Jump to content

Talk:David Duke/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

i just want it put on a page like David Duke, westboro baptist church, and Nazi that they are apart of hate groups cause they are if your going to give a history or let a history of people like this be know to the world it should be stated that they are apart of hate groups

Siesagen (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

link title

The Secret Behind Communism

In 2013 Duke released his 4th book, 'The Secret Behind Communism', which discusses the apparent Jewish influence behind Bolshevism. It has been discussed in the Jewish Community Newsletter.[1]

How do you search the internet with a search string or something for stuff that would be acceptable for Wikipedia as sources?

We can probably state what the ADL says but we can't add commentary about it. There is no the "Jewish Community Newsletter", there are numerous such newsletters and they are generally pretty trivial, hence the word "community" which refers to geographical location in this instance. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivialities

Isn't there too much detail of trivialities, such as recounting Duke walking up the congress aisle, etc. There is little of relevance here, and the aim seems rather to belittle and trivialize the man.101.98.175.68 (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Alleged plastic surgery

It's untrue that Duke had plastic surgery. From his book 'My Awakening' chapter 38

"The fact that I repaired my nose that had been severely broken on several occasions, became a 'face lift' and 'plastic surgery' to 'make me look more Aryan.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.229.4 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Residence

The source used for his listed residence (Mandeville, LA) is his Twitter profile, which is a self-published source and thus not reliable. As a primary source, it isn't necessarily a problem for this type of information, but interpreting it as being his "claimed" or "alleged" residence is original research and violates WP:BLP unless there is a verifiable secondary source that asserts otherwise, and then it should be removed from the infobox entirely without qualification. So, if editors wish to keep it in based on his Twitter profile, it should be stated as is. Otherwise, if insisting it is his "claimed" residence, remove it entirely. Laval (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged plastic surgery is incorrect - please remove text.

It's untrue that Duke had plastic surgery out of whim. From his book 'My Awakening' chapter 38

"The fact that I repaired my nose that had been severely broken on several occasions, became a 'face lift' and 'plastic surgery' to 'make me look more Aryan.'"80.6.70.42 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

he has a doctorate

So why is there a section that tries to discredit him regarding his education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltik316 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's from "one of the most persistent anti-Semitic institutions in Eastern Europe." That's not trivial and needs to be mentioned. It's probably the only place that would have accepted his thesis, and certainly not a coincidence that he got his degree from them. Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Far right politician?

How is Dr. Duke a far right politician? Most of the the right wingers in America support Israel, whereas Duke points out how that is bad for America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.214.80 (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a non sequitor. Anders Behring Breivik also supports Israel. Being right-wing doesn't prevent that. Doug Weller (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on David Duke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on David Duke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm the family and personal life section

There is a redundant repetition:

no less than 500 feet (150 m) feet from the ground.

The second 'feet' is unnecessary. Kyrillic (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The sentence stating that Duke "opposes what he considers to be 'promotion of homosexuality' by Jews" should not be in the lead; per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Nothing about Duke's views concerning homosexuality appears anywhere in the main body of the article. I think the homosexuality reference should be shifted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree based on the absence of relevant content within the article. If material could be added that addresses this sentence and is cited, would that correct the issue? 108.38.29.47 (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

This sentence needs a citation if it is to remain. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If you read the article, you'll see it states that, "Duke made a number of statements supporting Zündel and his Holocaust denial campaign" - and that has several citations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I did read that, and supporting Zundel does not make someone a Holocaust denier. It means that someone supports freedom of speech. One does not have to endorse the views of another in order to believe they have a right to hold and articulate them in public free of unwarranted political persecution. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Supporting someone's Holocaust denial campaign is decidedly not the same thing as supporting freedom of speech. It means denying the Holocaust. If the statements in the article stating that Duke supported Zündel and his Holocaust denial campaign are properly cited, then there is no need for any additional citations in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No, you are wrong about that. I may disagree with Bernie Sanders but if he there were ever attempts to muzzle him at his own rallies like is being done to Donald Trump, I would speak against those efforts. That does not mean that I support Sanders, only that I value his right to speak freely. The same is true with David Duke and his support of Zundel. It may be possible that Duke is sympathetic to Zundel's views about the Holocaust, but if he is then a citation is required in the lead which supports its assertion. The citation within the article body only show that Duke was advocating for the free speech rights of Zundel, not that he embraced the claims made by him. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The sources in the Zundel section specifically call Duke, not just Zundel, a Holocaust denier. This isn't about "protecting other's freedom of speech".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator I agree. I also don't think you are going to get anywhere with this IP. Ironic that he/she is arguing about sources while at White Separatism they are trying to use a source that doesn't back the text. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hate speech

Re: Stormfront section: Characterizations of a website's subject matter should be confined to words with agreed-upon definitions. The term "hate speech" always carries a political bias with it. It is a term thet the left applies to any speech which it dislikes. It does not belong in an encyclopedic entry purporting to be in any way objective. Orthotox (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a subjective viewpoint. :) We go by what the sources say. And your comments are a slur against conservatives and those in the center who you seem to think saying that Jews/blacks/Muslims etc should be killed/sent back where they came from etc. It is probably true that those on the right who hates hose who are different object to the term. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Duke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Austrian residency

I removed a mostly unsourced and irrelevant paragraph about "allegations" of residency (it sounds like living in Austria is a crime). The reasons are undue weight and WP:ALIVE, specifically the part about gossip. Best regards --hroest 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should Duke's denial that his book "Jewish Supremacism" was motivated by Anti-Judaism be written as if it were believable

This article states "The ADL refer to the book [Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question] as antisemitic, though Duke had denied the book is motivated by antisemitism." Should Duke's denial of the obvious fact that the book was motivated by Anti-Judaism be printed along with the ADL's obviously correct statement that it was, as if his denial were believable? I usually don't agree with the ADL but I think nothing could be more obvious than that they were correct in this case. Duke's writings about Jews are much more hateful and inflammatory than most Anti-Jewish writings, for example if you compare his writings to those of Henry Ford, Mark Weber and Kevin MacDonald, you will see that they have a much more extreme tone to them. So I don't think both versions of the book's motivation should be given equal weight. If we look at how reliable secondary sources describe the book, I'm sure we will see that they, as a consensus, describe it as motivated by Anti-Judaism, and we should then note that not only the ADL but the majority of reliable secondary sources see the book as motivated by Anti-Judaism. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question be merged into David Duke. Reason is, this self-published book, received no reviews in reliable sources. It is discussed in a modest number of reliable sources as a small part of the discussion of Duke's racism. Moving to the section that already exists on page David Duke seems to place this book more usefully in the context of Duke's life and thought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

David duke artical wrong

The David duke article has been altered to show that David duke was a member of the republican party. Um no he was a member of the democrat Bubanic25 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Political ties are not set in stone. He was a Democrat from 1975–1988, a Populist from 1988–1989, a Republican from 1989–1999, and a member of the Reform party from 1999–2001. When he was in the Louisiana House of Representatives, he was a Republican. It's all detailed and sourced in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Duke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Today's edits

Duke is a very minor politician, and I've reverted a change in the hatnote that suggested that he was best known as a politician.

I'm happy to discuss where 'felon' should be. Doug Weller talk 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

He is a current political candidate for the US Senate, so I think politician is probably best. "White nationalist" doesn't do him very much good, especially in light of his recent bid. 'Felon' is already in the article elsewhere, it is incredibly inappropriate in the lede. If anybody else was a felon, without their felony being descriptive of who they are (murderer, etc.), they wouldn't have that in their lede, I don't see why David Duke is any different. DoomLexus (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I took the "felon" out before reading this as I thought it was a little "ner-ner" and possibly an unfamiliar term to British English speakers (they probably know the word but not the nuanced meaning). In the process I think it has become the kind of passing mention that fits in the lead. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Duke is, among other things, a felon, is important information that arguably should be in the lead. The fact that it is not his essential defining characteristic is not necessarily a reason for excluding that information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, he's a very minor politician. In a few weeks time he will no longer be running for office. Our article is not here to do him good in his campaign. He's best known for his views on race. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like you've responded to the wrong person, but I agree with you now that white nationalist should stay in the hatnote. DoomLexus (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"that's what he's notable for"

I removed "antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier" from the lede. Their inclusion seems to just be an effort to attack and discredit a guy who frankly needs no attacking or discrediting, he's famous for his shenanigans anyway. I was reverted because 'that's what he's notable for.' The article includes next to nothing on either of these. There is a quoted accusation that one project he's involved in is a 'smokescreen' for antisemitic conspiracy theories and it's sourced that he supports a holocaust denier and that Stormfront engages in holocaust denial -- neither of which even directly say that he is a holocaust denier (I'm not saying he isn't, it wouldn't surprise me, but there is nothing about it in the article). If he's notable as a "antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier" this article is doing a terrible job of describing why he's notable for those things. I would again suggest they be removed from the lede. 50m race walk (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you really going to make me file an WP:SPI report? How about you go edit some non-controversial articles, and I will pretend that you're not a sockpuppet of a user who got indef banned for harassment? Deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
In your own words: "Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks. On other editors. Read WP:NPA." Please discuss content. 50m race walk (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
See WP:BANREVERT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the revert was not harassment. The revert was because your revert didn't make sense. The fact that you're a sockpuppet of an indef banned user just means that your edits can be reverted automatically.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
A disingenuous handwave claim of 'didn't make sense' is not a valid reason to revert. I have explained in detail why I made the edit. 50m race walk (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted you. I agree we need to add more sources, but they are easy to find. Did you look? Doug Weller talk 06:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not my job to find sources. And a source simply saying he is a holocaust denier or conspiracy theorist would not justify those being at the top of the lede. This is a BLP, we need strong justification to include disparaging accusations alongside his profession. 50m race walk (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I see you find sources when you want too. Why wouldn't you want to look for sources. I admit I can't work on this for at least 10 hours, how about trying? Doug Weller talk 06:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on sources. And this source makes very clear that Duke denies the holocaust. The Banner talk 07:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. Just because a fact is sourced doesn't mean it merits being listed among his professions in the first sentence of the lede. 50m race walk (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I realize this is David Duke so it's easy to not care if he's being disparaged but this is still an encyclopedia. Something like this wouldn't even be allowed in Donald Trump's lede. The article doesn't even talk about his holocaust denial or conspiracy theories yet they are so central to who this guy is that they deserve to be alongside his professions in the lede? They are just there to attack him and it makes Wikipedia look biased. Let's try for some neutrality. 50m race walk (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Profession? Our article on that describes it as "A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain." Your version of the lead had him as " American white nationalist, politician, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan". He isn't a "professional politician" or a professional "Grand Wizard of the KKK" - - although that seems to be part of what you mean by professions if I go by your edit, but if we leave that out he's a professional white nationalist. What I suspect you mean is how he makes his living. And that's by being a white nationalist, holocaust denier, etc. And yes, he may have received income from supporters in his various races for office, that's how he got into trouble in the past. But we aren't trying to describe how he gets his income and in fact I doubt that we can, we are trying to describe Duke the person. The 'professions' bit is a red herring. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is a term for the elements of the first sentence in the lede, I don't know it. I chose profession as an imprecise proxy and hoped you would apply the Principle of Charity. The first sentence in the lede lists things like nationality and profession and whatever you want to call things like 'white nationalist' and 'politician'. Being a white nationalist and a politician are the #1 and #2 things he is notable for. The article and sources reflect that. Those belong in that sentence. His being a holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist are not even important enough to be mentioned in the article. WP:UNDUE clearly tells us they don't belong in the first sentence of the lede. 50m race walk (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
At the very least "Holocaaust denier" and "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" could be combined, especially when antisemitic CT links to a passage which states "Holocaust denial is considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." Zaostao (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not a one to one mapping. "Holocaust denial" is a subset of "antisemitic conspiracy theory". There are antisemitic conspiracy theories which aren't about the Holocaust. This makes it explicit. And *of course* these are important enough to be mentioned in the article and the lede. It's what he's known for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It's what he is known for yet it's not even mentioned in the article? That sounds like original research. 50m race walk (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You say "His being a holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist are not even important enough to be mentioned in the article" In fact you say it twice. Did you really miss the statements "his worldview: the Holocaust was a myth" and "Duke made a number of statements supporting Zündel and his Holocaust denial campaign"? Did you miss the bit about his statements concerning 9/11, ie pushing a Jewish conspiracy theory? Doug Weller talk 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not see those. Having seen them, I still don't think they merit inclusion in the first sentence per WP:WEIGHT. I'm clearly not going to win this, so I'll do what I'm supposed to do and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Best of luck with your smear campaign. Maybe someday we'll get an actual, neutral encyclopedia. 50m race walk (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Duke`s main activity today is holocaust denial and as a result he is banned from most of Western Europe. Here is a link to his bio on the SPLC website. Duke of course has taken different positions during his career. He famously dropped his neo-nazism for example when he was a serious candidate for political office, only to return to it afterward. TFD (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd say he's most well known for his political campaigns. Many sources highlight his KKK past in the title but how many have "conspiracy theorist"? Most of his recent coverage is because of his Senate campaign and Trump. I agree with removing "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" from the lede. I have no opinion on whether or not that is wp:true but I do think it's undue. ZN3ukct (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if the SPLC can be considered a reliable source. An organizations "Extremist Files" (that's where Duke's "bio" is) isn't the ideal model to base a neutral encyclopedia article off of IMO. ZN3ukct (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The SPLC is a reliable source. Calling Duke anything other than an extremist would be euphemistic, which is far less neutral than just describing him in plain language. His association with racist ideologies and conspiracy theories are what he's primarily known for according to an overwhelming number of sources, and many sources specifically say that his candidacies are a way to draw attention to those positions. Grayfell (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No Proof for Any of It

There is no proof for Duke's alleged Christianity, however, there is proof that he is not. The Imperial Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is not a Christian title, rather it is of the occult. Furthermore, "Knights" are always Catholic. Then these Knights are into the occult, like the Templars are / were.

This bio is incomplete without his parents names, so that we don't even know who he is.207.119.117.78 (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The KKK is a Protestant organization with fiercely anti-Catholic views. That's what reliable sources say, and that's the only kind of proof Wikipedia uses. The article lists his parents' names. Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It's silly to say "Knights are always Catholic". There a lot of Protestant Knights in the UK. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Given that their only other edit was to another talk page to say that Winthrop Rockefeller was Bill Clinton's father, clearly a troll. Blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with Duke's bio? As far as I know the main message of his agenda is not so much about religion but primarily about protecting, i.e. "shielding", (his) "European Peoples Traditional Values" from a "variety" of immoral influences. Obviously, what these influences are and how immoral, is a whole different discussion. But debating a person's "Christianity" is -mildly put- not our business. No? Signed November 9, 2016 by "Χωρίς Όνομα" [XwpisONOMA(at)gMail(dot)com].

Not Registered to Vote in Louisiana? Original Research

The statement has reference [30] which is unrelated and dates 2014. The allegation is of 2015. It is slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.237.212 (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Someone forgot to update the access date. I've done that and added today's date - oh, and a quote from Duke saying he isn't registered to vote - that's from January. Doug Weller (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone is registered to vote (or not) is of little importance to this article. Yet it is brought up by people so often in public discourse that raises serious questions about their motives. For those who are not aware, a citizen of the USA, that shows up at a polling precinct, and is able to provide two acceptable forms of ID (at least one must be a photo) and proof of current address, is allowed to register (on the spot) and vote. The process takes only a few minutes. So, what REALLY matters, is if someone is an active voter, e.g. if s/he is actively participating in the democratic process. I feel the entry about Duke (allegedly or factually) not being registered is dubious, unnecessary and ultimately, irrelevant, thus is should be removed. Signed November 9, 2016 by "Χωρίς Όνομα" [XwpisONOMA(at)gMail(dot)com].

Did you read the article? There's nothing in the article now about this. It was Duke himself who mentioned it in an interview, and I see no reason to think he was wrong. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of White Nationalist

A White Nationalist is a person who adheres to ideas of White Nationalism, not just someone who is both a nationalist and white. White people is also capitalized when used as an ethnic label and not just a color descriptor. We dont include skin color in the definition sentences of biographic articles so unless it is capitalized it doesnt belong in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The term "white nationalist" is not capitalised anywhere in the white nationalism article. Of course it doesn't just mean someone who is a nationalist and white, but that meaning does not change as to whether the term is capitalised. Unless you can give me a reliable source which indicates that the term should be capitalised, then it should stay as it is. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, this seems like a discussion that's more appropriate for the white nationalism talk page. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is so rife with anti-Duke bias, it is questionable why some of you debate such a minor point as the capitalization of "white nationalist". What matters is that the provided sources are unacceptable: First, the ADL (reference #5) is not a reliable source to provide a fair assessment for David Duke. Second, I would prefer to see, in footnote #4, the exact location (chapter, page, etc) in Duke's book, where he uses the term "white nationalist" as a clear description, a title if you will, of himself. Currently ref. #4 only mentions a book by Duke but "conveniently" the link is dead. Interestingly enough, ADL's website dedicated a rather old (January 1999) article on this book, where the terms "white nationalist" or "nationalist" do NOT come up. The term "white" does come up 8 times but never as directly quoted by Duke and always as ADL's criticism on his rhetoric. Clearly, we are talking about an ADL POV and not a generally accepted fact. Certainly "white nationalist" is NOT a self-proclamation by Duke himself, thus this element should be either properly supported or removed from this wikipedia article altogether. Signed, November 9, 2016 by "Χωρίς Όνομα" [XwpisONOMA(at)gMail(dot)com]

I'm not sure why we don't use the phrase "white supremacist" as a number of sources do. The ADL (ah, you did read the article) is a good source. Are you really saying that a source that is Jewish shouldn't be used in this article? Doug Weller talk 16:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

KKK Evidence

Where is the evidence that he is still connected to the KKK? If none can be provided then the article will remain as it is without the biased introduction. The Unbeholden (talk)

The comparison you make with Robert Byrd is a favorite tactic of the alt-right, who completely forget that Byrd is on record for later disowning the KKK and telling people not to join it. You have provided no evidence that Duke has disowned the KKK. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://davidduke.com/jewish-supremacists-attack-dr-dukes-latest-book-before-it-is-even-printed/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Duke/Archive_4&oldid=1027144415"