But the sources that currently describe him as far-right are adequate. I'm not sure why you're pointing to The Atlantic, as that source does not describe him as far right.
As for If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him), I would recommend reviewing WP:POINT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with @TheStrayDog: there is an inconsistency in presentation of Misplaced Pages topics. I don't like slapping contentious labels onto article topics, especially in the lead, and especially when the label concerns ideology. All over Misplaced Pages whenever a label is used in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice, it stirs up debates on talk pages. The only policy I know of where it's permissible to apply a contentious label in Misplaced Pages's voice is WP:FRINGE topics (pseudoscience, alternative cures, paranormal stuff). Otherwise, we should use words that attribute the label to sources. We have no policy, not even WP:DUE that requires an article to put a contentious ideological label on a subject just because reliable sources choose to do so. We should be better than that. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
As a political commenter and occasional candidate, I think we have to provide some brief sense of his political leanings in the first sentence, and I don't think we should avoid the widely-used term for him in favor of a less accurate one simply because people complain on the talk page about it more. If the sourcing generally describe him as "conservative" or "right-wing" then that's a reasonable argument for using that term instead, but if the sourcing tends to describe him as far-right then I think we should too. So far TheStrayDog has not shown that, though (and I am not super familiar with the bulk of sourcing on D'Souza; this page is on my watchlist for some reason but I haven't actually contributed to it all that much). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
"Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists" So what? We don't disqualify opinionated sources. Per Biased_or_opinionated_sources:
  • "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
  • "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." Dimadick (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling him 'far right' seems to be an opinion and suggests a political bias on the part of Misplaced Pages. Would it be appropriate for Misplaced Pages to use the term 'far left' in its articles? To suggest something is far to one side or the other would suggest that Misplaced Pages takes a political position from which to base other viewpoints from. Misplaced Pages should be neutral and avoid using such terms. With respect to sourcing it seems that using arbitrarily selected media outlets as sources to justify such a subjective label seems arbitrary and subjective.

It should also be noted that the term as defined by its own Misplaced Pages article states that it is defined as 'various ethnic supremacism'. What sources do you have that Dinesh D'Souza believes any such thing? He is Indian and he married someone that's partly from Venezuela so who exactly does he believe he is ethnically superior to and how? Sources? Throwing around these terms arbitrarily seems to diminish their original meaning and it seems that Misplaced Pages should be internally consistent with respect to terms that it uses to define someone and how it defines those terms. Perhaps the term itself needs to be redefined based on a more modern usage of the term but it would seem like the intended modern usage would be to associate people that don't meet the originally intended definition with those that do. Mainstream media is often about creating hyperbole and exaggerations because that's what gets more views and so it's not very unexpected when mainstream media sources misuse the term for viewers but Misplaced Pages should be more neutral and factual even if that is more boring and doesn't generate clicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.121.45 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles reflect what is published in reliable sources. Would it be appropriate for Misplaced Pages to use the term 'far left' in its articles? Sure, if reliable sources support it. You'll see that we do use this term in various articles. The sources supporting that D'Souza is far-right are cited inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only 2 of the 6 cited sources for the initial statement actually say "far right" -- NBC News and Buzzfeed. (The Guardian headline no longer counts because WP:HEADLINES.) If they're biased then the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy isn't being followed. But read above, this has been discussed more than once before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the lead sentence would benefit from a bundled citation that makes it clearer which source is supporting which statement... let me see about doing that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
He is widely described as far-right by reliable sources, and there is absolutely no valid reason to remove that well-sourced descriptor from this article. --Tataral (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tataral: Could you specify which? I did look around for additional sourcing describing him as far right and didn't find a whole lot beyond the two sources in this article—mediocre-quality sources or sources referring to D'Souza being popular among the far right, mostly. It didn't seem like a widely-used descriptor to me, particularly when compared to the number of sources describing him as a conservative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the user to provide you more sources. She seems to have a fixation on labeling people/organizations as "far-right" based on flimsy sources: , , , , , , etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
That's more of an issue for a behavioral noticeboard than here, but they've already provided their sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian described him as a "far-right provocateur and key figure in US culture wars"; Business Insider called him a "far-right author and pundit"; Mother Jones noted that "D'Souza has a long record of promoting far-right, racist conspiracy theories", to name some examples other than the sources already included here. --Tataral (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tataral: Thanks! Regarding The Guardian, there is a (fairly new) point in the RS policy, WP:HEADLINE, which specifies that News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. That is the case with this piece, which describes D'Souza as "far-right" in the headline only, but as "conservative" in the body. As for Business Insider and Mother Jones, they are not the strongest sources. There is no consensus for the reliability of BI (WP:RSP#Business Insider) and while Mother Jones is generally reliable, it is also one of the most left-leaning sources we use. In this case, it is also describing the conspiracy theories he promotes as far-right, rather than D'Souza himself, and while one could make the leap that people who promote far-right conspiracy theories are probably themselves far-right, that is a jump we shouldn't be making for contentious claims. In this case I would be inclined to go with the bulk of the strong RS, which describe him as conservative, and then add the Mother Jones source about his conspiracy theories (probably with attribution) to the article body. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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: , . NBC describes him in the cited article as both far-right and conservative, and in other articles just as conservative: , . 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: 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💥  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)

Discussion

Why can't we have both? Emir of Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages: 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" ).

(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 . The WaPo has also referred to him as a right-wing commentator , as do the New York Times , Rolling Stone , and The Daily Pennsylvanian . CNBC goes with right-wing firebrand . Vanity Fair goes with right-wing conspiracy theorist . FactCheck.org describes him as a popular right-wing personality , and Vox lists him among prominent right-wing personalities and brands . 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 . The Oregonian calls him famous in right-wing circles and one of the most prolific right-wing voices in recent decades . 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 Misplaced Pages - 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
  • 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)
Categories: