Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

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)

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.

So yes, the statement is factually incorrect and should be removed. Rocky Johan (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• In general, I don't think we should be relying purely on primary citations to Box Office Mojo and the like in a biographical article anyway. If a film's reception or box-office total are significant enough to be relevant to a biography like this, there would be secondary sources covering it; otherwise it only really makes sense on the page for the film itself. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove the phrase "convicted felon" from the introductory paragraph as it reflects a partisan ad hominem attack on the subjects character, much like calling someone who received multiple speeding tickets an "incorrigible criminal." It is appropriate to list this in a biographical comment, but not in a summary of their identity. 2600:6C5E:483F:C34:B06A:2A2D:9870:49F8 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Prominently labeling a BLP a "conspiracy theorist" should not be done without proper sourcing. Claiming that every documentary produced by the subject of this article is "conspiratorial" without providing a single source making that claim is a clear violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. And labeling a specific documentary "conspiratorial" in Wikipedia's own voice based upon an opinion piece in a left wing journal of opinion, which is how The Nation advertises itself, is obviously another violation of Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to settle political scores, but as a neutral encyclopedia. Let's all try to stick to that. Matza Pizza (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the article? There is a whole section about it. Mentioning it in the lede is well justified. DanielRigal (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

read in its entirety every news source listed for the claim. Please point out where a news source made that claim, or otherwise please self-revert what you would have to admit is an inappropriate edit. Thank you.

Matza Pizza (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time. There is a whole referenced section about his involvement in promoting conspiracy theories. We are not going to censor the article to spare his blushes or the blushes of his admirers. DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You claimed that there were insufficient sources for the label, yet there are eight sources used in the lead for that label, including two articles in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Please make an effort to familiarize yourself with the sources before presuming to tell us what they say.

Calling D'Souza a conspiracy theorist is an eminently neutral statement, because it is an obviously and well-documented factual statement. If you find facts to be non-neutral, you have no business editing an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• It's extensively sourced, but I've added a few more academic sources just in case. It's just an extremely common descriptor for him in academia; when people are repeatedly calling someone a conspiracy theorist as their primary characterization in peer-reviewed research, it's hard to argue that it can be left out of their Wikipedia article. That said, we might want to improve some of the sourcing in the relevant section in the body (I added some of the academic sources on his spreading of Soros conspiracy theories there, in particular.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

D'Souza's first book, was published in 1991 and was titled _Illiberal Education._ There appears to be a chronology of his major books in this article (I don't know if any others are omitted). Given that _Illiberal Edcuation_ was a New York Times bestseller I think someone should add it to the article? Paroberts (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)