Talk:David Duke/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I've deleted the "Rumored" section

I removed that section from this article, there were no sources and it was clearly liberal propaganda against Mr Duke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi Schlebusch (talkcontribs) 08:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do all racists feel the need to post propaganda in this article?

I feel as though this article is a constant battle between the racists and the rest of the world? It appears as though every bigot with an Internet connects has attempted to edit this article at one point or another in attempts to purify David Duke’s image in spite of the numerous legitimist sources documenting his 30 year history saturated with hate filled rhetoric and sympathy for Nazism. I have had this article on my watch list since 2003 and this is the first time I have ever posting anything on Wikipedia ever, yet this article represents everything that is wrong with allowing anyone and everyone to submit what they please regarding any subject. Thank you for allowing me to vent. No responses necessary. (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel compelled to respond. First off, I would like to express that I share your sentiments 100%, however I do not think that this is the most appropriate forum to address such concerns. Second, review WP:NPOV for more information. Lastly, read WP:NOT#FORUM, and you should understand why... DrunkenDialer (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of his fans go on pages like this far too much in order to bolster Duke's name and make him look legitimate. Rock8591 09:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talkcontribs)
Racists like David Duke and his followers make me nauseous. I still don't understand why in the hell he is not in jail. Now, Wikipedia-related, why not request to put a lock on this article? (Dr. Megadeth (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy Book

Well crafted, linking that book to David Duke's wikipedia page. I wouldn't be surprised if that edit came via the JDL's office in New York. Excellent character assassination, whoever did that has got sik game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, David Duke rather slits his own throat every time he says/writes anything. Pointing out what he says/does is hard;y "assassination."FlaviaR (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

White Haven ???

Can someone remove this? Some fool with nothing better to do is trying to be funny.

Duke has no connection to White Haven Tegbridges 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Tyler Bridges, author of The Rise of David Duke

I removed the reference to White Haven. I left the citations that followed that reference but commented them out. Gr8white 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck?

What does DD have to do with Oklahoma or "White Haven"? And what I really would like to know is this: why does he merit such a massive page? I knew him and many other influential figures in New Orleans, and he is just not that important. You could easily remove 3/4 of this article and have everything anyone but his spouse needs to know about him. I do love the quote from Edwin Edwards... <eg> Nirigihimu 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed photo

I removed the photograph per the policy in Wikipedia talk:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote#My_own_view 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A few words about taxes

Several sources do indicate that Duke pleaded guilty to "tax evasion." However, upon closer inspection, it appears based on the best information I've seen so far, that he actually pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return, and to mail fraud. The term "tax evasion" is a technical legal term. Federal tax evasion in the United States is criminalized at 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Filing a false tax return is 26 U.S.C. § 7206. These are two separate crimes. A person filing a false tax return may certainly also have committed tax evasion -- but it does not appear that Duke was charged with tax evasion. I changed the article accordingly. Yours, Famspear 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ¶ I have not found a subsection on his prison sentence, but want to add that, acc to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, his ID number while in prison for tax offenses was 28213-034. He was released in 2004. (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

David Duke Photos

Jewish supremacy?

Why does Jewish supremacy redirect here?

Jewish supremacy deserves it's own article, meanwhile there is a section on David Duke as Jewish Supremacism. That can work so long. Nicoliani (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Some info from someone who knows Duke personally


When I first read about David Duke, I was quite shocked. As a French patriot, I had some understanding for his point of views. However, I couldn't codone hatefull attitudes towards minorities and people of other nations. So one day I decided to meet him and confront him. That was at his meeting in Philadelphia in January 2000. I soon realized he was very different from what the media said about him. We have been friends since.


I read dozens of Wikipedia articles every day. I consider it a neutral source source of information and I want it to stay that way. I'm happy to contribute by bringing up some facts. That doesn't mean I want to promote his point of views on this site. However, Wikipedia ought to be accurate, even when the subject is highly controversial (to say the least).

I have read most of this discussion. I think some things need to be clarified.


Date of birth: David Duke was born on July 1st. I corrected this a while ago but since, someone put July 13th.

White Nationalist vs White Supremacism: He wants to preserve the white race. He believes that genes, not education make a person who he or she is. Is used the IQ curve difference of white and black people as an example to make his point. That doesn't mean that he believes that the white race is a "superior race". So I don't think that "White supremacist" is the right word. But he does believe that races should make up nations. I think the term "White nationalist" is the one that should apply.

Is he a racist? If you define a racist as someone for whom race plays a central place in society, then he certainly is one. If you define a racist as someone who hates people because they are of other races, then that term shouldn't apply. He was raised by a black woman. One of his very good friends is Chinese. He gets along with black people. He does believes that the high crime rate in Louisiana is due its multiethnic society. I can't remembering him use derogatory language against colored people either.

Revisionism vs Denier: David Duke isn't an expert in Holocaust matters. He never claimed to be one. He never denied that it happened. But he does point out what he believes are strong inconsistencies among the different official versions of it. He also strongly comdens the fact in Europe historians are sent to jail for questioning one or the other aspect of the local version. For example, in 2005, it was claimed on French news that the liberation of Auschwitz took place in the winter of 1945, in January; and that the official pictures were shot 6 month later in the summer. If a European historian crossed the border from France to Germany and repeated this, he would face up to 5 years in jail for "Holocaust denial" or "Holocaust minimization". In 2006, he attended the "Holocaust conference" in Iran, where he met privately with the Iranian president and sought support for persecuted revisionist historians. I think the term "revisionist" and "free speech activist" are the appropriate ones to use.

Jews and Antisemitism: He strongly opposes the Zionists, their lobby, the Jewish religion(s), their supporters and everything they stand for. That doesn't mean he opposes all Semites or even all people who have a Jewish background.

ADL and SPLC: I don't think these are very good source of information. Their people google around fishing for a few facts then write articles making up the rest of the facts. I recently found an article about myself on the SPLC page. They made up most of it. They had no source of information except the little they could find on the net. And yet they managed to write 2-3 pages of stuff about me which is a mix of wild guesses, defamation and forgery. They went as far a rewrite citations and claim I wrote them. They also claim I'm a Belgian Webmaster in my early 30's. They didn't even get that right. I'm neither Belgian nor in my early 30's. They are very biased and certainly not very reliable nor credible sources of information.

His Phds: He got 2 dotorates. One on an honorary base and another one for history. He also used to teach at this university in Ukraine. They offer courses in English. While a Phd from the Ukrainian MAUP university may not be as valuable as one from Harvard, nevertheless it is a university with 50K students, whose Doctorates can hardly be compared to those on sale on the internet. I don't see a reason why David Duke's Doctorate shouldn't be considered legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aubignosc (talkcontribs).

Oh, you know him personally? Then tell that arrogant fool that, as a white man myself, I find his "cause" to be full of shit. And maybe someone shoudl tell him that if he's gonna chanpion for "Eurpoean Americans" he should include ANYONE of Spanish descent, as Spain is in EUROPE! He's a violent racist and it's men like him that make me wish I was not white. But no, "white supremacist" is pushing it, as he's been kissing up to the Muslims A LOT lately. If you painted David Duke's skin brown, you'd have Louis Farrakhan. I had my ass beat in January by several KKK members(both Wal-Mart employees and police- took 5 people to subdue me, a K-9 unit sent to haul me and the police captain made a personal appearance to handle it with a lot of bogus "shoplifting" charges to justify their excessive force! I knew what was going down from the start- I'd insulted the KKK the very night before and this was their "educational method"!) for speaking out against the white race, well, they can just beat my ass again because I will not shut up! If they want me silenced, they can just outright kill me this time, if they have the balls. I would punch David Duke in the face if I ever met him and I will do all in my power to undermine the white race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. A couple of points: We keep the encyclopeia neutral and verifiable by reelying on sources rather than personal opinion. Without sources to confirm info we can't use it. That's true both of factual info, like his birthdate, and opinions. I don't think we say that his Ph.D. is illegitimate. Regarding "white nationalist" vs. "white supremacist" and "Holocaust denier" vs. "Holocause revisionist", those are sematic issues that are difficult to resolve, but for all intents and purposes the terms are synonymous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case I'm the source. The date of birth, July 1st is the date he dictated his staff who filled the 2000 census for him, while I was with them at the office in Mandeville. Yesterday, I also called him in Russia to recheck. As far as his opinions are concerned, we had plenty of time to talk about them.
The only things I changed on the article itself was picture, I put one I took myself, and the date of birth. But after I read the discussion, I thought I had to put some things strait.
I think Wikipedia needs to be accurate and choose its word carefully. For instance, I'm a French patriot, you could even say nationalist; and yet my favorite author is Shakespear. So I think I could hardly be called a French supremacist. Nationalism is the believe that peoples and nations should be in charge of their own destinies. I really don't see how this can be synonymous with supremacist! Also someone can disagree with certain interpretions of an event without denying it ever happened. Someone who reviews an event is a revisionist. If someone denies the event ever happened, he can't review it in the first place! So for all intents and purposes, revisionist and denier are antonyms.
PS: I just checked in his book "My Awakening": "My mother gave birth to me by Cesarean section at 11:36 am on July 1, 1950, at St John's Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma".

Emmanuel d'Aubignosc

--Aubignosc 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We can use his book as the source for his birthdate because it's published. Likewise, we can't use your comments here as a source because they aren't published. For our general policy, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Emmanuel, you have no chance to make this article better. Accounts like User:Jayjg, User:Y, User:John, User:Jpgordon, User:Arthur Rubin, User:El C etc. own articles about people that thay hate and they will block you if you will disagree with their biased edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Th.colemann.557 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Duke etc.

Please see [25]. Also, erroneous claims do not make a "pattern". Please be more careful in your accusations in the future. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


An editor added Category:Anti-Racists to the article, saying:

  • He says he does not think of himself as a racist, however, stating that he is a "racial realist" and that he believes that "all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage.

Those comments don't show why we should categorize this subject as "anti-racist". Do we have any relaible source that calls him that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

The controversies section includes two things that are not controversial per se-- the fact that he once wrote a book aimed at females under a female pseudonym and that he has had plastic surgery and shaved his mustache??? Come on, this is David Duke. Those things are not controversial at all compared to many other things written about him over the years. I see no reason to include them, and it doesn't seem that they have been written about as controversial in the mainstream press, either.--Gloriamarie 11:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are facts of this life that should be included in the article. Rather than deleting them it'd be bettre to rename the section or to distribute them to more appropriate sections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the items into roughly chronologicla order. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ostensible Christian?

"Ostensible" has to go. David Duke is a racist and a fascist, it's true, but it's irresponsible to state that his belief in Christianity is merely opportunistic unless you have evidence to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people put "ostensible" in there because he is exactly as you describe, and they therefore feel that, according to the most agreed-upon definition of Xianity, he can't be a real one.FlaviaR (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Nazism is an ideologically anti-Christian ideology. So if he's a neo-Nazi, either he's bullshitting about his claims being a Christian (hey, Hitler did the same) or he just doesn't understand his ideology. On the other hand, he has a past in the Ku Klux Klan, and they are not anti-Christianity (generally speaking), but the Ku Klux Klan shouldn't be confused with Nazism (even though, in practise, they're very much the same). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the most prudent way of expressing both claims would be to mention the fact that he's a (wannabe) populist (the closest thing the KKK has to one) as evidenced by his use of the word in the Independent Populist Party. This is classic BS as defined by Frankfurt. (On bullshit) It doesn't matter what his real faith is - probably some Christian Identity garbage. Real Christianity only exists in his rhetoric. (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What gives you the idea that he's a "Neo-Nazi" or "fascist"? Anyway, National Socialism may not in line with some brands of christianity. That doesn't make it anti-christian. However many National Socialists were Christians, while there were some that openly opposed christianity in favor or a new heathendom. -- (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I am going add that he is a professor of history and international relations with the Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP). in the introduction since that is significant, important, and is his current occupation. I don't see where anyone has been disputing against something like that so I will do it. It seems worthwhile to me, and I believe others. to put it at the beginning of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talkcontribs) 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to find a source before adding content to wikipedia, especially something like that. Yahel Guhan 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Will this source do? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it won't do, Elias. That source says that he has a PhD, not that he's a professor. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denier?

David Duke is listed under the category, en:Category:Holocaust deniers. However, there are no sources cited that he has personally denied the Holocaust. Yes, it's true that he attended the Holocaust conference, but that does not automatically make him a denier of the Holocaust, because that conference hosted mainstream Holocaust scholars and those who were critical (in various ways) of the Holocaust. He did not deny the Holocaust on that conference. He questioned its authority and why people are being locked up because of it in Europe. Furthermore, if he has written or said "the Holocaust did never happen", it would be great if this can be sourced from his own website (a primary source) and not secondary sources. I'm removing the category for now due to lack of sources, and, because it's a a highly loaded POV category, and it shouldn't be labelled on everyone who is questioning the Holocaust. Unlike Ahmadinejad, I see no sources stating that Duke has expressed that the Holocaust is a myth. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 12:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews. With all due respect, I think it's an unnecessary and overly exact parsing of words to say that he didn't use the exact words denying the Holocaust: in fact, he's just denied one of the most major components of it, and openly fraternized with those who deny it themselves. The fact that his website says that he takes no hard position, but rather that he is simply for an "respect for intellectual freedom" in allowing either possibility, is not reassuring. This position is, in fact, exactly the same as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who also has the tag attached to his name. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are those who question the reliability of Fox News, but a source like that is a good start. I would however, still like to see it quoted from his site, where he says that the Holocaust didn't happen in one way or the other. In his book, Jewish Supremacism, David Duke dedicates the book to Israel Shahak, and he calls him "Holocaust survivor". So he's not really denying the Holocaust. He questions some aspects of the current "official version", but that's not the same as denying an event wherein Jews where murdered or starved to death (and that did of course happen). Obviously, the entire gassing with Zyclon B thing is very suspect and very likely just nonsense propaganda. Many of these theories have been proven wrong anyway (for example, the ridiculous theory that they made soap out of Jews).[26] This gas chamber thing is likely to be derived from the same nonsense. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Elias, I'm sure someone has mentioned this to you before, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. So far as the gas chambers are concerned, the pure wingnuttery of claiming that they didn't exist or weren't really gas chambers is central to Holocaust denial. It's also easily refuted by even the most cursory honest examination of the available evidence. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, they are only stating the obvious. The facilities claimed to be the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz are in fact morgues, they are designed as such and designated as morgues (Leichenkeller) on the building plans. There is no physical or documentary that these rooms were actually used as (homicidal) gas chambers. No doubt there were delousing gas chambers in Auschwitz. You are however right that the (homicidal) gas chambers are core to the Holocaust narrative. The term "Holocaust denier" I find deceptive anyway. -- (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relation to Ron Paul?

Explaination? [27] [28] Devlin McGregor (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Devlin, would you mind telling us all what sort of improvement you have in mind for the article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question was answered, thanks... Devlin McGregor (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a Paleoconservative

Please remove Cat:Paleoconservatives from this article. David Duke has never identified as such and the sources for this claim are entirely lacking (to my knowledge). And it's a safe assertion that Duke also has significant political differences with the members of that movement. (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In what way is he not a paleo? He believes that one but not the only component of a nation is race. He opposes transfer payments, reparations, forced bussing, affirmative action, the idolization of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He is against illegal immigration and once illegals to be deported. He is a devout Christian, or at least he thinks he is, and supports the family as the central unit of society. He is against the Iraq War and aid to Israel. He believes in the right to own a gun. He is a federalist, I believe.--Comradesandalio (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. We don't just sit around trying to decide what labels fit on each person and then attach them. Instead, we primarily take the guy's word for it, so if Duke doesn't say something like "I am a paleoconservative" (whatever that is), then we don't say that he is. Maybe if someone else (say, Joe, an authority on Duke and paleoconservatism) says Duke is a paleoconservative, then we could say that Joe says so. But we don't make those judgments ourselves. Phiwum (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. See WP:No original research. We report but we don't decide. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Why is he listed in the American neo-Nazis category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi is somewhat questionable. Paleoconservative is ridiculous. (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See the section on his youth that says:

Duke went on to study at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and in 1970, he formed a White student group known as the White Youth Alliance, which was affiliated with the National Socialist White People's Party. That same year, he became well-known for a demonstration in which he appeared in Nazi dress, to protest William Kunstler's appearance at Tulane University in New Orleans. He was involved in the campus Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) where he received awards, until he was expelled due to his radical beliefs. In 1971, he went to Laos to teach English to Laotian military officers and serve on cargo flights for Air America over the course of ten weeks.[13] Duke returned to LSU, graduating in 1974. He became famous on campus for wearing a Nazi uniform while picketing and holding parties on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler.

Wearing Nazi uniforms, celebrating Hitler's birthday, and forming a National Socialist party seem to be good reasons to consider the subjects as having been a member of the Neo-Nazi movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is getting pretty irritating. Someone please remove CAT: Paleoconservatives from this article. It does not belong and is completely unsourced. (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally witnessed David Duke walking around in the North Stadium dormitory wearing a Nazi uniform in the early Spring of 1970. I also personally witnessed David Duke making inflammatory speeches glorifying the Nazi's and Adolph Hitler Wednesdays in Free Speech Alley at the LSU Student Union. After the ROTC controversy he changed his advocacy to the KKK and a clear anti-negro position. To deny that Duke was a Nazi admirer and neo-Nazi is historical and self-serving revisionism. TheScarletPimple (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He wore a swastika suit in campus not as a Neo-Nationalist, but to pick on a William Chancellor "the communist". Now it just shows how Jewish media is.

Source: [ Radio show] (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

correction in the part about ernst zuendel

The following sentence from the paragraph Ernst Zündel and the Zundelsite is not correct as it is now.

Zündel is being held in a German prison on charges of inciting the masses to ethnic hatred.[39]

He is imprisoned because of the "denial, belittlement and/or approvement" of the genocide under the national socialistic party which is a crime according to german law (see § 130, 3 penal code). Inciting the masses to ethnic hatred is subject of § 130, 1, 2 but that is not why he got sentenced to five years. Maybe someone wants to correct this.

The article is correct, and you can check against news sources. Zündel was convicted of inciting the masses to ethnic hatred. Holocaust denial was the method he used. WillOakland (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nose Job and surgery

I don't see anything about a nose job in any of the three references backing up that statement. JettaMann (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ROTC claims

I heavily edited the claim on Duke's exclusion from ROTC to reflect facts that I personally witnessed or had contemporaneously reported to me by multiple independent sources. I can identify witnesses to the other facts (and did so in my edits, such as (then Major) Dratie Miller, and Ralph Tyson. I can identify other possible witnesses if necessary. TheScarletPimple (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What is ROTC? And I'm not sure how Wikipedia treats original research. As you might guess, "I personally witnessed" doesn't hold a lot of water on the Internet, especially when you are anonymous. Sources usually come from published documents so that facts can be independently verified. JettaMann (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


These are my biases: I believe "White Nationalism" (white supremacism stealing rhetoric from black nationalism) to be largely a movement of uneducated whites who feel threatened and alienated by the power structures of this country.

With these biases in mind, I must ask this question: What exactly is the extent of his education? Someone suggested that he had two PhD's and yet the article only seems to say that he completed a four year undergrad degree at Louisiana State (as a Louisiana resident, not very impressive) and that he has an honorary PhD from some college in the Ukraine that was probably just happy to get any American with a name in the headlines.

Is he a real PhD or not? And of his real education, what was his major? (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The degree from MAUP is an honorary one, NOT for any scholastic achievement but for the rascist and antisemitic writings. MAUP has no academic standing, and is barely accredited.Galassi (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As state legislator

There seems to be nothing in the article about the one occasion when he was actually in public office. I seem to remember that he was connected with the transfer of the "Liberty Place monument" to a new location, but presumably there's more. By the way, there probably should be a separate article on "The Battle of Liberty Place"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

racial segregation

david duke does not call for government mandadted racial segregation. he does however say that people have a right to be around their own kind if they chose. Statesboropow (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is completely normal.--YouGiveMeTheReason...YouGiveMeControl (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


why is this man not listed as Dr. David Duke, or David Duke Ph. D. ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statesboropow (talkcontribs) 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry, nevermind. Statesboropow (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

what about ms. duke?

Either the one that should be after the conjunction "and" or any attesting to his heterosexuality. (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see the second in the infobox. The missing mothers name appears to be the result of a sloppy edit. (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Hes a white supremacist and theres not even mentioning of his backround/ethnicity/nationaly or what have you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He is a white separatist and I believe that he is of Irish origin in this Irish radio interview: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Arrest in the Czech Republic (April 2009)

Arrest in the Czech Republic (April 2009)

You should add that about 100 David Duke supporters protested infront of the interrior ministry in Prague over his arrest after he was released and bared from entering CZ republic again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talkcontribs) 18:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One should also mention the irony of this all. How it relates to violating freedom of speech and information. And also that the argument used by the Czech officials is that David Duke wants to "suppress human rights". Sounds kind of Orwellian, guess not much has changed in Czechia since 1968. -- (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex

It is factual that Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers. But it can't be substantiated that Finder's Keepers contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable. The alleged sexual content of the book needs to be scanned and posted for all to see. We need the primary source!

Shady References:

1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex."

2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here:[29]

3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content.

Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources.

If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on the page.--Bureaucracy (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. See WP:PSTS. If we have reliable sources we respect what they say. The book, Troubled Memory, is published by a university press and so is considered highly reliable. So we have several sources that say he wrote the book, and a couple of sources that characterize the contents. If there are reliable sources that give a different viewpoint then we can include those too.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not deferring to the "authority" of University Press. I detailed how unreliable the secondary sources are because they don't cite the primary source. So, how shall we proceed?--Bureaucracy (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You can get outside input by posting a query at WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The allegation should be included if it has coverage, however in "it is claim that his book contains ... by ..." if no clear evidence is available it is the best you can do. Removing reference or keeping it this way is not accurate. Kasaalan (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what BLP says about this but, Troubled Memory: Anne Levy, the Holocaust and David Duke's Louisiana by Lawrence N. Powell is a direct criticism of David Duke.

"This compelling work tells the story of Anne Skorecki Levy, a Holocaust survivor who transformed the horrors of her childhood into a passionate mission to defeat the political menace of reputed neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Through Levy's tale, Lawrence Powell connects the prewar and wartime experiences of Jewish survivors to the lives they built in the United States and shows how their experiences as new Americans spurred their willingness to bear witness."

The book itself has a vast number of serious accusations against David Duke. Yet still using (... is claimed by ...) is better, until something is proven in court. Kasaalan (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

felony charge

If someone knows, is this charge preventing him from running for elective office? If so it should be noted in that section.Geo8rge (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unsubstantiated character defamation.

I've removed the sentence under the "Reforming the KKK" section which referred to illicit sexual topics. This information never has, and never will be substantiated. It is pure character defamation by the ADL.

Dmess0r (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex above. There are ample sources to establish the assertion that Duke wrote the book.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It is claimed by reliable source and we should include the claim, but without 1st hand proof we can only refer it as claimed by ... no more. Kasaalan (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This entire encyclopedia is based on the claims made by reliable sources that we are unable to confirm thorugh personal research.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep the allegations, neutralize the tone, try not engaging in an edit war. Kasaalan (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Will is correct, the information, for WP purposes, is substantiated. Please don't remove it -- if you can find sources disputing the facts set forth, by all means include them. IronDuke 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
He is not totally correct, in the previous discussion the user actually showed only 1 reference claims it has the original copy of the book, but we cannot check it since it is not online, and possibly other sources may also quote from it since they give no reference as a source. But the accusations are serious, so include claims, but in a more neutral tone like, it is claimed by ... style, or it won't be near neutral at all. Kasaalan (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Also focusing more on magazine subject and ignoring other more serious claims in the book also shouldn't be an option. Someone may spend some time to add more of the claims presented in the anti David Duke book, which are more serious. But again in a neutral tone, not presenting it like it is proven in court or any other fact style. Kasaalan (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with the fact that he wrote the book. I 'am' disagreeing with the portion related to illicit sexual reference. If the book is out of print, and you cannot point to a online copy, photocopy, or any other form of valid evidence, then the reference is heresy. Let us take a scientific point of view and say that unless you have empirical evidence of the illicit content, it should not be listed. I believe my stance is just and valid. Just because someone, or some group claims it to be true, does not make it so. Provide empirical evidence from the original publisher or leave the defamation out. I will remove the reference again until such a time that verifiable proof surfaces. Dmess0r (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
No, your position is not valid or justified. We have reliable sources which say the book exists and which characterize its contents. That's sufficient. In fact, it's better than seeing the contents ourselves. I've restored the material.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#David Duke - Finders-Keepers - Is a primary source required? for more information, including links to scans of the relevent books.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have performed the research myself, updated WP:RSN#David Duke - Finders-Keepers - Is a primary source required? and contacted Patsy Sims at Goucher College. I recant my earlier statement in the belief that he wrote the book in question. I have performed significantly more research, and while I concede that a book containing the selected passages may have existed at one time, whether or not this book was circulated, and the real identity of "James Konrad" and "Dorothy Vanderbilt" remains to be seen. There still is not adequate proof that David was indeed the author, wholly or in part. As you very well know, encyclopedic content must adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability; no pertinent "facts" have been verifiable by me. --Dmess0r (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is verifiable using reliable sources. We have two university press books that confirm it. You're just being disruptive at this point.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive in any way, shape or form. I simply believe that information which could be potentially damaging to a person's reputation shouldn't be taken lightly. I am merely trying to validate the information for myself and for the good of the community from a non-bias perspective. If you read back through many of the posts in the Talk section here, many of them could be construed as aggressive or biased. I apologize if my actions are disruptive to you, but this matter shouldn't be taken lightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmess0r (talkcontribs) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just as it is wrong to spread negative falsehoods about a person to damage his character, it is equally wrong to spread positive falsehoods about a person to whitewash his character, as to paint a portrait that is not real. Rock8591 (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussion fully, the address is if anyone likes to read The allegations are repeated by many parties, we should include the allegations unless someone proves allegations are false However, the allegations are serious, and per living person guidelines, we should add allegations as ... claimed by ... style. I cannot understand why both parties discussing for so long, while such a clear and reliable solution of neutralising exists and would solve the BLP issues. Also editors shouldn't accuse each other, while there is a controversial case and talking about facts. The objecting user has some serious points and reasonable doubts, however we cannot ignore neither the serious allegations by multiple parties, nor the allegations about a living person which are not strictly proven yet. If you cannot compromise, I will try neutralising the claims myself, after I read relevant discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I neutralized the claims, added detail created subtitles [30] anyone objects may discuss here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Edited a bit more [31] so fully neutralized while more details and categorised, instead arguing for that long, both parties could have fixed the matters easily before I do. Kasaalan (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Just sticking the word "claims" into the article willy-nilly does not, in fact "neutralize" the reporting. If any good source on this, most especially Duke himself, wants to contradict what's been reported as fact, we should definitely include it. Until that time, slanting the section so that it looks like the reporting may not be true is, at the very least, OR. IronDuke 14:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You talk but you doesn't make sense. I don't even understand what you mean fully. discussions about sources
There are 3 books claiming he wrote a book which contains advises. Only 1 provides a source (a photocopy provided by another party) while 2 other books doesn't even cite any reference. A photocopy is never a legally trusted document type in any way, and can easily be manipulated. However I do not personally assume or argue, Professor or provider did any photo manipulation over the photocopy, yet a photocopy is never counted as evidence. On the other hand you can't ignore such claim by 3 different published parties (though I suspect 2 of the parties haven't read the book, and possibly quotes from professor). The claims in the article fully neutralized and fully acceptable per Biographies of Living Persons, academic, legal or journalism standards.
The paragraph is neutralized as it supposed to be, I applied Wiki Guidelines not personal Original guidelines. Kasaalan (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect, and I'm not sure how to make it any plainer. You seem to be taking issue with whether the reliable sources in question conducted adequate research; you are entitled to your opinion, and may feel free to write to these sources expressing your concerns--indeed, I encourage you to do so. However, in a battle of your opinion versus multiple reliable sources, your opinion must lose on WP (just as mine would). AFAIK, no one is disputing this but you -- which makes this a textbook case of OR. IronDuke 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your objections are OR in the first place, and your English is complicated
Your edit [32] was extremely weak over
You removed James Konrad from his alias, while keeping Dorothy Vanderbilt
You removed subtitle of the book
You removed publisher info
You removed claiming parties' names
You removed "claim" word
which indicates you didn't researched the case enough if you read the discussions and professor's answers you can easily tell only source is a photocopy which is not a reliable source academically or legally, that is a fact nothing to be discussed about
You are wrong about noone's arguing but me. 3 other editors (they might be supporters of Duke or not) adressed their concerns about source for removing claims, others objected yet didn't provide any source but photocopy by professor, which indicates only source for claims is claimed photocopy of the book, provided by another party to him.
Giving a claim with the word claim is not OR, and strictly should be used per BLP, against any possible legal cases and most of all presenting claims as claims not straight facts. Giving out factual details are not OR either. Personally I assume the photocopy is possibly intact, however personal assumptions are no proof by any means. Without a scan from the real copy of the book, noone's word is reliable enough to add into wikipedia, as a straight fact without "claimed by ..." in the sentence. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Say is also fine. Wikipedia:WTA#Claim. Kasaalan (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You write above that you haven’t read this discussion fully. I really think you should.

People who think there is enough proof that we can plainly suggest Duke wrote the book, and that it says what these authors say it says:

  • IronDuke
  • Paul B
  • Will BeBack
  • Protonk
  • Stephan Shulz
  • Peregrine Fisher
  • Bureaucracy

People who think we should treat these sources as possibly being not true:

  • One obvious throwaway sock named Dmess0r

And Professor Powell does have access to the real book, which he made a scan of, which you can now download for yourself. Or.. does he merely claim to have access?

Consensus is hugely against you here, and I’ve tried to make it as clear as I can as to why. Please stop attempting to reinsert the weasel word. IronDuke 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus against me. The discussion is about whether removing the claims or not from the article. I am supporter of inclusion of claims in the first place. However without mentioning claimer parties name's you can't add claims like facts into articles just as you like.
I can count thanks, however it is not about voting and I didn't read any proof by supporter parties there but Ordinary Person providing the online access to the photocopy provided by professor which he provided via another party.
3-4 editors commented there, I can't imply if someone has double account or not without any proof. They may also be a bunch of Duke fans, and I don't care what Duke or its fans or haters say about the case much unless they make sense or proves their claims.
I implied you didn't read the discussion fully. Since your edit [33] was extremely weak over which removes crucial details. If you read possibly you didn't realize there is no source but a photocopy if I am not mistaken.
It is not about thinking or guessing, if it were you may add me to the list, it is about facts. I just neutralized by giving details and claimer parties' names before the claims, unlike presenting them as solid reality proven legally.
I downloaded the professor's "scan" which is clearly from a bad photocopy and not from a color scan. Kasaalan (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you can count, my question was if you did count. And again, I wonder if you read the discussion in full. From Powell's email as quoted by User:Ordinary Person:

"I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University."

Where did you get the idea Powell didn't have an original of the book? Not, by the way, that it makes a particle of difference. I see no one here but you trying to weasel word the idea that Duke didn't write this book into the article. I think you should stop. IronDuke 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Instead accusing me or focusing on magazine details, you can help me add some detail and real criticism into the section.
My mistake on interpreting that part. Now I agree, if patsy sims obtains the original copy of the book, and professor says he photocopied from it. Yet I will note the online scans he provided are a very bad photocopy, that is the main reason of confusion. He could provide a good quality color scan in the first place, it is not my fault his provided scan is a bad and dark photocopy and not an original colorful scan. Kasaalan (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded accusatory; that would certainly have been unintentional. And I'm happy to help on the crit section. What do you feel needs to be done? IronDuke 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is no major criticism is added per his KKK days. Plagiarism is fine, however the books about his KKK days tells more. I can't read and research much right now about Duke, yet if you may add some real criticism per the links I added at plastic surgery and critic publication sections, I can expand it further. If you have no time, I can add later.
Also articles like Aryan Brotherhood, racial realism-variated, Scientology-like or intelligent design-based needs further yet RS criticism. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


The article was missing a criticism section. I tried to collect criticism under criticism title, and added plastic surgery claims. Should we keep it this way or previous version of the article is better. Kasaalan (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I also moved long electoral history records to Electoral history of David Duke if everyone agrees. Kasaalan (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you find criticism section is needed or unneeded. If you not agree criticism section is required, you may remove criticism title leaving the content. Kasaalan (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

White Nationalist vs. White Supremacist

White Supremacism means that you want Whites to rule over all other races and consider Whites superior. White Nationalism means that you want Whites to live separated from non-Whites. This is similar to White Separatism. definition is (taken from The White Nationalist Premise):

The premise behind White Nationalism is quite simple.
 Including more than one race in a single country produces conflict.
 The moral thing to do in such cases is to reduce conflict by giving each race its own nation.
 Egalitarianism and integrationism are moral contrivances of elites wishing to maintain governmental power and low wage rates.

This clearly conflicts White supremacism.

Until someone can find a good source where he states his support for the ideas of White Supremacism, he must be considered a White Nationalist as those are the views he expresses in My Awakening. He is also a member of [ Stormfront] which is a White nationalist site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) fixed link to stormfront93.46.97.29 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet commentary

Some of the material in the stormfront section seems unrelated to that org, perhaps a new heading is needed?Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Life

As an American who has lived and studied in Austria, In the interest of accuracy, allegations that David Duke "lives in Austria" are patently false. They are based on the allegations of a leftist Austrian politician hoping to make some political capital and publicity. Because this allegation has been posted in the press, and then read and copied by others does not make it true. Here are the facts that demonstrate this "Recent Life" entry is completely false.

Before I state the facts concerning Austria. One can easily scan the press and see that David Duke over the past year has been in many European nations for extended stays for teaching, lectures and the like. Among other nations, it can be shown that David Duke has been in Russia, Czech Republic, Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Austria. In addition, it can be shown that he made many media and personal appearances in the United States at numerous times during the year, including holding his national EURO convention in Memphis. The fact that David Duke has visited Austria for a short period does not in any way prove or suggest that he "lives" in that country.

The article uses three citations to allege that David Duke is living in Austria. It begins by saying "As of 2009, David Duke was registered as living in Austria."

In fact, every tourist who visits Austria must be registered, whether by his hotel or if visiting a friends home, through the local government if he stays longer than 3 days!

So saying that someone (David Duke) is living in Austria because he has been registered as a visitor is quite ridiculous. A true resident is one who has a resident visa. To stay more than 3 months in Austria, an American must have a residence visa which are valid for one year or more.

Absolutely no one has alleged that David Duke has an Austrian Residence visa, so the allegation he lives there, based on the idea that Austria is his residence is quite silly. Moreover the citations used to support that he "lives in Austria" also point out that The Austrian police who have looked quite closely at David Duke's visit to Austria and have stated that "he hasn't broken any laws". So the same source that suggests he lives in Austria shows that David Duke could not be "living in Austria" because if he was actually stayed longer than the 3 months rule, he would be arrested for immigration violations, and the immigration and federal police have already planly stated that he has broken no laws.

In fact, David Duke has been for the last four months in the United States, and he has traveled across the country giving speeches and holding meetings. You can see a record of those speeches from many publications. He maintains his home and his office in Mandeville, LA. And he pays state, local and Federal taxes as resident of the United States.

There are plenty of references and evidence of his stay in America on his website and from other publications. That combined with fact that not a piece of hard evidence was presented by anyone that he is a resident of Austria, speaks to the fact that this entry in false and should be deleted.

I am not here to argue pro or con the merits or demerits of David Duke, but Wikipedia if it is truly going to be a valid source of information, must as its charter says, be neutral and factual. Whether or not rumors appear in a publication and then other publications quote the original rumor, does not lend to the validity of a fact. This section should be deleted unless supplanted by new and direct evidence that David Duke does in fact make his home in Austria rather than the United States or any other country. It has also been reported in the press that David Duke spends most of his time in Italy while in Europe, and we know and have documented his teaching of courses in Eastern Europe.

I hope an administrator will correct this inaccuracy.

accurateman 11/19/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateman (talkcontribs) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several relaible sources that describe the subject as a resident of Austria. American Free Press is a relatively dubious source. I'm going to restore the previous material, and add that Duke makes a different assertion.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering how "Accurateman" knows where Duke pays taxes.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)