Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Dinesh D'Souza.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Photo of his wife

http://www.meetup.com/members/5292635/photos/


[edit] C-Span interview Feb 4, 2007

I heard Dinesh claim that he double checks his facts and challanged anyone to point out inconsistencies. In general he has a habit of distorting facts to suite his ideological agenda. Here is an example. On responding to a caller about the CIA overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh,s Govt., he claimed

1. Mossadegh was not democratically elected, but nominated by the majlis.

While being factually true, it is grossly misleading. the majlis is like a parliament, and the parliament nominated the prime minister. its like saying tony blair was not elected but nominated by the labor party. He uses this dubious spin to almost justify mossadegh's overthrow by the CIA because he was not elected to begin with.

2. quotes Ayatollah Khomenie stating that he was glad that mossadegh was overthrown.

But when mossadegh resigned, he got support from radical muslims[1].

He tries to give the impression that mossadegh was opposed by radical islamists for his secular ways. While historical evidence gives a different picture. That mossadegh enjoyed popular support from both communists and radical islamists.

The main reason for mossadegh's removal, the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, is treated as secondary.

There are numerous other examples.

[edit] Positive Biography, not an opportunity to Denigrate the Opposition

Previous editors seem to have added language with pejorative terms. It seems irrelevant to use a biographical page to characterize opponents of his political views as "enemies". In addition, defining his views in opposition to some "left-wing" view (also a pejorative) implies a lesser value of them on their own.

It also grates upon me that one can say that his views might be perceived as racist if he were white. This is especially ironic in the face of Mr. D'Souza's opposition to the whole notion of institutionalized racism in America. In fact, if comments may be interpreted as racist, the comments cam stand on their own, indipendant of the identity politics involving the writer.

My latest edit, I believe, achieves a balance of describing the subject without denigrating those who would disagree with him.

Justus R 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

His "opposition to the whole notion of institutionalized racism" is racist. How? Because he doesn't oppose institutionalized racism, he opposes any suggestion that it actually exists. Thus, he (deliberately) helps to maintain it. 71.203.209.0 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment. It was not addressing the validity of his views. What I was saying on that subject is that the determination of whether certain views are racist does not depend on the identity of the person espousing them, but on the views themselves.

[edit] Irrelevant info

The sections "Critics" and "A millionaire" seem to be attacks without relevance. One name critics call him is not very relevant, especially without a source. Anr public political figure is likely to have snarky nicknames, but they are usually not interesting in a encyclopedic context. Also, the section about his finances seems to imply that there's something unseemly about his making money. I do not believe Wikipedia considers this worthy of note on other much higher paid speakers such as Bill Clinton or Sean Hannity.

Now in the interest of honesty, I should point out that I am a conservative and like D'Souza. I'm not trying to remove criticism, just irrelevant criticism. For now, I'm removing both sections. I would like to see some honest (or at least sourced, in the case of the name-calling) critiscism. But I don't think we need this pointless stuff. Vonspringer 09:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the "Distort D'Newsa" "nickname" he received. I agree that it can probably be omitted from the article (as for the source, I got it from the book Blinded by the Right.
As for the "millionaire" section, the information there seems relevant. Perhaps you would object less if we called the section "success at the speaking circuit?" --Asbl 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. I have no objection to including relevant financial information, I just didn't like the previous wording which seemed to imply it was wrong for him to earn money. Vonspringer 04:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect statement

This statement, "As an Indian immigrant (with Portuguese blood)" is a gross overgeneralisation, way off target, and most probably incorrect.

Goa is a region along the west coast of India. It was one of the first, and longest-held European colonies in Asia (1510-1961). But that doesn't mean that people carrying Portuguese surnames have "Portuguese blood".

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa

I should know, I live there. This is no political point. Just an attempt to correct an inaccuracy. Incidentally, I strongly disagree with D'Souza's views, which could well result in a setback to the cause for greater racial equality and integration. But that isn't particularly relevant here. --fredericknoronha 18:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dinesh has no portugese blood. He admitted to that. In fact he is from the low cast Hindu's who were converted to christianity by portugese colonials.

[edit] General comment

Are you sure about his admitting to his "low caste"? I don't know if it matters, since the info isn't on his page, but in his book, "What's So Great About America?" he recounts a story in which his grandfather (I think, I don't have the book in front of me) tells him that he is fortunate because he was born a Brahmin, which I understand to be a high caste.

[edit] Question

When has Dinesh D'Souza defended "Social Darwinism"? I've read three of his books and cannot recall a defense. Can the person who wrote that reveal his source?

Thanks, Ben (benl47)

[edit] Bell Curve

As far as I know D'Souza is a supporter of the racist screed The Bell Curve (1994) and he believes in genetic social Darwinist theories; for example, most Blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites or other races and that explains their aggregate lower performance standards compared to whites on standardized tests. Like many ultra-right wingers he whitewashes or minimalizes atrocities against peasants in Central America by US-backed militias (he attacked Rigoberta Menchu for "lying" about parts of her book on her experiences as a Mayan in Guatemala in the 1980s). Many of his racialist arguments are rather easy to poke holes through, though his more traditionally conservative positions have more merit on libertarian grounds. --Daxtox 05:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Menchu admitted to fabricating much of her biography; the Nobel committee also admitted that much of it was made up, but decided not to revoke her award. This is hardly "ultra-conservative" bias; in adddition, he actually argues against the notion that black people are inferior, accusing people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of promoting such racist messages. (LaszloWalrus)
[written by 68.7.212.152, added by Asbl 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)]

Indeed. The common mistake is that he holds the belief, or at least argued, that African-American(as in, black people who're from the United States, and not all black in the States) have a bad culture. Not that they, as an actual, genetic people are bad, but that their culture holds some rather bad flaws, including high rate of illegitimacy, lack of much education, blahblah. In other words, it's an ethnic argument, not a racial one.

[edit] Untrue

Actually, if you read "The End of Racism", he argues against Murray's IQ thesis, in much the same way Thomas Sowell has debunked the theory. If you were the one to have included that "Social Darwinism" comment, I suggest you remove it because it seems that you are not too familiar with his work. I agree that he occasionally uses *language* that is frustrating and disappointing. I've actually e-mailed him about it, and he agreed that his use of the word "parasitic," for instance, was just too much. His general view is not racialist at all. In fact, that's the whole premise of his book on the issue -- envisioning an end to racism. His thesis is that we can reach such a desirable point if we remove race from the law completely, treating everyone equal under the law, as our Constitution demands.

--Benl47 00:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Girlfriends/Love Life?

Should it be mentioned that he has dated Ann Coulter and been engaged to Laura Ingraham (Interracial Relationships)? It seems pertinent to accusations of racism, as it can support those accusations from one view (both are white-women) and repudiate them from another view (ignoring the color of skin to find the conservative inside). --Darth Kottaram 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know if he did date Laura Ingraham. Besides, someone once told me NNDb isn't very reliable. Aaрон Кинни (t) 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This section appears to be both unreliable and irrelevant. Deleting discussions of his dating life.

[edit] Goan, without any white ancestry

As a Goan, I emailed him and he confirmed that his parents were Goans settled in Bombay, and without any white ancestry.

I have tried to add him to the Category: Goa page, but I cannot understand how to. Can someone please do so?

WikiSceptic 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to add my weith to this and the former comment: Goa was one of the longest held portuguese possessions and so there was a great influence in religious and onomastic practices, which doesn't however correlate to actual ancestry (which is there, but not it the the scale that looking at surnames would indicate). Also, can someone add his ancestry/origin to the page? I find it bizarre that this is ommited especially since it's relevant to his views on immigration, etc. The way it is written doesn't specify his origin and one can only try to guess it.--195.245.185.32 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this ("(hence the Portuguese surname)") to his personal details. Note that it does not imply that D'Souza has any Portuguese ancestry.

--89.152.28.78 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Category

I've added him under the category indian christians, very intelligent guy, actually not a fan of him or his work, but we accept our own, warts and all;-)--71.30.177.228 06:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Religion Section?

I'm curious if anyone has any info on D'Souza's religion background. Seems like it might be relevant since much of his commentary apparently centers around "culture war" issues.

Yeah, Mr. D'Souza is known for his very controversial views on Muslims and the 'War on Terror,' yes? I was actually wondering whether he might have some distant (or even recent) Sephardic heritage in his family due to the fact that he is from Goa and has a very recognizable Portuguese last name. Apparently a few Jews still exist in Goa to this day (most of them merchants and found in the learned upper-classes of Goa), though most of the former Sephardic population of Goa has of course already long assimilated in to the populace and adopted either Catholicism (which makes them a "New Christian") or even Hinduism. So, it is theoretically possible for D'Souza and others to be a Catholic religiously and a Jew ethnically (even if only a tiny bit). However, it gets even more interesting because often-times these Sephardic Jews would adopt Catholicism outwardly (in society) yet would remain secretly Jewish (within the home and with trusted others). They would also continue marrying other Jews exclusively as well in order to retain their ethnic Jewish heritage (they married other crypto-Jews through silent agreements with one another). However, the Goa Inquisition basicially demolished Jewish life in Goa, but some did continue living on there, even if they were totally secretive about it. This is of course all speculation when it comes to Mr. D'Souza, but it is indeed worth looking in to! --Wassermann 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I added some info on that, but the section I wrote needs some editing by others. Towsonu2003 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of 'Personal wealth' section

If an alternative press paper in the county of San Diego, distributed gratis, decides to smear D'Souza as someone who profits from being a bigot, they're free to do so. However, D'Souza is one of many popular US scientist and media persons who cater to the fancy of both the US public and academe for public speaking. This is well paid for the more prominent ones, be it Chomsky or D'Souza. Can we conclude that this section is smear too, and thus WP:POV?

I deleted the last paragraph too, having been shoved in disregarding of pertinence anyway. That some of his detractors, generalised as "student population," chose to label him as "racist" and "bigot," was obviously introduced to the WP article to smear him with that terms by association. --tickle me 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone re-added the "Personal Wealth" to the personal section. I agree with you. Unless we're going to add a personal wealth section to every single public person with a listing here on wikipedia, it doesn't really add much to the discussion. I deleted it and the description of his wife from the same source. It seems rather unnessary to include a quote about she's blonde or petite or what she was wearing. --Jdcaust 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D'Souza Prospect Scandal

I deleted the information about the D'Souza scandal where he purported printed information about a girl's sex life. The source goes to a dead link. This was removed to follow guidelines in Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons. According those guidelines: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." When someone finds a source on this that is both reliable and accessible, it can be re-added with the information that the source provides. --Jdcaust 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found a source, I've added it and wrote the section based on that source. --Jdcaust 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so my source was a blog that mentioned NY Times articles as its source. I checked the article on the NY Times archives. I found one and included information from that. However, the article that supposedly says he discussed the girl's sex life is no where to be found in the archives. I tried multiple search terms, even going as broad as checking all Princeton references in the Times in 1984 and I still couldn't find it. As it is, I don't really trust a blog that doesn't have its own reliable sources, so I re-added what I could corroborate. Please do not re-add information about the scandal where he discusses her sex life from this url: http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/01/concerned_alumn_1.html . I will remove it under Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check Any other sources that can verifying that information would be welcome. --Jdcaust 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research and POV sentences keep getting re-added.

Academic Challenger, you and someone anonymous (who may have also been you), Someone keeps adding two sentences to the Social Policy and Affirmative Action sections that are both uncited original research and POV:

1) as being programs that encourage dependency by minority groups on social programs, albeit without offering an alternative solution.

2) Additionally, he does not mention in any of his publications the government affirmative action initiatives of his native India on behalf of the Untouchables and the redress of inequities to that Indian caste.

You would be hard pressed to find any respectable editors who thinks either of these comments are constructive or appropriate for a wikipedia article. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:Bio. If you are honestly trying to improve the article, please read up on these and other wikipedia guidelines before you continue. See associated comments on your talk page. --Jdcaust 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology to User:Academic Challenger. I wrongly identfied you as the person who made the edits. See my associated strike-through above and comments on your talk page. --Jdcaust 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of the American Revolution

The article states that D'Souza believes in "conserving the principles of the American Revolution." But didn't post-revolutionary United States tolerate slavery? And didn't one of the founding fathers (Jefferson)father illegitimate children by one of his female slaves? The article states that D'Souza opposed birth control on campus at the university he attended, and is undoubtedly a conservative (this word is oft and ill-used)on sexual matters.132.156.43.8

I'm assuming you meant for this to be in a new category so I made it as such. What edits do you propose? You can't say that D'Souza would be supportive of slavery because that would be original research and you'll never find a source that states that. Are you making the argument that D'Souza doesn't support the principles of the American Revolution? Since he said as much, you'd be hard pressed to find a source that debates that. Just including that without a source would also be original research. Also, who's debating that he is a conservative? As of yet, you haven't proposed anything that should be changed that wouldn't violate wikipedia policy. --Jdcaust 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The former colonies had major flaws that compromised the meaning of the word "principle"--at least that word's use in the positive sense. And conservative is a subjective concept: environmentalists--a group derided by many conservative--could be called "conservative": they want to conserve nature, something basically existing at the very least since the creation of the United States. Then again, if you want to discuss semantics, conservative and right-wing are not really the same thing--though many consider them so.132.156.43.8 —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points, but I'm not sure that they apply here. Whether or not it's the appropriate use of the term, the general understanding of conservative is synonymous with right-wing both here on wikipedia and in the mind of the general public. Dinesh D'Souza fits well under the term conservative as defined in Conservatism and especially in Conservatism in the United States. For these reasons, I believe that the label fits based on its 'modern' definition, even if the traditional or historical definition doesn't agree.
As for arguing about the flaws of the colonies and how they apply to people espousing the "Principles of the Revolution" today, I think you'd have an excellent topic for a historical essay or opinion piece. I'm guessing you have the knowledge to write that. Unfortunately, such arguments do not fit in the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. What belongs here is a NPOV overview of the topic without originial research in a way that can be easily understood by the general public. Placing such information here, especially without strong secondary sources, may also violate WP:Biographies of Living Persons in that we should avoid guilt by association.
With the disagreements you have, I believe your points may be better fitted in the articles for Conservatism, Declaration of Independence, or United States Constitution. The points you bring up are notable and valid if you have sources to back them up. This article just isn't the proper place to put them. Thanks for your concern, though. I'm always open to suggestions to improve things here, as a lot of work is still needed. You should also consider creating a log-in name for yourself as you have obvious interest in the editting that goes on. --Jdcaust 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White ancestry?

He must have European ancestry because he has a Portuguese name. I guessed that he was from Goa because of his name, before I discovered that he was born in Bombay of Goan parents. Goa was a Portuguese colony. This would also explain why he's Catholic.

[edit] D'Souza's views on feminism

Like most of his views, he has based his opinion of feminism on a shallow understanding of the topic in question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal of most feminists is not necessarily to "break into" the man's working world, as it were, but rather to demand a choice between home life and outside work. --Blob4000 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Everyone can have an opinion of his views. You can think he's right or wrong and that's fine. However, that has no place on a wikipedia page. The discussion page for the article is also not the place to discuss the man, but the place to discuss how to improve the page. If you would like to discuss D'Souza, I am sure there are plenty of places on the web (especially forums) where people dissect his views and debate their worth. If you would like to propose ways to improve the page, please do. If you yourself would like to improve the page, please edit it, as long as you reference your material and stay away from original research and point of view statements. --Jdcaust (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why only negative quotes?

I assume the writer simply wanted to cast D'souza's book in a negative light by citing only negative sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I haven't been around for a while, but some anon editors have been overloading this article with negative information about D'Souza. The negative stuff is being given way too much undue weight. When I get some time, I'll try and clean it all up. --Jdcaust (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phi Kappa Beta

This is to the anonymous editor who keeps changing the wording of Phi Kappa Beta. The proper grammatical way to describe Phi Kappa Beta honors is to say they "graduated Phi Kappa Beta in" whatever they graduated in. This is the way it is on Rivers Cuomo, Emily Bergl, Jeb Bush, and Jennifer Granholm. Another description found in Glenn Close and Benazir Bhutto says they were "elected to" Phi Beta Kappa, butgiven your reason for changing this in the first place, I doubt this method would please you as well. Considering that other articles list things the same way and that this maintains a high standard of writing quality (unlike "graduated in English with a prize of Phi Kappa Beta. Whew, that's wordy!), I believe this is the best wording possible. If people are truly confused, the society 'is' wikilinked, so they can go there and learn all about it. --Jdcaust (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Bad Faith Award section.

I just removed the "bad faith award" section. This not only comes from a very biased source, the New Humanist (which is both anti-religion and far left), but is completely non-notable. Why should anyone care that the New Humanist gave him this award. Should include the opinion of every magazine and newspaper that has ever commented on Mr. D'Souza? The survey doesn't even come up in a single independent, neutral source such as a newspaper or news transcript. Per WP:BLP, this contentious material has been removed until it can be sourced with a reliable, unbiased and independent reference that shows this to be notable. --Jdcaust (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy at Home Section

I tagged it for neutrality for now. As has been discussed above, sections of the article have given criticism a ton of undue weight without balancing the other side. As I clean this up, I'm going to leave the tag. Once this is completed, I'll remove it. --Jdcaust (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)