Talk:David Duke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] White Haven ???

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Removed photo

I removed the photograph per the policy in Wikipedia talk:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote#My_own_view 141.154.234.76 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I removed two lines directly related to vandalism of the article. I may not like Duke either, but there's no excuse for anyone playing the child here. Carajou 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

It is rather disappointing when a top Wikipedian and someone who has administrator access can feign a neutral point by engaging in an argumentum ad hominem. This is a grave disservice to free inquiry and intellectual debate. Only the content and significance of writings (and thus ideas) should be debated. Speculating on the motivations of why someone thought of an idea or wrote a particular book is what leads us down the dangerous path of dismissing ideas out of hand, simply because you don't care for the motivations of the person who thought of them.

The problem is, those motivations are often imaginary.

I realize David Duke is a controverial figure, but it is this sort of behavior that plays right into the hands of his radical opponents. This particular book is in many ways a trick, for people just like Infro. The book he wrote is not at all a discussion of any Jewish plot to control the world, but the title would certainly lead one to think that way. What Infro has proven here is that the seeds of censorship are already sown in this country, and people are willing and able to "review" books without ever having read them purely based on their opinion of the author.

Hitler did this with communist writings. Perhaps Infro wants this booked burned as well?

Oooh, aligations of "censorship" and implications of book burning! Please, anon, if you have a problem with one of my (or anyone else's) edits, discuss the substance of the edit, why you object, and how you think it might be improved. Don't rush to personal attacks and insinuations if you wish to be accepted as a serious contributor here. -- Infrogmation 19:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see why I should grant to you the same benefit of the doubt you failed to give me. Secondly, the issue here is NOT the pure substance of the edit but the implicit problem I have with ANY article on Wikipedia discussing the "motivations" behind an author. This is the issue you so gleefully sidestep. Replacing a factual description of a book with a discussion of the author's motivations has no valid defense, and I will discuss the author's motivations if and when you can explain why such discussion should be allowed on Wikipedia. Ultimately, what I wrote was factual, accurate, and informative of a particular book that offered no value judgment of the contents of that book. The simple fact you removed it and instead replaced it with your made up discussion about "motivations" and a "Jewish Plot" indicates that you are an intellectually dishonest person. You A) lied and B) engaged in a serious and egregarious logical fallacy (the aforementioned argumentum ad hominem). Why should I treat such nonsense as serious?

That is not serious writing. That is the writing of a dilettante who is more beholden to his ideals than the truth. My sincerest apologies if I cannot restrain my shock that a top contributer to WIkipedia is as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as you are.

Sheesh. My opinion is that I am not the one engaging in ad hominem in this discussion. -- Infrogmation 20:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"egregarious"--hee! "by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitartus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum..."24.215.179.72 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you

Are we sure the date of birth is correct? I'm pretty sure he was born on July 1st. User:Pimpalicious

[edit] Supremacist or nationalist

Who are you to determine fact from fiction? The general public considers the NAACP and ADL to be civil rights organizations. David Duke is regarded as a racist by most and even the US Government has investigated his actions as a domestic terrorist along with federal tax evasion.

205.188.116.74 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to refer to Duke as a White power or perhaps White nationalist advocate, not a white supremacist. He doesn't use "supremacist" to refer to himself. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't limited to describing people in the way that they describe themselves. It's an encyclopædia, not 'Hello' magazine.
I made a large number of house-keeping edits, including spelling corrections, removal of a large number of duplicate links, etc. If any more people desperate to give Duke his fake title, and to pretend that he's not a white supremacist, wnat to clter the article, could they at least have the good manners to leave my edits in place?
Incidentally, what is this 'white nation', to which 'white nationalist' apparently refers? If I gave him the money, would Duke go and agitate there? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Bravo! (Duck Monster)

If you want a mention of David Duke being a white supremacist, cite someone calling him that, it shouldn't be very difficult to find. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that you accept my other points? Or do you not accept the Wikiquette guide's point about not ignoring questions? (Actually, I know the answer to that; I have a record of you admitting that you ignored my arguments and evidence because you knew that you were right.) To answer your question, a quick look at the external-links section finds the ADL profile referring to his start as the leader of a white supremacist organisation, and refers to his self-proclaimed forthcoming book 'The Ultimate Supremacism'. Do you really doubt that I can find a multitude of other, more direct, examples?

Let's try another question: on what grounds are you assigning Duke a doctorate?

And another: if, as you claim, you don't sympathise with racists, why do I never come across a debate like this one i which you're not defending racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the like? If it's a mere matter of principle, why don't I ever find you defending civil-rights activists, anti-racists, communists, etc? I only ask because I want to know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree w your second point in theory, the third was a joke, yes? If you think the ADL is a good source, put a quote from them calling him a supremacist in the article. Why do you think I am assigning duke a doctorate? And why are you unable to resist ad hominems and other fallacies? I of course reject your comments regarding my sympathies and methodology. I insist on neutrality. On the rare occasion I find an article biased against communism (I can't recollect that ever having happened), I will correct it of course. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What theory is involved in your agreement with my second point, and what is the practice that (you imply) leads you to disagree?

The third point was in part a joke; the serious part is that it's unclear what a 'white nationalist' is. If it's just a nationalist who's white, then that doesn't fit Duke's own claims; If it's someone arguing for a white nation, then my question stands.

Citations aren't needed for every claim, every use of an adjective, etc. There are sources given, which include the relevant evidence. And if you don't think that the ADL is a good source, please explain.

I've no idea why you're assigning Duke a doctorate; the only evidence I can see is that he received a diploma, which could mean anything. If you have evidence for your claim, pleae provide it (an external link will, of course do; then we can assess its reliability).

Given your own attacks on my (and others') integrity in, for example, your request for page protection on this article, this is at best a pot and kettle point. Note also that they're not ad hominem arguments. An ad hominem argument claims to disprove a proposition by showing that it conflicts with a particular person's other beliefs or actions, rather than by showing that it's wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, you wrote on the request-for-protection page that Mel didn't debate with you adequately (or at all) on Talk. Now he's doing that, and has asked you on what grounds you're assigning Duke a doctorate. You answered with: "Why do you think I am assigning duke a doctorate?" You can't expect people to debate with you if you won't address the issues they raise. Could you please explain on what grounds you say Duke has a doctorate? SlimVirgin 17:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I gave a reference for "white supremacist," which was the chapter from his book in which he talks at length about the superiority of the white race over the black race. He's also on record saying that blacks revert to their "genotype" whenever they are not exposed to white culture. It is not libel to call someone a white supremacist when he quite openly is one. It is not inherently demeaning to call someone a white supremacist either. Gazpacho 21:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does Duke have a doctorate from an accredited university? If not there is no need for us to call him Doctor. AndyL 18:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK according to this link a) it's an "honorary doctorate", it's not usual to address someone with an honourary doctorate as "Doctor" although you might put DLL or something after their name if it's an honourary doctorate of letters, for instance from a recognised university. b) his "doctorate" was awarded by an NGO, the "International Personnel Academy" which is not accredited. While we can refer to the circumstances and controversy around this award in the article I see no reason for us to refer to him as "Dr. Duke". AndyL 18:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (though the link is also useful for yet another description of Duke as a white supremacist). Shouldn't the claim about his receiving a diploma now be altered? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For a sharper insight into the nature of the Interregional Academy for Personnel Management, Google Vasily Yaremenko, one of its foremost 'Professors' - especially for this [2] and this [www.oag.ru/views/love.html]. Adjudicating on this former correspondence course outfit's status as a University should not be too difficult. Since accreditation can be debated, I assessed it along these lines: Who are its faculty members? What internationally recognized academic journals are its faculty members published in? What other accepted universities exchange faculty members or share research programmes with it? For a control, to take in to account Ukraine's relative isolation from Western society, compare and contrast with Kiev University [3]. Oh, and no university I've ever come across pays a newspaper to print its professor's implausible anti-Semitic rants as a full page ad. So, even calling it a diploma is generous, in my book. Adhib 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no argument on that (well, apart from the last part, perhaps); it was SS (and 67.176.87.85, SS 88,Adolf, NSM 88, et al.) who kept insisting that we shouldn't call Duke a white supremacist. I'm still not clear why. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On his own web site David Duke notes that a recent television show promotion (the O'Reilly Factor) identified him as a white supremacist. In response Dukes states that he is not a white supremacist. --AYArktos 22:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point, though. Saddam Hussein insists that he wasn't responsible for human-rights abuses; should Wikipedia therefore refrain from saying that he was (and giving references to back up the point)? A lot of articles are going to have to be seriously neutered if we have to stick to following what people say about themselves. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then cite them, or rewrite them. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Can anyone translate? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, Duke's refutation of the label "white supremacist" is also an acknowledgement by Duke that he has been labelled as such.

The New York Times week in review of 6 March is a discussion of the white supremacist movement by Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the article the virtual community Stormfront (online site) is discussed and is linked back to David Duke as being established by one of his former followers. I note the discussion does not label Duke as other than a "former Klan leader". Similarly the Southern Poverty Law Center's intelligence report on Duke does not label him as a white supremacist but notes he keeps company with others who they do label as such.

As a foreigner (Australian) I have no opinion or prejudice one way or the other concerning Duke. I am interested (curious) only in how the neutral point of view is dealt with in Wikipedia.

It seems from the NPOV examples page that if the article attributes who has labelled David Duke as a white supremacist, then it becomes no longer a matter of opinion but a fact. Thus had O'Reilly labelled Duke as a white supremacist, then he could be quoted as such. In fact the segment summary of the O'Reilly show refers to Duke as a former KKK Grand Wizard; O'Reilly's reference to Duke as a white supremacist must be elsewhere. Duke however, can be quoted as saying that others have labelled him as a white supremacist. It would be fair though to note at the same time that he refutes the attribution. --AYArktos 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with AyArktos. Have the quote in the article and then a quote from Mr. Duke that says he isn't. Well, words do get thrown around a lot. and a shame factor is used in the words to make people fear the word and its connotations. Using the label "white supremacist" is a smear tactic that Pat Buchanan has been troubled with. I believe everbody is a racist at heart and everybody is an ethnic supremacist; it is natural to man. In my opinion everyone is their own ethnic supremacist.WHEELER 19:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with citing both POV's. Thats what Wikipedia:Cite your sources and NPOV are all about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general principle, it is perhaps better to written things like, "Duke has stated that Whites are superior to Blacks" or "Duke has expressed views associated with white supremacy", or even "Duke is a leader in the white supremacy movement," rather than flat out labelling him a white supremacist. Whichever, sources are still needed, as always. -Willmcw 19:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

There's a trend within the white-supremacist community to abandon the term "supremacist" because of the negative connotations, just as Holocaust deniers try to call themselves revisionists. Giving in to that attempted whitewash, so to speak, is POV. Also, it isn't clear what a "white nationalist" is, as there is no white nation, so to begin with "David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a White nationalist politician in the United States," is quite confusing. Also, is it true that he's a politician, as he can no longer run for office, I believe. I'd say political activist. And is it correct to capitalize White?

How about: David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a political activist in the United States, part of the White-nationalist movement, and widely regarded as a White supremacist. He is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States." SlimVirgin 20:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite reconcile the first of these two paragraphs with the second, SlimVirgin. Your suggestion is OK except that, whatever his apologists say, we have references that describe him as a white supremacist, almost everything that he's done and says shows him to a white supremacist — let's stick our necks out and call im a white supremacist (especially as 'white nationalist' is only nonsensical weasel-speak for 'white supremacist'). As for someone's (I forget whose) comment that we should describe the views, not the man — I don't follow; this is an article on the man. Besides, why should we describe the views if they weren't the man's?

Oh, one other thing. I don't really see that being Australian is incompatible with having a view concerning Duke (or on white supremacism in general). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree and would prefer white supremacist. I was trying to find a compromise because Willmcw has also expressed concern about calling him a white supremacist, as opposed to simply describing his views. Myself, I have no problem with using the label.

Will and I had this problem at the LaRouche articles: whether it was okay to call LaRouche a conspiracy theorist, with the LaRouche editors opposed. In the end, we had to compromise with "theorist of conspiracies." How about supremacist of whites, Will? ;-) I worry about the phrase "white nationalist" because it's meaningless: a term made up by the white-supremacist movement, and therefore perhaps POV of us to adopt it. SlimVirgin 21:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

But 'white supremacist' does describe his views (what else does it do? Well, it tells us something about the man, his mind, and probably the size of one of his organs, but that's part of the sense, not the reference). Does Willmcw want to describe Duke's views while somehow keeping them undescribed (how about 'Duke is a wh**te su***m**ist')?

Still, at least our vandal's latest User name has been indefinitely banned. I wonder what his next childish code word for 'Nazi' will be? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Supremacist of whites?" Sounds good to me! ;) But seriously, the terms "supremacist", "separatist", and "nationalist" all overlap so much as to be virtually synonymous. I don't believe that anyone calls themself a "white supremacist", just like no one calls themself a "racist" though a few will admit to being "racialists" (and what was the difference between them again?). I think that we don't need to use any of these terms in the first paragraph, but later in the bio it is necessary to investigate Duke's beliefs, words, and actions. To Mel, my point is that in bios we should not say, "Joe Schmoe was one of the most interesting people in the 20th Century", instead we should say, "Joe Schmoe was elected to the baseball hall of fame, landed on the moon, and won the hot dog eating contest." In other words, show readers how Duke is a white supremacist rather than just labelling him. It is not incorrect, IMO, to label Duke as a white supremacist, but it may not be the best way to begin an NPOV bio. -Willmcw 22:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

PS - do we still need to keep the page protected? -Willmcw 22:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

'Nationalist' makes sense only if we're talking about a nation; 'separatist' makes sense only if we're talking about a would-be (or quondam) nation; 'supremacist' concerns the claimed supremacy of one group over another or others (which neither of the first two terms implies). If a person is a white supremacist, we should say so. if it's the only reason that they're prominent, as in Duke's case, then we should say so in the introduction.
The reply to me is inadequate, I'm afraid. 'So-and-so is interesting' is vapid and subjective; 'so-and-so is a white supremacist' is contentful and objective. If you think that it is 'not incorrect' (by which I assume that you mean 'correct') to call him a white supremacist, then I don't understand your objection to doing so in the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously unprotecting the page would be a very bad idea, at this juncture. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree; it would allow his apologists to try to give him an unearned doctorate, and to change his description to the euphemistic and inaccurate 'white nationalist'. I'm a little surprised that you should agree with that, though. Still, it's good to find consensus at last. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for us to acquiesce to the euphemisms various groups try to promote in order to make their views seem more acceptable. I'm sure pedophiles don't like to be called that. Should we describe them by the preferred euphemism of "intergenerational sex activists" because that's what some of them call themselves? Our interest is with facts. Does "white supremacist" accurately describe Duke and his beliefs? If so the description should stand. AndyL 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whats wrong w white nationalist? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So would we avoid calling Marcus Garvey a "Black Nationalist" because there's no such thing as a Black Nation? Well actually we don't label him, instead we say he was a "crusader for black nationalism." That's not to say we should call Duke a nationalist rather than a supremacist, but that we should point to his actions and words primarily. To Sam, is the supremacist/nationalist issue the only one outstanding? Is there still a dispute about the doctorate? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, add to what I've said about 'nationalist' (as for 'separatist') that we should be talking about an existing or desired nation; many or most black nationalists (so far as I'm aware, and as the article on black nationalism seems to confirm) argued for the founding of a black nation of some sort.
The crucial distinction between between saying that x is a supremacist and that x crusades for supremacy escapes me. Do we have to go through the encyclopædia changing 'so-and-so was a philosopher' or 'so-and-so was a modernist' to 'so-and-so practised philosophy' or 'so-and-so crusaded for (or practised) modernism'?
I assume that, after all the discussion of it on this page (in this section), SS is joking. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Whats wrong w white nationalist". It's not as accurate as White supremacist. AndyL 22:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, though we've had a nice discussion of this issue, it's not a big deal to me. It's a general principle, not a dogma. I don't think that this is the exact issue that is under dispute, so I won't pursue it. Thanks to all the editors for working towards consensus and a good article. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

"David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the United States, and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana State Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States. Duke is a strong supporter of the white-nationalist movement in America. He is widely regarded as a white supremacist by a number of organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center."

Is it just me, or would this article be a lot better if we just left out the last sentence? At the very least we should mention that he denies the title, since that's the question that's going to be on anyone's mind after reading this introduction. I changed the sentence to add that he denies it, including the quote from his website. Now it could be argued that the statement is too controversial for the first paragraph, and if someone wants to move it that's fine. But don't just come out and say he's widely regarded as a white supremacist without at least pointing out why we're not just coming right out and saying he is one.

Seems fair enough. As much as I dislike these hypocritical organizations, many people sadly do care about their assessments and they're quite influential. So I cannot objectively it's removal. Noting Duke's denial is very good though. This way, noteworthy classification by ADL is present, for those who trust it as either a condemnation or a badge of honor. But there's also more possibility for everyone to make his own mind. --Poison sf 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking about this "White supremacist" label itself, as related to Duke, it is IMO misleading. First, the "ruling over / hegemony" part is absolutely and safely thrown out, because it is a consensus now that it's not an option. What remains is the purely abstract part, containing premises like, say, that White mean IQ is higher than Black mean IQ, that White cultural accomplishments are on a completely different (and higher) level, and having significant number of Black neighbours in society is definitely a disadvantage. Discussion of objective truth of these premises aside, it's only a part of "supremacism" definition in any way. The absolute most what one can make of it is a restricted Whites-over-Blacks supremaism, not related to hegemony or domination. The attitude to, say, Jews or Asians, can hardly be pigeonholed as "supremacism". Most labeled so have to acknowledge the Asian and Jewish high mean IQ, and some of us, who are sympathetic to/influenced by Duke, in fact look on such states as Israel and Japan as superior to modern White states in many ways. The related arguments in this department will have much more to do with nationalistic "separatism" and even environmentalist-like rhetoric, than any kind of "supremacism".

White nationalism is much more precise and legitimate in fact, despite the slander it receives as an "euphemism". For this it is enough to look into the Nationalism article, especially the first paragraph. Note the lack of any kind of "supremacism" as a requirement. Racism section there also relates. --Poison sf 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctorate

Regarding your question about the doctorate, Will, I think it's established that he doesn't have one; it seems to be an honorary doctorate from a little-known institution, and the normal thing with honorary doctorates is not to call yourself Dr. SlimVirgin 23:27, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything about a doctorate? Why do I keep getting accused of it? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who it was, but someone inserted this: "In 2002, Duke traveled to eastern Europe to promote his book. In August he received a Diploma from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management in Kiev, Ukraine, the former soviet-era All-Union Correspondence University of Personnel Management. Whether this entitles him to use the honorific 'Doctor' or not is a matter of dispute." The last sentence is a bit strange. If it's not a matter of dispute, we wouldn't be mentioning it. SlimVirgin 00:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

It was me. I inserted this chunk to correct a common misapprehension among Duke's supporters (yes, I'm afraid sometimes they err) that he possesses a Doctorate from the University of Kiev. The error had formerly appeared in wikipedia, and it seemed to me from observing correspondence on this question on usenet that it was likely to be reintroduced into the article unless the grounds for its removal were made explicit in the article. To flag up to potential Duke boosters that the article's omission of his honorific is deliberate, not merely an oversight, it has to be spelled out that the alleged Doctorate is a diploma, an honorary one at that, and awarded by a body which, while appearing to have no academic bona fides, does have a track record of anti-Semitic agitation in Ukraine (see my other comment w/links above). Adhib 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Adhib, I see. Actually, I think I had misread the sentence when I questioned it. I agree with you. SlimVirgin 23:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

More material on this over at my place. If it's anything, it's a diploma. Adhib 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Receiving a honorary degree from a correspondence school hardly seems worth mentioning at all. Anyway, so I gather the only real dispute is whether to call Duke a "white supremacist", or to say that "he has been called a white supremacist, but denies it". Is that it? -Willmcw 00:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Those are the issues on the table. I agree the doctorate is not worth mentioning. Regarding the white-supremacist issue, in order to find a compromise between you and Mel, I wonder whether it could simply be moved to lower in the introduction; that is, have a second paragraph in the intro, which is anyway rather short, and mention it there. Suggestion:

Duke remains a political activist within what is known as the white-nationalist movement in America. He is widely regarded as a white supremacist by a number of organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League. SlimVirgin 00:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, there's no dispute between Mel and me, just a difference of approach. I think that it's another editor who is disputing the text. But your suggestion looks good to me. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that it's just a difference of approach. I think your approach has merit, and actually I learned a lot from watching you edit the LaRouche articles, because you're very good at letting the facts speak for themselves. Anyway, it's about one o'clock in the morning in Oxford, so unless Mel is awake editing Wikipedia, as he ought to be, we'll have to wait until tomorrow. SlimVirgin 01:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Mel didn't get back to us on this. Does the page still need to be protected? I believe we're all agreed that he isn't entitled to be called Dr. Regarding the supremacist issue, Sam, if the page is unprotected, are you going to revert what's there? SlimVirgin 18:44, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't get back tothis — but, to be honest, the only reason that I can see for not calling him a white supremacist is that SS keeps objecting — though for no good reason. (SS frequently (too much?)protests that he has no sympathy for racists like Duke, yet his stupefyingly stubborn attempts to defend them from an accurate description of their views is otherwise difficult to explain.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is now indesputable, David Duke is now Dr., get over it and realize this is now a full fact which can never be changed. Come to terms with it and add DR. to the article. Lokison 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't run for office?

He may be barred from some offices (?) but he's not barred on the federal level. In fact I believe that most attempts to bar felons from running for office have been thrown out as unconstitutional. This sentence should be changed whenthe page is unlocked. Charles 21:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally voted for James Traficant, while he was in jail ;) Trust me, its possible. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. First, if a felon wants to run for the nomination of a major party, their rules have to allow for it. That tripped up Lyndon LaRouche when the Democratic Party refused to allow him to receive delegates because he was a felon. Second, there is difference between running for office and being sworn in. Here's a quote regarding a congressional candidate.

Kent Kaiser, a spokesman for the (Minnesota) secretary of state's office, says nothing prevents a convicted felon from running for office. But the felon couldn't take office if elected, Kaiser said.[4]

This page lists requirements for candidates in Tennessee, including being a registered voter:

Congressional Representative: Be at least 25 years of age; a citizen of the United States for at least 7 years; a resident of the State of Tennessee; and a qualified registered voter.[5]

Third, felons in some states can petition to be re-enfranchised. I suggest removing the definite claim that he can't run, but don't replace it with an assertion that he could. The issue is too complicated to settle definitively here. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues remaining

The discussion on this page seems to have dried up and yet it's still protected. What needs to be decided so we can ask for unprotection? SlimVirgin 01:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

dried up? Should Duke be described as a supremacist or not? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'dried up' because, in part, two days ago SlimVirgin asked you whether, if the page was unprotected, you'd revert the reference to his being a white supremacists; you didn't reply. Besides, numerous reasons have been given for calling him a supremacist (including responses to your demand for citations), and the only argument against is the spurious 'he doesn't call himself one' — a point that has been adequately answered. Do you have any further arguments?

Incidentally, the answer to your question above (as to why people kept referring to Duke's supposed doctorate) is that you reverted to a version of the page that referred to him throughout as 'Dr'; I suppose that people are assuming that you weren't just reverting wholesale without bothering to look at what was included. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted once, and calling him a doctor or not wasn't involved. I really don't like your pattern of bizarre personal attacks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I only mentioned one reversion, which in fact was this; you're right that it didn't involve Adolf's other main editconcerning Duke's pseudo-doctorate, though — sorry.
My other points and questions remain (yet again, see Wikiquette concerning not ignoring other editors' questions).
I can't see a personal attack in my comments, bizarre or otherwise. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At this point nobody has produced citations that he considers whites inherently superior to Jews or Asians. His rhetoric against Jews seems to be that they're inherently "pushy." So instead of "White supremacist" I suggest "racist and self-described white nationalist." Gazpacho 00:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I second that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I believe you still haven't answered my question: are you going to keep on reverting or can we have the page unprotected? SlimVirgin 01:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I reject that false dichotomy, and oppose unprotecting the page until this issue is resolved. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Duke is a White supermacist who tries to mask his views through a careful use of rhetoric.

Consider these comments by Duke from 1988 (audience response in parens.):

"That's ultimately the issue of this campaign, the issue of the century, the issue of this planet--whether or not our people are going to survive. There is integration in Seattle, there's integration in New Orleans, and Detroit, and New York, and Toronto and Vancouver, Canada and London, England and Brussels, Belgium, and Paris, France. There's no integration in Kampala, Uganda--they're all Black. There's no integration in Beijing--they're all yellow. There is no threat to their people in any of these areas of the globe. There is a threat to our people. And I'm here to say it's not because we hate anybody else. I don't hate Black people or yellow people or any other people on this planet. They've got a right to live. They've got a right to pursue their own dreams, their own destinies. But, ladies and gentlemen, so do we." (Applause)

"But we have a media and we have a government that is not concerned about our people's welfare, our heritage or our basic rights. They're only concerned about minority rights and minority heritage. And if you look around you in Seattle or other parts of this country, you'll see that unless things change, they are the future. We'll be a minority, our children will walk as strangers in their own land that our fathers fought so hard to clear and build. We have major cities across this country that you--not so much this part of the country but to a degree--forced bussing. The city I come from, in New Orleans, our public schools are 94 percent Black. And the six percent white children, they go through hell. I mean, they are not safe. Not only can they not get a decent education, they are not safe. Their lives. They are abused, attacked, even raped sometimes in the hallways of our schools. And there's a lot of poor white people in the city of New Orleans--a lot--thousands, and many of them will work two jobs to send their child to a private school so they will be safe and sound and get a decent chance in their lives. They're already paying taxes for public education but they can't use public education. In New Orleans, we have the largest public housing in the world. We have over seventy thousand people in public housing. And you can count the white people in those public housing on four or five hands. There are poor white people in that city who need help. Mothers who have been abandoned, people who face sickness, disease, hardship, but in my city you can't get public housing if you're white. Because, ladies and gentlemen, you wouldn't survive. Because if a lady moves into a public housing project, into the Desire housing project, for example, and she moves in with her ten or eleven year old child, this children wouldn't last a week. But nobody, in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, will dare raise a voice to what's going on. "

"God created the different races. Why did he create us differently in terms of skin color, facial features, skull formation, body type? He created us different psychologically, psychically, physiologically. We have different blood types. We are afflicted by different diseases. There's no question that God created different races on this planet. There's also no question that God created those races and he separated those races. (That's right.) The white races were European, the yellow races were Asian, the Blacks, of course, were African. Now man has a tendency to come along and say that God's law doesn't really make, isn't very important. This natural law that God created isn't very vital. Well, I think that it is. I'm glad that God created different races. I think it offers greater possibilities for mankind. And I want my grandkids and great grandkids to look something like myself (Yes.) and the people that came before me. (Amen.) And I'm proud of that fact. (Applause)"

"There's one man at the core of all this, a man who will someday be looked at kind of like as a Newton of our age or Galileo of our age. His name is Dr. William Shockley. Shockley developed the transistor which started the whole revolution. He won a Nobel prize for it and later, Shockley started Skockley semiconductors, which started the entire computer industry that we have today. And you know what? This man who will impact everyone of us so much, he started studying the racial issues. And he dropped his computer research and he dropped his transistor research and now he spends all his time trying to wake people up, trying to make people realize that people make nations, societies, technologies, not the other way around. The real value, the real resource of this country is not again our land, it is our blood. And so the man who will change us so much, and give us an opportunity, the man who's giving an opportunity for us to educate each and every one of us and our friends and our relatives and so on and so on is also the person who believes we must preserve our heritage in this country, Dr. William Shockley. I think that can inspire us. I think it's one more little element that we can put in our hearts and to know in our minds, to know that we will prevail. We will prevail. (Amen.) (Applause)"

Shockley argues that White people are genetically superior to Black people. --Cberlet 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I had already noted and cited that. That's why I specifically asked about his opinion of Asians and Jews. Gazpacho

IMO duke is most likely a white supremacist, but he clearly tries hard to present a more moderate image, and it wouldn't be NPOV to contridict that in the narrative. As Willmcw so helpfully pointed out, we should focus on citing who says what, not telling the reader whst to think. Provide the facts neutrally, and they can decide for themselves. Thats what NPOV is all about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. Sam, would you agree to the compromise I suggested before, or some variation of it: "David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a leader of the American white-nationalist movement and widely regarded as a white supremacist. He is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States." SlimVirgin 04:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds OK. For the record, the terms "White separatist", and "White nationalist" (or "White racial nationalist") are used by several scholars in discussing different types of White ethnocentrism, most of which fall under the rubric of White supremacy. Duke is generally considered by scholars to be a White supremacist.--Cberlet 04:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to edit the compromise to make it more accurate, please feel free. It's meant only as a starting point. SlimVirgin 04:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

In the article, I see four uses of the term "white supremacist" that have been changed to "white nationalist". Only one of them is in reference to Duke. The other are to political contributors, a set of eight signatories to an agreement, and Don Black of Stormfront. Before delving further into Duke's biographical issues, may I ask if the objections are to every mention of the term "white supremacist"? I'd like to know if this is part one of a four part editing process. Thank you, -Willmcw 07:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Would Sam agree if we simply noted close to the top of the article that, although scholars and the media use the term "white supremacist," the term "white nationalist" is preferred by the movement itself? Followed by a quote from one of them to that effect. Sam, do you know whether any of the leaders within the movement have explicitly addressed the supremacist/nationalist issue, and if so, can you provide a link? SlimVirgin 08:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well firstly there is no need to overemphasize myself, I don't have strong feelings about, and have 0 affinity for, duke himself (for example he was a grand wizard of the KKK, a particularly unfortunate organization). That being the case, I have only a modest amount of insight into him and his views, but it’s clear to me that "White nationalist" and "white pride", etc... are attempts to put on a friendlier face. I feel pretty strongly that when someone wants to reserve an escape route, you should ensure they have one (see the art of war for more info on that). When someone says "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children", that is clearly more socially acceptable than "Six million more". I am familiar with the process of "curing" racism, and it involves allowing adherents to slowly de-escalate their rhetoric, enabling them to open up dialogue with a greater diversity of persons, rather than remaining in social isolation (often the cause of their sentiments in the 1st place). Religion is also key, and black ministers have had a lot of success in helping racists to reform by emphasizing the kindness of Christ and demonstrating their own virtues. Anyhow, I think its very obvious that while some prefer to call Duke & co. "white supremacists", that they prefer "white nationalists", and we should allow them that. Cite the ADL or whatnot calling him whatever you like if you must (a more neutral and widely respected source would probably be ALOT wiser, but whatever), but keep the political epithets out of the narrative, regardless of how true you think they are. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even though I am someone who works against racism and other forms of oppression, as a encylcopedist I have been trimming the most demonizing POV language out of articles I edit. There is a tendency for critics of these groups to frame reality in a hyperbolic and sometimes not accurate way. Within the movement supporting White rights (how's that for neutral?) there are a range of players. Some observers simply all them all part of "hate groups," but that is highly problematic. Even Kathleen Blee, one of the top sociologists of right-wing movements has suggested this language is misleading. And another leading sociologist Jerome Himmelstein has argued that the label "extremist" is improper for scholars to use, since it is essentially a label of derision. I think it is fine to first say what they call themselves, and then say what most scholars call them. Whenever possible I think it is better to cite scholars rather than the watch group like ADL, SPLC or even Political Research Associates, where I work. If we are the only source of information, that's OK. But that is seldom the case. (Note to HK: Yes, it is probably the case that the watch groups have the most recent material on Lyndon LaRouche and thus are appropriate to cite). So we are left with the question of which term is most accurate as a self-description. There are different ideological positions among White nationalists, White separatists, White segregationists. There are also groups that promote expulsion and extermination, but they seldom mention that in their self descriptions. So the question is has Duke described himself as a White nationalist or White separatist? Or has he used some other term? The book that maps the larger question of differentiation in the White Power movement is:

Dobratz, Betty A. & Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 2000. "White Power, White Pride!" The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

They argued that White separatism was a relatively new innovation in the movement, and was competing with other forms. And they took so much heat for the original title, that the book was renamed:

The White Separatist Movement in the United States: White Power White Pride.

So this terminology thing is not a new discussion.--Cberlet 15:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good points, altho I didn't mean to suggest that citing "watchdog" groups was unfair to those they oppose, only that they are not going to be regarded as impartial or neutral in their assessments by insightful readers. For example, can you imagine what the JDL has to say about Mr. Duke? Or the NAACP? I can imagine they might have some colorful comments he and his supporters wouldn't likely agree with. Anyhow, you make some astute observations; racial opinions are a continuum, not a dichotomy, as many on the left interpret them as. People who are separatists and want to run off to racial isolation in Montana are quite different from Hammerskins who want to beat up immigrants in LA, who are again quite different from classical white supremacists, who actually wanted to rule over minorities in a colonial manner, often suggesting it was the moral, humane thing to do, taking care of their inferiors. These people are not the same, and it is quite unfair (and extremely unhelpful if the goal is to change their minds) not to allow them to distinguish themselves from each other ideologically and morally. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The Preface to Jewish Supremacism - A New book by David Duke

[edit] Protection

This page has been protected for too long without discussion going on here; we should move to some kind of agreement, or else at least agree that there won't be any reverting, so we can request unprotection. SlimVirgin 23:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are four uses of the term "supremacist" in the article and, as far as I can tell, the dispute is only over one of those uses, the one that refers to Duke himself. SlimVirgin proposed some compromise language which seems fair:

David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the United States, and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States. Duke remains a political activist within what is known as the white-nationalist movement in America. He is widely regarded as a white supremacist by a number of organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League.

Time to move on. -Willmcw 23:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Should one of us request unprotection, or wait for other views? SlimVirgin 00:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

One editor has repeatedly asked to keep the protection on but there does not seem to be an ongoing march towards consensus. This dispute may be easier to resolve by actual editing than by leisurely discussion. In addition, at least one other editing issue, Duke's ability to run for office, is pending unprotection. I suggest that someone (you?) request unprotection. If an edit war breaks out again the page can always be re-protected. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

So requested. [6] SlimVirgin 02:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Granted. Play nice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I've inserted the compromise introduction. Hope that's okay with everyone. SlimVirgin 03:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Running for office

Kznf deleted the reference to Duke being unable to run for office, promising in his Edit summary to explain here. I've waited, and no explanation has turned up, so I've reinstated the sentence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

uhh... scroll up a couple pages. The change was discussed and decided upon by several people while the page was locked. Charles 17:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My apologies; I'll change it back. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK — you've done it. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links concerning David Duke.

I find it worth mentioning that apart from a website, the primary sources are completely omitted. Duke has written two books to date, but only secondary literatre is presented.

[edit] Censhorship galore on Wikipedia

When pointing out on the Noahide Laws page that the Noahide laws involve Rabbis applying Jewish law on all peoples of the world, on pain of death - which is unquestionably true, without any denial - it is deleted as "POV" by the Bolsheviks who have made Wikipedia their home. Of course if this totally biased POV description of David Duke - for whom I have no love, though he makes many valid points among his silly ones - can survive, and making the smallest change suggesting that maybe some of his points are correct deserves removal, it just proves that this has become the home of total censorship. Where is the next level to take this debate? I think Wikipedia should be POV-neutral and it clearly is NOT. (Added by 69.110.184.197 20:17, 22 July 2005) ∞Who ?¿? 21:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What does this diatribe have to do with David Duke? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is directed at you, as a censor. It is not a diatribe but placing your unbridled pattern of cenorship into perspective. You have censored me on the truth about Noahide Laws and now you are doing it here. I think you are totally not NPOV but an extremely biased individual. Where do I go to report you and try to have your censorship privileges removed? This is supposed to be NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, yet you won't be happy until this entry is totally consistent with your (by your support of the ADL and other edits, I must presume, Jewish supremacist) viewpoints. (Added by 69.110.184.197 21:41, 22 July 2005 Please sign your comments with ~~~~) ∞Who ?¿? 21:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm none to keen on the ADL, but that's not particularly relevant. Nor, from what I can tell, is much else of what you have said here. Please avoid making any more personal attacks or bigotted comments, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I agree with Jayjg.--Cberlet 22:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, as I strive to avoid bigotry, which of my comments are bigotted? And more importantly, since this is David Duke's page, why is it proper for you to delete the fact that he considers the ADL, whom you list as his critic, as a Jewish supremacist organization? In fact, this is obviously an anti-David Duke page. Now if I look up the NOV definition, it says, and I quote, "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly". Obviously this entire entry is biased against David Duke. But it is even more so, if you censor out his actual viewpoints from his page. It becomes Orwellian absurd. It's not even a close call on NPOV - you are heavily and blatantly biased.

69.110.184.197 22:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] their assessments are highly controversial

He is widely regarded as a white supremacist by a number of radical organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. However, their assessments are highly controversial.

An editor just added the text marked in bold. I'd reckon that calling Duke a "white supremacist" would be among the least controversial assessments that the SPLC or ADL have made. Can anyone point to any notable disagreements with their categorizations of Duke? Thanks, -Willmcw 08:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear, here. David Duke is a racist, white supremacist, totalitarian scumbag, and this description of him is disputed only by those of his fellows who think they can get another shot at having a thousand-year Reich if they can just convince everyone else to adopt their mealy-mouthed jargon like "white nationism" or "racialism". Make no mistake about this: if you're not what Duke considers a "white" person, he wants you dead or enslaved.

This is pathetic POV, I am not a supporter of Duke, but come on.... Unlike the BNP page this page is compleatly biased POV.

What about Dukes phD in Ukrain????

The degree from Ukraine was honorary. On Wikipedia we don't call people "Dr" just because of honorary degrees, and very rarely even for earned-Ph.D.s. -Willmcw 05:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

- Willmcw I think Duke's 2002 degree was honorary, but the 2005 was a full doctorate, and from separate universities in the Ukraine. We should all check the facts and get it correct.DannyZz 19:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine Doctorate

The school that gave Duke the honorary degree is a legitimate institution. Some Wikipedians may come in and blast it (of course), but the school is nonetheless notable and encyclopedic. Therefore, someone like Duke getting an honorary degree from an encyclopedic and notable institution is itself worth noting. So, if there is too much info about the school, it should be reworded then, but I believe the point must be made that the school is not some fly-by-night. It has 30,000 students, trains civil servants, etc. It's noteworthy that this occurred. The article should reflect this point about the university. Thanks.DannyZz 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's sufficient for the article to state that the honorary degree is from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Users can then click on that link to find out more about the institution. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw see compromise above.

I can't see a compromise; to what are you referring? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"I think it's sufficient for the article to state that the honorary degree is from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Users can then click on that link to find out more about the institution."

It's more appropriate to include current information about the school than past USSR stuff that's over 15 years old. So should we delete the current info, but keep the 15 year old info? What do think about that? DannyZz 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's noteworthy to write in David Duke article that "the school (MAUP) is associated with production of anti-Semitic materials", then it's also noteworthy to write something more about MAUP - IMO. Because otherwise it looks somewhat like it's associated with production of such materials and nothing else or this "anti-semitic" (according to IMO far from impartial jewish groups) publishing house is by a great margin most important it's activity. While in reality it's "associated" with great many a thing, including "Associate Faculty" of many notable mainstream Ukrainian politicians / public figures. And being a "major" - as ADL(!) puts it - and reportedly largest non-state institution with numerous branches and disciplines. Maybe it's possible to put "a major and reportedly most-prominent private university" there. Although as of now it's IMHO and until it's discussed better I don't touch that passage--Poison sf 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine Full Doctorate in 2005

I believe the same univeristy (above) recently awarded Duke a full PhD. The honorary was in 2002.DannyZz 20:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Source? -Willmcw 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, what field would this doctorate be in, personnel management? -Willmcw 21:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know. That's why I suggested we should look into it and find out the facts.DannyZz 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Source is the same as what was mentioned for the honorary title - "according to his official website". And his Stormfront posts and internet radio too, of course. Apart from that I don't know yet. Maybe it will be possible to find more later. --Poison_SF 20:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

In the future, it's a good idea to have the facts before adding such information to the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Geez. In the future it's a good idea for you to read the article before making posts like the above. The info isn't in the article (yet), this is the Talk page. Thanks. DannyZz 23:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An anon IP added "Dr." to the article numerious times without a source for this "full PhD". I thought there was a chance you might be aware of it since another anon IP was coincidentally following you around on Tom Tancredo and Chip Berlet and you were both reverting to each others versions. --Viriditas | Talk 00:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. This Willmcw fellow seems to be "following me around". Is that a reportable thing in Wikipedia? DannyZz 00:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends what you mean. If, having seen someone make a mistake, edit in a biased way, etc., an editor checks their other contributions to see if they've done the same thing elsewhere, that's responsible editing.

Note that, even when people do have certifiable doctorates, we don't usually use the title "Dr" (any more than we call people "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", "Ms", etc.; when the title is added, it tends to be because an editor wants to make a point (and for that reason is deprecated, because we shouldn't be making points). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV is not the same as sanitizing history

Recent edits have attempted to turn this page into a campaign ad for David Duke. We need to seek an NPOV version of this page, but sanitizing his track record, and deleting mentions of his ties to White Supremacist and NeoNazi groups is not appropriate. He has his own website. --Cberlet 21:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This s the most biased crock ever! Duke has a PHD (so what that Jews don't like the uni). Duke also achieved many awards (not mentioned on this site) This page is nothing but anti-duke POV.

just as this page does not need to be "a campaign ad for David Duke" it equally should not be a campaign ad against duke based on anti-duke bias. Again I state that this is the worst wiki page ever (the BNP one is much better take a look you fool).

You do not have to agree with Duke to give an objective summery (you are more POV than those you argue are!).

You only ad to conspircay theories by Duke supporters by acting like this!

Can you provide us with a source for the awards? I didn't see any mentioned in his biography on his website. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Duke POV? Let's just call a spade a spade. David Duke is a vicious Jew-hater and a bigot of the worst kind. This demagogue keeps regurgitating nonsense straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. His kind of obsessive paranoia and delusional thinking is a kind of sickness in this country that will only escalate to further problems in the long run. The Zionists conspire to run the world? I love this kind of faulty thinking. Since 1948, Israel has only given anti-Semites an opportunity to bash Jews under the guise of "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm just anti-Zionist." David Duke would gas Jews, and deport blacks if given the opportunity. --24.47.31.1 18:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unbelievable Racism

As an African-American Internet scholar, this page strikes me as a propaganda poster for right-wing insanity. I think this is how people like George W Bush stole the white house. Reparaizins 06:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Boohoo. There's now a token Black complaint about racism. Now both people from our camp (racist Whiteys) and negroes are complaining. Objectively, it may be not a bad sign. Would be nice to somehow ensure the jews are complaining too, and then you know the article must be non-partisan and factual, with all interested parties pissed off as a reasonable indication LOL --Poison sf 13:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC).

Right-wing insanity? Hardly. Just plain insanity. --24.47.31.1 18:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please give more clarity to your complaint, Reparaizins. How is it racist? Remember, please, that the purpose of an encyclopedic article is to present facts, and never to make value judgements. Citizen Premier 22:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that a scholar should think that an article about a racist is thereby racist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind this, the fellow is apparently a racist on the other end of the color spectrum. Citizen Premier 04:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was actually giving credence to this fella without looking into things. Not the fact that he's a self-proclaimed internet scholar, but that his criticism is somewhat legitimate. --24.47.31.1 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, Spelman's student body is comprised entirely of females. I'm surprised that an internet "scholar" couldn't come up with a better fabricated identity. --24.47.31.1 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who signed the NO Protocol?

White-supremacists and neo-Nazis, huh? I already proposed a proper term for that, but I see that people insist it is "supremacists and nazis". Now, let's see. If you write an encyclopedia, each word is supposed to mean something. In that context, I would expect the words to mean that something along these lines has to be true:

It's absolutely positively without doubt applying to each and every one of signatories. Applying NOT like in "I suspect he's a nazi (supremacist) at heart". Applying like they all self-identify like this or there's really a rock solid evidence they are. -ist said in such context is supposed to give a good idea where they really stand politically... here and now. Here and now is important BTW, because politics is a cynical business and side hopping is common. Digging in the past and origins can be notable... in the designated place, e.g. a separate article on a politician. But in other places the here and now thing should be most important. In particular, say, what about Paul Fromm?

"a Canadian far-right political figure with links to neo-nazis though he denies being a neo-nazi himself"

says the wiki article. Does he have the "links to neo-nazies"? Undeniably. And with supremacists also quite possibly. That however is not enough ground for his own identification. Related to supremacism, there's an obscure quote of "supreme race", taken out of context and, most importantly, made long ago. There's an established term for this sort of politicians: far right. It already inludes and refers to this kind of vagueness and controversial origins and connections. In his own article, commendably, he's properly described.

Willis Carto? Again much vagueness. A collection of oddball beliefs very hard to pigeonhole, big time side and occupation hopper. Can he be labeled neo-nazi and supremacist? If he's a F.P.Yockey Imperium-Bible "follower" then I, as also a Yockey fan myself, can say that questions of who is superior are UTTERLY irrelevant in Imperium's paradigm.

These are two examples, and I've my doubts about several more entries in NO protocol signatories list.

So, if you want description for signatories, not slander, use the proper umbrella term here, which is far right. Otherwise, you can insert a "bigot" or "hater" in there just as well, and use "supremacists and nazis" liberally in other vague places where there're some links or dubious origins to be traced or whatever. Like in "BNP is a supremacist and nazi party", or "Le Pen is a supremacist and a neo-nazi". This all is a low brow PC slander, not a careful picking of terms that is supposed to be in an encyclopedic article. If you want such POVish stuff, at least point out the POV, like "classified so by ADL". On the other hand, if this is supposed to be there as established and objective classification, far right is the word.--Poison sf 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Poison sf on this. Less specific terms are often more accurate. The articles on each individual carry detailed explanations of their politics. One quibble is that "far right" doesn't quite describe them, "racialist far right" might be more indicative of their common political position. -Willmcw 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken. I don't know much about Fields/Truth at Last, but I doubt he would be at place there if he wasn't a racialist, besides if I'm correct he's now in some sort of association with National Vanguard. I would say racialism or at least some other form of what we call "biological thinking", nationality by blood/birth etc is already hinted at by far right, but may be not implied clearly enough. I'll try to clarify it. --Poison sf 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

I've added a disclaimer to the category that states that some of the members later left, hopefully this solves the issue. Citizen Premier 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

His book Jewish Supremacy - I thought we thought that us Jews were superior. Higher IQs, more degrees, etc - now you want us to be inferior ( or just the same ) please pick a side and stay on it, I am getting dizzy. We get mad if someone says we think we are superior when it is perfectly obvious that the guy is right. How can we be humble when we are the chosen people.

[edit] anti-semitism

Do we have any direct evidence of pure, obvious anti-semitism? He may simply be anti-Israel, which some jews are as well. Citizen Premier 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who writes a book called Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question is anti-Semitic, not "anti-Israel". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If I wrote a book entitled White America and White Supremicism would that make me racist against whites? David Duke's fears of a nationalist jewish country may be hypocritical and even founded on racist prejudices, but without proof no statement that he is anti-semitic belongs on wikipedia. C'mon, produce one quote of him which reveals anti-semitism and I'll agree that he is. Citizen Premier 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, you sound really biased on this issue. This book title indicates he has an issue with Jewish Supremacism, no more, no less. The book itself is about what is perceived by the author as "Jewish Supremacism". --Poison sf 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The book isn't about Israel, it's about "Jewish supremacism/Jewish religion/Jewish culture". The only people who claim that Jewish religion/culture is "supremacist" are anti-Semites. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Some outlandish claims here that show your bias. It's not uncommon for people to point at inhumane or oppressive elements in muslim religion or Middle Age Christian religion/culture or Colonization era etc. It's totally legit to study Jewish Supremacism and elements of Jewish religion/culture that are related to it. It's normal and existing approach to say study White supremacism and White culture/religion roots/ties of it, how is it used to found supremacism etc, same with everybody else. I think even references to "supremacism" of White culture, dead white males etc do exist and are not classified as anti-White. And what's so special about Jews that these existing approaches mean more than they mean in other contexts? --Poison sf 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Duke's many published and recorded statements making his antisemitism clear, national watch groups and many scholars who have written about Duke call him an antisemite and white supremacist. One of Duke's clearest statements came during a 1988 speech recorded on videotape:

DUKE ON TAPE: But I don't have respect for Zionism, and frankly I don't have respect for Judaism. Because it's a very vile [Yeah], anti-Christian faith, and if you're familiar with it, then you'd realize why I feel that way. It doesn't mean all Jews are that way. But I don't, I don't respect the Talmud, I think it's a very vicious and vile book and it attacks all Christians and non-Jews in the world...[7]

When confronted about this on a radio program, Duke at first denied making the statement. Duke is an artist at denying the obvious concerning his views.--Cberlet 13:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To me sounds at most anti-Judaist and anti-Zionist, but AFAIK majority of jews are neither. Of course if it's true and he did try to deny it, maybe not really showing him in a great light, but it's more about personal qualities than anti-semitism. Basically, projected on Whites, such comments on Judaism are roughly similar to being anti-Christian. There're many people who may indeed say similar things about Christianity, say Paganists or militant atheists. It's Duke's right to hold such opinions about Talmud. Other people hold similar opinions about Bible (not qualifying as anti-White) & Koran(sp?), not qualifying as "anti-arab" (anti- non-jewish semitic? :-) ) --Poison sf 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Compare to: "But I don't have respect for White racism, and frankly I don't have respect for Christianity. Because it's a very vile [Yeah], anti-human faith, and if you're familiar with it, then you'd realize why I feel that way. It doesn't mean all Whites are that way. But I don't, I don't respect the Bible, I think it's a very vicious and vile book and it attacks all pagans and atheists in the world"...--Poison sf 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I voted to delete the anti-semitic template, as many people accuse those who are anti-israel of being anti-semitic or those who are anti-judaism, or anti-jewish heritage, or all of the above. I would certainly support Duke being included in two seperate anti-zionist and anti-judaism categories. Citizen Premier 14:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yes indeed there's a tendency to apply certain types of slander liberally. What do you mean by template? I've examined thoroughly the article, in fact, anti-semitism related passages sound pretty neutral. I don't know much about (or use) the categories on wikipedia. But, indeed, if there's such a category - "anti-zionist" - sounds sensible to add him in there.--Poison sf 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, never mind, I think you mean category. Did some reading, looks like it stayed. Too bad. --Poison sf 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhD issue still unsettled?

Seems so from recent edits.

Here's a piece from ADL on David Duke's doctorate and miscellaneous MAUP-related stuff:

MAUP: Schooling in Anti-Semitism

Let's discuss what can be considered established and what not. Is it more the fact that the doctorate was awarded by MAUP or whether it may be called a legitimate degree worthy of recognition?--Poison sf 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Using the ADL as a source? I would say they are rather biased against Dr. Duke.

Regardless, to use a jewish source that states that the university is the largest private univerity in the country

MAUP University

Hi! First, please sign posts to avoid confusion. Better yet, register, if you're the anonymous editor. When you're editing, there's a button panel above the text box, and the second button from the right adds to the text a placeholder, which changes to a signature after submitting.

Now, personally, *I* DO agree ADL IS biased and IMO that's great. If they're biased against Duke AND confirm facts about the doctorate (as the do in the middle of the article), it's a pretty solid proof. At least unless a miracle happens and they put this into a top ten newspaper or TV channel news, it's probably as good indication as it gets.--Poison sf 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "David Duke PhD"

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style usually doesn't include people's various degrees as part of their name in the lead title, hence my reverting. Inclusion of the title in the lead sentence is a seperate issue from the degree of legitimacy of his degree. -- Infrogmation 15:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, in fact it was noted previously here that Dr. etc prefixes are not used more than Mr/Mrs etc, but what with the consistence? I.e. an interesting observation made in edit comments recently by either Afroissues or anon: Martin Luther King is described as "The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, Ph.D.". I'll try to read that manual now and see how can it explain it. --Poison sf 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Quit obfuscating. The difference is that King, unlike Duke, received his PhD from a school "more prestigous than a box of Crackerjacks," to put it in the terms of Infrogmation on his talk page. To identify him as "David Duke, PhD" before offering context may lead casual readers who are just skimming the article to assume that he got his PhD in his native country, where PhDs tend to be "more prestigous than a box of Crackerjacks." His PhD is disgraceful and not deserving of serious recognition. It is especially an insult to many legitimate scholars did do credible work and earned their PhDs in the former Soviet Union. 172 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's you who're obfuscating. Infrogmation in fact made it pretty clear that his revert has absolutely NOTHING to do with the debate around the legitimacy of Duke's degree or merit of MAUP. He/she says it's a style issue. That's why I'm asking - ok, let's assume it's a style guideline to avoid using PhD in the title, but if it's a clear and simple style issue, why there's lack of consistence? Is it related to something more then? It's a legitimate question raised by Infrogmation's claim it's just a style rule and discrepancies with other articles (one example cited).

BTW, with MLK there were also some controversy with his PhD. I guess your point is, the commission that awarded David Duke a doctorate was motivated by anti-semitism. I don't agree, but let's see - there do exist some claims of significant "borrowing" of other disserations in MLK thesis. If I'm not mistaken, it's even mentioned in his wiki article. Also, who knows, perhaps the people who accepted MLK's defense of the thesis and later decided not to strip it were also motivated by something, maybe by his work in civil rights movements? So these two examples are very similar in fact. Two guys with pretty controversial degrees.

But the thing is, at least according to Infrogmation, this debate is not even necessary because it's a style issue. So far I'm waiting for clarification of this --Poison sf 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to the PHD thesis?

Seems to be a lot of concern about his PHD. A university of 50,000 students is not a crackerbox. If it was from distance learning - are you implying that distance learning , internet, mail, etc is not legitimate? If so then the University of London etc are crackerboxes too. Tell the ADL and its supporters to calm down and stick to some facts - it may hurt at first but it is doable.

[edit] Edits by the user 172 - may be discussed here

I reverted the changes but I do not claim the edits have no value. I've restored some parts from there and let's see how other places can be led to compromise.

May be discused here:

"Israel Shamir [...] widely accused of espousing Neo-Nazi views" IMO must be dropped. Even the corresponding article doesn't mention Nazi, though it mentions anti-semitism (it's not legit to mix the terms anyway). I'm concluding 172 is pushing his own POV in a kind of weasel-statement.
- Simply doing a Google search for Israel Shamir and neo-Nazi will confirm that that description has been applied to it, notwithstanding the preference of many neo-Nazis and anti-Semites to not be called neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. 172 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  - It's also a preference of many to use terms like Nazi - racist - hater - bigot - Israel criticist - anti-semite interchangeably. The absence of the proved neo-Nazi claims on his own page is IMO a good indication that it is unfounded. I think that just by describing his as controversial and mentioning accusations of anti-semitism is enough. Everything else must be discussed on his own article/discussion page, I don't think that David Duke's article is a good place to smuggle in very controversial slander of Israel Shamir.--Poison sf 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"the largest non-state university in Ukraine" and "It is a major and influential Ukrainian institution nonetheless, as even its opponents admit" deleted by 172: it is per nobody else but ADL and other "unfriendlies". MAUP's own article was deleted. In that passage alleged anti-semitic ties are discussed, and I cannot see how the widely mentioned (including by opponents) claim about the size and influence of this institution is not worthy of note. I will add there "reportedly" to maybe more acceptable. This information is important to see the full picture! Full picture is that MAUP is a controversial, perhaps even notorious, but also quite large and with important ties to political elite ("influential") - I read somewhere that even president of Ukraine "resigned" from the board of MAUP some time ago - means probably he WAS on the board in the first place. I somebody doesn't like wording - OK, improve it, but do not pretend that such information is unimportant, while other MAUP controversy is discussed at length nearby.
- The tone of the sentence "It is a major and influential Ukrainian institution nonetheless, as even its opponents admit" comes across as pro-Duke. It is written in a way that suggests that even Duke's oppenents have to concede that Duke made a legitimate achievement, which is incorrect. The fact that he got a PhD from a large, influential, accredited university is disgusting and disgraceful. It is a sign that the Ministry of Education should strip the school of its accreditation, not that Duke's opponents have to concede that Duke has done some respectable work. And, yes, that is my POV. Only a handful of my family members survived what Duke considers that non-event between 1941-1945; and I'm glad that the ADL is still today around to monitor scum like Duke. 172 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it's not like you sound impartial in this either. Stripping school of its accreditation???!!! On what ground? What next, book burning? I'm always staggered when people who dare to accuse others of Nazism make such outlandish suggestions. Accreditation has to be based on how well their teaching of standart curriculum matches the standarts of Ukraine. If they disseminate controversial or even offensive material, or invite controversial figures it has nothing to do with accreditation. You are defending discrimination by state of beliefs and censorship here, I hope you understand it. If you advocate such censorship, you may also see a list of prominent academics & figures on the commission reportedly assembled by Duke's friend Tchokin for the thesis defense - by your logic perhaps these also have to be stripped from diplomas and their institutions (including say, Moscow state university) have to be closed.

You also seem to be interested in pushing the POV that Duke HAS NOT done some achievements. I do not claim *I* am an unbiased and purely neutral editor. Far from that. But we're supposed here to accurately describe the facts. That the MAUP has some controversial ties and is often accused of anti-semitism is a fact. That MAUP is large is influential is a fact too, it is confirmed by the ADL itself and other opponents. And it should be left at that, let the reader decide how much accomplishment Duke has or has not done with this degree.

I admit these FACTS that should be noted no matter what, were perhaps described by me (they originate from my edits in the past) in a too "pro-Duke" tone. As you can see, I tried to put in a more neutral tone in one of my previous edits, and I'm perfectly ready to hear any criticism and further NPOV-isation of these passages. Though, it must be done in such a way that objective and established information is not omitted, for somehow avoiding to make too good an impression of Duke. It's a pure POV.--Poison sf 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"MAUP is accused of promoting anti-Semitism by Jewish community leaders 'and international civil and political organizations'", bold by 172: possibly correct, but please add examples to the talk page. So far I personally have seen quotes only from Ukrainian jewish community leaders, jewish information agencies etc. - needs discussion
- Yes, and international civil and political organizations. What do you think the ADL is? Read the ADL article. 172 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's just ADL, then I don't see the necessity to blur the matter with a general terms like that. Let's write "and ADL".--Poison sf 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"'David Duke's website claims' that in September 2005 Duke received a Ph.D. in History from MAUP", bold added by 172. Not correct, it's claimed by many different sources, including ADL. Must be dropped IMO.--Poison sf 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since the source for the claim where I made that edit was davidduke.com, attributing the claim to davidduke.com was necessary. Otherwise, we're suggesting that davidduke.com is a reliable source for factual information. My edit would not have been necessary had the link providing a source from the claim were to a reliable source. 172 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Would be correct if it was only davidduke.com. Since when it was added, it has become confirmed by ADL, international jewish sources, Ukrainian community leaders (mostly in the form of condemnation of MAUP and demands to close it, but the points is - they confirm the fact of the doctorate). So it seems to be pretty established by now, I'm not aware of some claims the information is false from either pro-Duke or anti-Duke sources. Conclusion: it seems more or less reliable by now.--Poison sf 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, 172, I see your added note on the history of your family. That means you have to be 10x more cautious in editing the article. Because, as cynical as it may seem, personal tragedies are not excuse to inserting POVish claims. I personally like the principles of wikipedia. If I was writing an article on David Duke myself, most likely it would be very different and more from the pro- side. But that's the beauty of NPOV, that, by accepting the necessity to deal with not really pleasant things to read, you get neutral articles with FACTS or at least fully covered sides of the controversy around the issue, not some POVish drivel, be it boring demonizing or sycophant accolades. I know I'm sometimes not 100% NPOV myself, and I believe it's impossible, but I hope that by having a discussion here with participants from all possible POV backgrounds a factual and neutral article can be created.--Poison sf 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You've now made it quite clear that you are a David Duke devotee, so I'm not interested in further dicussion here. Please leave the current version of the article standing as it is. 172 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm a Duke's "devotee" any more than you're his "nemesis". The thing is - you obviously don't like him, you also confirm that you've strong emotional bias here because of your family history. My own attitude to Duke may be summarized as sympathetic. I'm not even an American, but I kinda respect him. I'm not a blind devotee and I believe I'm able to judge what is a fact and what not. So we both are kinda possibly biased, but I try to do my best to argue rationally and, when I change the article, I try to found my choice by facts, other precedents in wikipedia, and established rules, guidelines and principles of wikipedia I'm aware of. Note that I'm sincere about my positions and do not try to hide any possible biases I may hold, never done that, I've made it clear in many places.

You can't win arguments by ad hominem attacks based on what you perceive as "devotion to David Duke". After all, wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone may edit", including devotees or people emotionally disliking David Duke. Of course I'm going to continue contributing and making changes to the article, keeping as close to the principles & rules as I can.--Poison sf 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning discussion of MAUP and it's description as anti-semitism, that's why I'm against it: you're trying to make a point there that the degree is faulty. As noted in this talk page previously, but a person not in any way supportive of DD and in completely different context: you're not supposed to be making points. Controversy surrounding MAUP is outlined later in the article. Why do you see as necessary to repeat this information in the lead? What makes it more important than other information related to MAUP in this article? I think you just want to repeat there selectively information that shows MAUP in the light YOU want it to be seen. Just as well, information about size etc etc has about as much right to appear here. And what then? Basically the whole MAUP paragraphs will have to migrate into the intro paragraph. This is unacceptable.

That's why I think my version is better. According to the style guideline Ifrogmation directed me to previously, the lead paragraph must be very short and concise, it cannot possibly describe everything thoroughly, so it serves more like an "appetizer" for all the rest of the article. Controversial issues like that with MAUP & degree can only be shortly outlined in the intro - the version I propose does it.

I would like more people to comment on it, because I agree I may be not fully impartial, but I don't think 172 is really neutral either.--Poison sf 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, in short points:

repetitiveness: discussed at length from all sides later
one sided: one questionable opinion of ADL is put above other no less important information, such as: ADL's own claims about size of the institution, ADL's demands to close this institution. If you quote ADL, quote ALL ADL, or prove how one ADL claim is less important (for the reader and for a NPOV article) than another --Poison sf 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus note the absurdity of trying to discuss controversies of MAUP in the lead paragraph about David Duke!!!--Poison sf 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

This photo from the ADL article is quite disturbing. [8] I think that it may serve as a needed warning that anti-Semitism is still alive and well in Eastern Europe. Still, before inserting it into the article, I'll want to have some feedback on the copyright concerns amd the possibility that it may be misunderstood by some readers as suggesting that Duke is a legitimate academic. 172 15:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of properly attributed and sourced information

As Poison sf alludes to above, I'm a biased Jew with an axe to gride against David Duke and other neo-Nazis; and I'm proud of it. Nevertheless, I am adding properly attributed information from a reputable source; and I will oppose attempts to upload unverifiable original research that conforms to my POV. I urge other editors to revert future attempts to remove the following content by Poison sf: "In September 2005 Duke received a Ph.D. from the Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP), which, despite its accreditation by Ukraine's Ministry of Education, is according to the ADL is the main source of anti-Semitic agitation and propaganda in Ukraine." [http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/maup_ukraine.htm 172 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

172, it's interesting information that you're a jew. You claims are wrong. It's not a "removal" of properly attributed and sourced information. I've no trouble with linking to ADL myself and have done it in the past. I even posted a link to an ADL article in the talk page! It's great of you to project funny things at myself. Note how it's me who's trying still to reason with you. And it's you who just namecalled me and said "non interested in discussion".

This information is present in another place: "accused of anti-semitism [...] by jewish community leaders and ADL. So you're accusing me of what I don't do here.

The issue is to keep the lead paragraph concise and the article non-repetitonal. Unfortunatelly I'm out of ammo with reverts, but I hope non biased editors will help to restore neutral point of view and proper lead paragraph style later. --Poison sf 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well since 172 is not interesting in trying to discuss this with me, I'm adding here some relevant material:

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article

- Wikipedia:Lead_section

My primary argument for my version ("Legitimacy and merits of Duke's degree are disputed by his critics") is that it summarizes the relevant passages in text.

The 172's note about ADL's "primary source of anti-semitism" claims, in my opinion, do not. This note selectively picks one side of the MAUP controversy, without explanation why exactly this is considered most important and also, why such lengthy and POVish notes about MAUP controversy are relevant in what is supposed to be the summary of David Duke's article. This is not a "summary" of the degree issue. This is a selective (in a biased way) and repetitional.

This could be appropriate for a summary of MAUP article, but I disagree and consider it not appropriate for a Duke's article's lead section.

My own version is more concise, it summarizes what is known about David Duke, not MAUP. Information about MAUP controversy is covered later in the article and I strongly deny accusations that I remove "supported" information, as one passage in a later section added by nobody else than me covers this and mentions such claims by ADL.--Poison sf 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note here that his Ph.D. work would not be regarded as deserving a degree by universities in western countries. The issues surrounding the degree seem necessary to cover (the legitimacy and also controversiality of the university), and it doesn't seem necessary to also include the appellation as part of his name, which is not done in other WP articles.--Nectar 03:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, ok thank you for input. Considering his title, legitimate or not, appended to the name, I would like to point to the example of Martin Luther King's article, where it is present (and his degree is also somewhat controversial). I, personally, do not insist on adding this really that much. Just mentioning that Duke got a controversial and disputed degree in the lead and then neutrally covering the controversy in detail later is more or less enough, if DD article alone is in the spotlight. I'm more like worried by what so far looks like a lack of consistency, possibly motivated by personal POVs and preferences. If there do exist some clear, neautrally defined policies that explain this discrepancy in DD article vs MLK article, I would be pleased to hear about it.--Poison sf 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the MLK article, including the appellation sounds like the neutral choice. It's worth noting there doesn't appear to be any indication his doctoral work doesn't conform to academic standards beyond the disapproved choice of topic, and I remember one noteworthy geneticist spoke of My Awakening as having high academic standards.--Nectar 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess in short it comes down to how established is the use of the academic title when referring to the person in question and, generally, how well-recognized in the mainstream the degree is? Well, so be it, it's a formality anyway. I can agree it's too recent and the fact is mostly discussed and analyzed by interested parties. It will be troublesome to get mainstream recognition of this degree though, whatever is the merit of the work done, because DD is not exactly PC mass media darling. I think the thesis itself contributes about as much to the outrage as DD's personality does. Hopefully, some third party scholars not affiliated with ADL etc will provide sensible assessment of this issue in the future. Right now the lead section doesn't seem offensively POVish or something, though it became pretty long.--Poison sf 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the relevant policy for this article is that WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving the same amount of space and preference to mainstream and fringe POVs.--Nectar 13:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Duke Photo

Is there a more honest photo we can get on this article? Wikipedia doesn't support blatant slam attempts with bad photos of subjects, and this article's photo was obviously placed there by a hateful person or a POV warrior.....GHgh 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that bad? Seems ok to me, though I'm not an expert on good and bad photos. BTW I think I'll have to revert because it's an overkill. Some or even most of what you removed was ok IMO--Poison sf 19:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture is bad, and there must be a better one......as per Wikipedia policy to not be POV in the negative.GHgh 07:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You mean not glamourous enough or something? I'm not expert in this. If you wish, well, find a picture you think is good, find a way to ensure it's public domain or something else that qualifies for copyright requirements, and maybe the current one may be replaced.--Poison sf 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this either, could you or someone else that reads this do a google images search? Is a picture from Duke's site acceptable under the copyright issues you refer to? Thanks for you help, and explanation of Wikipedia policy issues in advance.GHgh 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Duke, but I just don't see what is so bad in this photo, therefore I don't want to do it myself. Maybe I've seen too many photos of politicians like Yuschenko (Ukraine's president), and it broke my bad-o-meter (see this [9] for my idea of what's bad... yuck). If you can find some well done photo from a close distance, good quality image, non distorted etc at DD's site, asking DD himself to confirm it is "public domain" via email would be a good idea. Citing the relevant part of this email in the image info page would then make this image eligible for wikipedia (AFAIK!). Is it really that important? I mean, he's an activist and a politician, who cares about his looks? Frankly, I trust less a politician who looks like some damn metrosexual spending fortunes on makeup. I guess I'm leaving it at this. I'm feeling awfully lazy recently and way too lazy to spend more time on this thing. --Poison sf 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of david dukes My Awakening by Jayjg

A link to an online and complete PDF version of david Dukes my awakening was added to the end of the article and Jayjg removed the link to the book stating that it was self-promotion. Jayjg is false, using that as an pseudo-excuse and is unfairly censoring the listing of the book due to Jayjg potential personal reasons. Jayjg personal bias should not be allowed to interfere with the importance of this addition.

The link that I added which was removed is:

http://www.solargeneral.com/myawakening/Dr.%20Duke%20-%20My%20Awakening%20Complete.pdf

I ask that this book be relisted on the david duke page.

All you've done on Wikipedia is add links to (possibly copyright violating) material on solargeneral.com, an anti-semitic, racist, white supremacist website. It's quite common for websites to try to promote themselves by inserting links into Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to go along with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have spouted out a lot of childish canards, immature insults and infantile language to back up your position; however you have failed to achieve your goal. Your ad hominen attacks against the web site solargeneral.com only clarify your political position of Jewish ethnocentrism and your bias against web sites which speak honestly about Judaism, jewfish extremism and Jewish Supremacism. Unfortunately for you, insults have no value in an adult forum for discussing how we can improve the quality of entries in Wikipedia.

How could I possibly be promoting a web site if I am adding direct links to the web site files that serve as nothing else but to drain the web site of its precious bandwidth resources? I did not link to web pages where these books could be downloaded; instead I put direct download paths to these books which give no ability for the person who downloads these books to surf around the site in question.

Your Jewish anger and hate, Jewish ethnocentrism and Jewish extremism have no place in wikipedia and it is truly sad that such outdated and antiquated belief systems are allowed to corrupt the quality and integrity of wikipedia. Get over yourself. lokison

Lokison, FYI ad hominem attacks are against the policy and won't be tolerated. I am sorry I didn't realize that you were promoting racial hatred, otherwise I'd remove it myself. This is not "an adult forum", please abide by the WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What does this politically correct nonsense - "promoting racial hatred", and other thought policing have to do with wikipedia? I hope, nothing? Anyway, the link was deleted for a good reason (several, in fact). Jayjg's epithets and personal woes about Solargeneral's "ideology" aside, he has a point.--Poison sf 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why censorship of quality additions to this topic is tolerated on wikipedia. Jayjg has nothing but childish and immature epithets to spew and they have no place on wikipedia, his excuse for removing the link is unacceptable and transparent. Explain how adding links to books that people have written is spreading racial hatred? This is nonsense, grow up and get over yourself. Keep your personal biases out of this. lokison

Explanation: there's no reason to think Solargeneral is official, auothrized online library of David Duke's works. And there're reasons to think it's illegal download, such as: if David Duke wanted to have his works freely available to anybody as full electronic copies, he would put it for download on his own personal website. But there're only excerpts on his own website. --Poison sf 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish ethnocentrism" That's a new one, besides Solargeneral.com is run by Don Black, a David Duke associate, thus the entry of the site into the article is clearly "Self-Promotion" and illicit on Wikipedia...

205.188.116.74 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Either NPOV article or POV tag

Continual efforts to add DD undue credibility by listing his "titles" (in quotes here because MAUP (Ukraine) is pervaded in controversies and condemnations internationally, including Ukraine) - as in "Dr. David Ernest Duke Ph.D." - makes WP look bad. Compare this article with Martin Luther King, Jr.. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version. I don't understand why Monkeyman thinks RfC is a form of article protection. —Viriditas | Talk 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My request to keep "Dr." and "Ph.D." in the article (for right now) was to let the RfC run its course. I am certainly not in favor of giving David Duke any undue credibility but he is not the issue we are discussing. We are discussing if is Wikipedia's style to use "Dr." or "Ph.D." as part of someone's name. It is just unfortunate that this article happened to be the test case. As the article is written now (without the "Dr." and "Ph.D" in place) editors who are responding to the RfC will not understand what I am referring to. I'm not going to revert it but I would ask that one of you (Viriditas or Humus sapiens) please do, so that it is clearer to those responding to the RfC.

Monkeyman 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

An RfC is not article protection. Issues pertaining to an RfC are usually discussed on talk. —Viriditas | Talk 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this is better because POV tag here can be understood the wrong way. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the person of the article but saw the "Dr." comments. To use "Ph.D" would be more factual as the universities that award these vary in their standards and are not always recognised. It would also allow different doctrates such as "D.Phil" to be noted correctly. SOPHIA 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So this is the place where comments are requested? I've looked up MLK article - indeed, it have been made consistent with what Infrogmation said some time ago, about the style guideline of not adding the titles. Therefore I don't see any problems with removal of Dr./PhD here. Just state it conclusively then, preferably with a link to WP policy page, for future refenrece, otherwise there's one person saying it's not added anywhere, another saying it's ok to add in MLK page, but not DD page, and, as a result, everybody, especially newcomers, is totally confused. "Something makes Wikipedia look bad" etc, what sort of explanation is that?

Also I don't understand, why obfuscate things by framing it into discussion of personal complains about MAUP or whether credibility is "due" or "undue", if this is a style issue. Is this taking a cheap shot whenever possible or what? The biggest harm from it is that the real point becomes obfuscated. What is so surprising then, that many new editors don't get it and time is wasted on this "Dr." non issue?

As for legitimacy of MAUP's degrees - I'm not aware of any credible proof that its teaching standarts are substandart and its degrees are supposed to have no value. It's openly acknowledged even by opponents like ADL as a pretty big and successful institution (a notable fact deserving a place in the article BTW). What is there is some media smear and lobbying attempts by Jewish organizations, including open demands to, imagine that, close MAUP and legally persecute MAUP's academics(!). If MAUP was in violation of any Ukrainian anti-extremism or anti-hate regulations, this would be decided in court, not by these "condemnations", calls to USA to mount pressure and other politicking BS, trust me. So in reality there's ongoing activity not so different from what Muslims are doing now over these caricatures, only done in a more under-the-carpet lobbying and media smear style instead of a street riot style. The invectives against MAUP mostly are related to certain events it hosted and some of its publications. Neither directly affects its merit as a college.

If we're speaking about DD's title in particular, the jury which accepted the (thesis) defense, included several academics from outside MAUP: a Moscow university professor and some others not related to MAUP. --Poison sf 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish criticism of MAUP

The so-clled "criticism" that exists around Duke's PhD is from Jewish and some Ukranian groups, not "many human rights groups" which is quite POV and misleading.VizzieM 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are a banned editor, Disruptive Apartheid editor. Please stop editing, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to topic, not ad homs. Thanks. VizzieK 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The above looks like a comment, not an edit. Wiki is getting so Jewish dominated that it is starting to look foolish - from a Jew by the way.

[edit] Please clarify

I don't understand the last sentence of this paragraph:

A year later, he challenged incumbent Democratic Senator J. Bennett Johnston in the open primary as a Republican, receiving 44% of the vote (including more than 60% of the white vote, according to exit polls). Sen. Johnston was able to win re-election (and thus avoid a direct run-off with Duke) by receiving 53% of the vote. The endorsed Republican party candidate, state senator Ben Baggert withdrew from the race two days before the vote. Distressed national Republican officials had anticipated Baggert losing and fragmenting Johnston's support, so funding for Baggert's campaign was halted, pushing Baggert to drop out.[2]

1. Why would Baggert losing fragment Johnston's support?

2. Wouldn't Republicans be happy to have Johnston's support be fragmented? 71.211.238.232 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears the Repub sabotaged their own candidate - simialtr to the Liebermann run.

[edit] lead section: "just the facts" please

The most I want to hear about what others say about DD in the lead section is that he is "controversial". In the lead section, I was a concise review of what is did with his life. His ideas belong in the body of the article. In particular, please keep the ADL out of the lead section. Let DD and the ADL fight it out in the later sections. What the ADL and others have to say might be important, but they do not define the man. Again: Just the facts. -- 70.231.133.161 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasse review Admin/Mod "Leading Jew"

"This has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws..."

WHAT IS A "LEADING JEW"?

This term needs clarification and supporting sources...

205.188.116.74 06:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's similar in concept to "leading deniers", etc.

[edit] Title Changed - Information Added

In 1984 David Duke and wife Chloe Hardin were divorced. Hardin then moved to West Palm Beach, Florida to be closer to her family. There she became involved with Duke’s childhood friend, Don Black, whom she married several years later. In 1995, the Blacks began a small bulletin board service or BBS by the name Stormfront. Today, Stormfront has become the premier online forum for White Nationalism. [10] [11][12]

In 2004 Duke’s bodyguard, roommate, and longtime associate by the name of Roy Armstrong made a bid for the United States House of Representatives to serve Louisiana's First Congressional District. Armstrong lost the election handily to Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American despite Duke acting as the head campaign advisor. [13] [14]

Admin/Mod is this placed under correct subtitle?

205.188.116.74 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited Attacks against minorities were removed

This article needs its new additions to be cited! I have removed various unfounded racist propaganda regarding David Duke being supportive of Jews. Please don't waste everyone’s time attempting to reconfigure and/or revert deliberately misleading information and vandalism.

152.163.101.14 05:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

David Duke has expressed his support for Ernst Zündel and his Holocaust Denial campaign. Duke believes the Holocaust was a hoax designed to draw international sympathy for Zionist causes. [15]

Currently, Duke expresses concern for the aging Zündel on his website calling him a "political prisoner" after Zündel was deported from Canada to Germany. [16] Zündel is being held in a German prision on charges of defaming the dead, in this case, the 6,000,000 victims of the Holocaust.[17]

152.163.101.14 10:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Using the pseudonym Dorothy Vanderbilt, Dr. Duke published a self-help book for women titled Finders-Keepers in 1976. The publication gives advice to women regarding vaginal exercises, fellatio, anal sex, and anilingus . [18][19] The manual is no longer in print and hard to find, however “The Picayune”, a local Mississippi newspaper, managed to find a copy and trace the trail of it’s proceeds to the original author via the publisher.

-- 70.231.133.161 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this article needs cleaning... 152.163.101.14 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living persons

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Editors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy if, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the material is unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, and may constitute defamation. Blocks made for this reason are designed to keep the material off the page until it is written and sourced in accordance with the content policies, including WP:BLP, and should therefore be kept short in the first instance. Repeated infractions should attract longer blocks. Warning and block templates may be placed on the user's talk page: {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, and {{blp3}}. See the section on disruption below.

[edit] How to block

Sysops may go to Special pages and select the "Block a user/IP address" link. This takes them to Special:Blockip, which has further instructions. Special:Blockip is also accessible via the [block] link that appears next to each non-logged in user on recent changes.

The "reason" that the administrator fills in will be displayed to the blocked user when he attempts to edit, as well as appearing in the block log and the block list. If it is not for an obvious reason, or if more than one line is needed to explain the block, the administrator may record the block at Wikipedia:Policy enforcement.

Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments.

[edit] Options for IP blocks

There are two options available at Special:Blockip that can affect the operation of IP blocks. Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks.

In some cases, an IP may be shared by administrators who request they be notified before blocks are placed on them (so that they may finish any administrative work they are doing). For this reason, it is advisable to check the user talk page of the IP where any such request will be listed. In this situation it may be advisable to select the block anonymous users only.

Zundel - of course it could be said that Zundel was imprisoned for exercising free speech - which isn't allowed in Germany. Must have been an Arab who wrote that section.

[edit] Some questions

I've been hearing rumors that David Duke was forced to be the bitch of multiple black men while in prison to avoid being murdered. I also noticed that much of the information he gets for his site martinlutherking.org comes from ultra-obscure conspiracy theorist book called "Martin Luther King: The Man Behind the Myth", can anyone confirm this?

[edit] Recent edits

I notice that this article has been practically re-written by 71.192.183.115, 205.188.117.10, and DonFisherKing (ostensibly the same user). While some new information is useful, neutral and modestly pro-Duke sources have been replaced with ones that are overwhelmingly anti-Duke, and much pertinent information has been removed. The effect is that the article is more negative in general. I tried to counter this a few days ago to get a more NPOV revision and to restore the passages that were deleted without an explanation, while maintaining the new information, but the edit was reverted by 71.192.183.115 to the last one (with a libelous accusal of vandalism in the edit summary), which had numerous spelling and grammatical errors as well as the changes I noted above. It seems that no other editor has addressed this, so I felt that it should be brought to attention.

--Ryodox 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding "Holocaust deniers" and "revisionists", the latter is clearly the most accurate term, as no serious Holocaust revisionist denies that anything happened at all.

See "revisionism." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 23 Aug. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revisionism>

--Ryodox 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I also propose that the bulleted subheadings be replaced with proper ones.

Denying the basic truths of the Holocast is denial. If one asserts that only a small number of Jews were killed, or that the killings were unintentional, then one asserts that there was no "holocaust", just a minor wartime mishap. Duke is clearly a "Holocaust denier". However, in the sentence of his that we're quoting Duke himself refers to "Revisionists". One those ground alone I suppose that the change is appropriate. -Will Beback 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't so clearly, because, at least in pieces I'm familiar with, he's usually restraining himself to quoting other revisionists, attacking censorship of revisionism/denial/whatever in Europe, advocating "sceptical and open-minded consideration of evidence" etc. This, of course, may (or may not) be seen as nothing more than a weasely tactic, but the fact remains, that at least as far as I know he usually strongly "denies" little.Poison sf 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers Holocaust denial to "Holocaust revisionism", because Wikipedia uses the real names for things, rather than misleading euphemisms. Please read the Holocaust denial article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If "Holocaust revisionism" was the term used by a majority, I think there'd be a better argument for it. But "Holocaust denial" is used at least an order of magnitude more often (Google search is something like 1.1 million to 73K) than the euphemism. IronDuke 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then (based on Will Beback's reasoning), but I'm going to revert the article back to Jayjg's edit, as the anonymous user who continually reverts my edits to this page has again (this time, under the IP 69.167.100.155) removed my information, made the article more biased, and falsely accused me of vandalism and introducing "White Power propaganda". I'll try to incorporate edits by other users since. For example, most of the formatting errors and inconsistencies corrected by Humus sapiens, I already fixed before the reversion, but this questionable user reverted my contributions anyway. (Vandalism? I'm not sure, but if it happens again I will treat it as such.)

--Ryodox 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, I ask you, please respect my contributions and cease stubbornly reverting to a page with multilpe corrected imprecisions. If you have any links, don't show them to *me* in edit summaries, what kind of behavior is that? Edit the revelevant passage and add it there, don't interfere with article editing with your reverts. Poison sf 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I inspected the link you gave me, and it IMO doesn't support this claim "Duke believes the Holocaust was a hoax designed to draw international sympathy for Zionist causes.". The closest is:

The Zionists who use the Holocaust as the sword and shield of the racial-supremacist state of Israel have demanded that there can be no academic or intellectual debate concerning the validity of even the smallest detail of the Jewish version of the Holocaust.

But it's not the same. I will agree to quoting something like the above passage in the article if you insist, but I disagree with attibuting to Duke words he didn't say. Poison sf 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The link I provided (which I was "showing" to everyone who looks in the history) is already in the article. Also, you have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. Thanks. IronDuke 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm really missing something, I think I've made 2 reverts. Besides, contested claim so far is IN the article, what else do you want?

You're at three right now, actually. Sorry for confusion. IronDuke 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not enough to show link in history. Links are supposed to be in the article. Currently, in the article was given a link that DID NOT support the claim that Duke said something like that. So article was imprecise and misleading in that passage. If you want, add that info in the article, though, I've to note, even the link you've provided still DOES NOT support the claim (also see above). Poison sf 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The relevant quote would be:

“

He simply dared to publish articles and books that differed from the politically correct view of the Holocaust. He argued using extensive evidence, documents and reason that some of the assumptions about the Holocaust were incorrect. He argued for instance that although many Jews died from the effects of their incarceration and mistreatment, there wasn’t an actual German master plan or policy to kill all the Jews of Europe. He honestly believed that the so-called Holocaust as presented was an extension of war propaganda that had the intention of helping to secure support for the establishment of the Zionist state. The story of great crimes against Jews was the buffer which allowed the subsequent crimes of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian inhabitants of what is now Israel. If you read his material, it is rational, thoughtful and not the least bit hateful. And he has suffered tremendously for simply voicing his opinion. He exercised something that Bush and Blair and all people like to call free speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of conscience.

”

Also this: [20]. Here's a rule of thumb for you: anyone who uses the word "revisionist" with a straight face in this context is a denier. IronDuke 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with such "rule of thumb" and, most importantly, the question of whether Duke can be called a Holocaust Denier is entirely different from the main issue, which is that (I believe) it's wrong to attribute words to Duke that are not supported by any evidence.

So far I don't see any real evidence that this passage :

"Duke believes the Holocaust was a hoax designed to draw international sympathy for Zionist causes."

is factual.

The 2003-denialreport also doesn't support that. From NPOV perspective, it can only support stating in the article that Jewish Supremacism is considered Holocaust Denial book by some organizations (based on the fact that it's in "denial report"). I don't see how it can support anything else Poison sf 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote: "In April 2003, Barnes Review announced that it is the exclusive distributor for Jewish Supremacism, a new book by Holocaust-denier and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." Keep in mind: no Holocause Denier has ever labeled him or herself such, AFAIK. IronDuke 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing my point or pretending that you're missing. I don't oppose quoting (in NPOV way) claims that Duke is denier or whatever. I'm opposing "mind guessing", attributing false quotes to people that they didn't say. The only legit reason to write that a person believe so and so is when you can find a quote where he says exactly that, I mean either a verbatin quote or at least something reasonably close. So far I don't see that you have provided convincing evidence that beliefs attributed to Duke actually are his. There's only speculation, third party opinions and far fetched conclusions. I'm not saying that third party opinions can't be noted in the article, on the contrary they may be very important, but correct way to include them is to cite them neutrally, not "mind-guess" and attribute to Duke what misleadingly looks like his quote, but actually is speculation. Poison sf 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. Let me take a slightly different stab at it: it would be wrong of me to go through Duke's speeches and writing and try to lift out quotes indicating that he is a denier and then claim that he was a denier if that was all there was. That would be OR on my part. But given that, as I say, no deniers ever admit to being deniers, the only way to tag them as such is if notable people do. I cannot do it, nor can any other WP editor. But notable people have. Does that make sense? IronDuke

Yes it does make sense. I'm completely ok with noting in the article that organization A or person B or a group C says Duke is denier. However, this is far from being the same as playing mind-guessing and stating what person believes or does not believe, based purely on speculation. The only acceptable case to say "... believes ..." is when the person is question publicly said that. I wouldn't even bet all my money he DIDN'T ever say something like that, it's just that when claims of this sort are made, burden of proof is on those who make them and claims must be backed by evidence. So far I don't see exactly this claim "Duke believes..." backed by evidence. Although I can see ground for writing that he's accused of Holocaust denial or is classified so by somebody or whatever other way this may be put. Poison sf 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. But I think that though what you say makes perfect sense logically, it essentially puts the burden on us to decide whether the experts who say Duke is a denier have used proper evidence to arrive at those conclusions. IronDuke

Well, I'm far from wiki-guru myself, I'm just an occasional editor, but my idea of it is that the burden you're speaking about (to decide whether experts used proper evidence) is essentially to be left to the reader. NPOV article can present notable theories, facts and opinions, then the reader can follow the references and links to read original sources if he's unsure, or maybe a reader is already familiar with one or another group or scholar that are cited in the article and is inclined to trust their authority. Poison sf 11:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

In recent time I've made a few minor (or sometimes not so minor) modifications, that unfortunately were lost several times because of reverts. Reverts usually were made because of another reason, at least I didn't see any reasons being cited why these particular the modifications are unacceptable. My free time is pretty scarce recently, so I'm pretty pissed off by necessity to enter same stuff again and again. So, in case that maybe there're reasons the edits are objectionable, I'm putting it here for discussion.

Using the occasion, I would also ask people to be more careful with reverts. Frivilous reverts that correct one objectional sentence but waste a load of work of other editor(s) are IMO abuse of revert feature.

In 2004 Duke’s bodyguard, roommate, and longtime associate by the name of Roy Armstrong made a bid for the United States House of Representatives to serve Louisiana's First Congressional District. Armstrong lost the election handily to Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American despite Duke acting as the head campaign advisor. [21] [22]

I don't know what the word "despite" is supposed to mean in that passage? What is it trying to say? That Duke didn't provide adequate advise or on the contrary, provided good advise but it didn't help? This formulation does nothing but confuse. I propose changing that to "Duke was acting as advisor in that campaign" or something else that has clear meaning.

Duke's first book was published under the title "My Awakening" drawing "parallels" to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. [38] "My Awakening" details Duke's reasoning behind racial segregation along with various other philosophies related to Duke's perspective he refers to as the "truth" about peoples of African descent, Jews, homosexuals, immigrants, and women. [39]

This paragraph was previously improved by several edits, but now seems to be back to it's worst, most POV and nonsense version. First sentence is not NPOV. Second sentence is misleading, because, at basing on nothing but the source provided, it's not supported. The ADL review of his book, which is given as the source, DOES NOT claim that "Duke refers to [his perspective in the book] as truth about peoples of African descent, Jews, homosexuals, immigrants, and women". They criticize the book, and that passage about truth is their own "summary" of the book in one short sentence. One-liner summary of the book made by political opponents in their own words (not using any verbatin quote) is IMO absolutely not an adequate base to have that sentence in the article. ADL review is notable, but instead of claiming something that is not supported by source, I propose citing in the article ADL's claim that book contains racist, anti-semitic sexist and homophobic material.

In 2000 David Duke published in Russia his latest controversial book: Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question. While the book's title leads one to believe it is a continuation of his first autobiographical work, the book instead purports to be a collection of historical documents that detail religious beliefs of Jewish conspiracies since antiquity. The book is dedicated to Israel Shahak, a controversial writer, who was an ardent critic of what he saw as supremacist religious teachings in modern Jewish culture. Duke denies the book is motivated by anti-Semitism. ^{[citation needed]}

Similar problem with this paragraph, weird structure and nonsense. Religious beliefs of Jewish conspiracies??? Huh?? What is that? Title leads one to believe? How? I could understand this claim if the title was "My Awakening, vol II", but since it's not the case, that is just non-sequitur. I'll try to rewrite it so that it doesn't contain such nonsense.

Stormfront.com section. It's not .com, it's .org. .com is completely false claim, that BTW probably wouldn't be appreciated by the owners of the .com site. "Sites are in alliance" is too abstract, "frequently distribute same material" is also too abstract and confusing. I'll rewrite to remove .com mistake and describe cooperation between the sites in question in a way that is closer to truth.

Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, "professor of racialism" claim. None of the sources support this claim, unsurprisingly, because I doubt there's such a thing as professor of racialism. There isn't any mention of Duke at all in the sources. I've seen in some third party article that he was teaching international relations and history. I'll try to find where was it.

Finally, I propose deleting this link from the external links section: Ex Klan leader Johnny Lee Clary was Dukes bodyguard and speaks about the KKKWeb page with many articles by ex Klan leader]. It looks like self-promotion / spam link. I've visited it, looks some crazy televangelism. As a whole, site is IMO pretty useless. During a quick examination I failed to find where is Duke-related material. This links could be suitable on a page about Johny Lee Clary, but on Duke article it's little more than spam. IF there is useful material somewhere deep within that site, then add a direct link. It is David Duke article, and external links are supposed to lead to material that provides information about him IMO. It's bad to force readers to waste time looking for the article which may be not even there. Poison sf 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One more, scandals section. I've read the articles that are currently footnotes 9 and 10. They're given as footnotes for a passage about gambling and stock investments. I don't see anything about that in the articles. Or am I missing something? They're either given in a wrong place or something IMO. One in particular (Republicanizing the Race card) looked interesting. I propose either moving them to further reading or removing, but currently it looks pretty misleading. Poison sf 12:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Noticed this: "This conspiracy theory lacks substantial factual support and is widely disputed by the American public.", DavidDuke.com / 9/11 attacks paragraph. Although this is probably indeed a fringe view, it sounds somewhat POV. Would be good to cite someone there instead. Currently rewording and putting a cite sources mark there. Poison sf 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

@ Poison sf: I completely agree with you, and this is what I was talking about in my above comments. This same person, using different IP addresses, returns to this page and reverts my edits to his previous POV-tainted and inaccurate earlier edit, and makes ridiculous allegations against me. He says in his most recent edits that I called the Anti-Defamation League and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People "terrorist organizations" and made disparaging comments about Black people. Check the history page.

The problem, though, is that nobody caught the vandalism (twice) and instead continued to edit the article, often spending much time fixing deconstructive edits made by that anonymous user, which I had already rectified. If this happens again, it needs to be immediately recognized as vandalism and reverted if we're not going to repeatedly make the same corrections and improvements.

--Ryodox 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, very bad editing by that user. Edit summary is total gibberis. I've just checked the edit history, I don't even see terrorist mentioned anywhere in relation to ADL or NAACP. WTF was he talking about?

BTW, "covered his swastika with a Klan robe" (LOL) - good you caught that. I didn't notice this passage. Must read the article again, maybe there're more examples of such "neutral" descriptions I've missed. Poison sf 10:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished another browsing through history and analysis of changes. I've doubts about "Jewish interest group" term. I've a feeling it's going to be disputed a lot. Maybe at least change it to minority interest group(s)? Also I don't know what to do with Jewish Supremacism section, paragraph two. A lot of those claims are lifted from pro-Duke review at a distributor of the JS book. So its credibility may be questionable. It's very difficult to find any third party sources that either support or refute those claims. Though, personally, I think 500.000 is, ahem, overtly optimistic estimate. I'll try to look for sources again, but it may be that it's easier to remove it. Poison sf 12:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Jewish interest group" is certainly more accurate than "civil rights group" (for example, in the sources citing criticism of MAUP, not once do any of the articles say "civil rights organizations"). People should know that the ADL and such organizations are interest groups with their own agenda. Also, regarding the second paragraph of /* Jewish Supremacism */, the revision was good. I too could not locate a source for the claims.

--Ryodox 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we move the above discussions into an archive.

Also, when I have the time, I'll stop by and fill out the many online citations.

--Ryodox 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I too find it ridiculous and gross to mention the words "civil rights" and demands to close universities because of politically incorrect speech (which is protected speech under US laws and so far wasn't declared criminal under Ukrainian laws either) in the same breath. But it's my personal opinion, and I don't that such usage is accepted in mainstream. I believe all non-naive people already know that every group is an interest group with an agenda, and usually far from immaculately altruist and moral one at that. Others probably wouldn't budge if ADL proudly declared t on their homepage. Of organizations mentioned in that paragraph, the one "NCSJ" gives some serious grounds to call it a Jewish interest group; for example, their mission statement only mentions Jews and their interests: http://www.ncsj.org/mission.shtml. OTOH, ADL is much more difficult to classify the same way, because, at least on paper they incorporated "fair treatement to all" etc in their public principles and mission statements. Whether they do consistently stand by these principles is a matter of personal opinion. A certain emphasis on Jews may give some ground to calling them Jewish interest AND civil rights group based on their self-descriptions and public principles, but it may also be debatable.

Based on all of the above, I propose writing "Jewish interest and civil rights groups" where groups like NCSJ are covered as well, but would prefer to avoid this highly controversial issue completely where ADL alone is described. Most appropriate place for such stuff IMO would be ADL's article, where there's already some critique of them :) Poison sf 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I got an idea to refer to them as "Jewish interest and anti-racist organizations". I don't think ADL itself would object to description of it as anti-racist, and this certainly fits the context much better, because in this case the actions had little to do with "civil rights" (there's no "civil right" granted to anybody by Ukraine, or US for that matter, to close universities for disliked legal speech or be immune from legal critique). OTOH, in this case organizations can be said to have acted in a way consistent with anti-racist worldview. Poison sf 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that point, but I question the validity of including the ADL criticism of Duke's My Awakening without a second opinion from an article that isn't so blatantly negative (the ADL even brings out the Hitler associations in the first paragraph). The ADL makes their anti-Duke agenda clear, so one can't reasonably expect a fair review. I say we either add another source that is favourable, replace the ADL link with a relatively neutral review, or remove the statement altogether. --Ryodox 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to add a different perspective, the question is what to quote. It's not easy to find something positive about Duke in mainstream sources. Maybe something about My Awakening from Duke's own site. I don't know. Poison sf 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klan category

I have changed the Klan category Duke is in because the article indicates he is a former member, not an active member. I don't see any claims within the article that would cause this to be controversial, but I thought I'd add a note on the talk page in case there is controversy and there needs to be discussion. Erechtheus 06:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem there; indeed he was only a one-time member. I didn't know such a category existed, actually.

--Ryodox 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say, he was still the Grand Wizard of the KKK! If that does not fin under the KKK catagory, I don't know what the hell does. 69.167.100.155 04:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholics

This man Opean the KKKK To Catholics in 1975. I would not want to join the Klan anyway(I am Catholic) But why is that pice of info not in the Article?

I've never heard this. But if you have a reliable citation, then feel free to add it! Phiwum 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

WP:NPOV

DocFisherKing 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That the article is in a neutral point of view is not in dispute. It is your edits which have been consistently non-NPOV as well as generally inferior, and you are violating the work of virtually every other editor which has contributed to this page within the past two weeks. You also don\'t exhibit much regard for Wikipedia guidelines; if you have a problem with the article, discuss on the talk page instead of simply reverting to a much older and inferior edit. I also don\'t appreciate your libellous accusations against me (such as the disparaging comments about Black people that I never made, and that I am \"vandalizing\" the article when in fact I am probably the editor who has been making the most improvements).

--Ryodox 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You call this neutral? Are you serious? That is funny! I can\'t wait until you are ban from wikipedia so that the integrity of the articles can be restored. You are nothing more than a nuisance, a racist, a white supremacist, an anti-semite, not to mention a bigot. Keep it up, it\'s amusement to me, like claiming that David Duke does not belong in the KKK category because he is no longer a member. Did you forget he was the Grand Wizard during the 1980\'s. Keep up the vandalism! 69.167.100.155 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That\'s ridiculous. Copy pasted NPOV policy (BTW why the Hell spam this discussion with it? A link is enough) is an argument for revert??? Can you at least show passages that you dispute or something? Anyway, your revert takes article back to a version with multiple inaccuracies, false claims and blatant POV, some of which were addressed by me, see section \"some changes\" above. Stop unproductive reverts that are borderline vandalism, please. Poison sf 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that 69.167.100.155 (a.k.a. DocFisherKing) doesn\'t even have his facts straight. Duke left the Klan in 1978. --Ryodox 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ryodox,

First, I am not DocFisherKing. Second, David Duke was the Grand Wizard of the KKK, there for he belongs in the KKK catagory. Third, Mr. Ryodox a.k.a. Poison sf you are distoring reality with your edits of this article... To claim David Duke is not a racist, an anti-semite, or xenophobic is nothing more then propaganda and untrue. I wish you well in life. I fear that you will become the next Anti-Christ. Lastly, stop altering my edits, comments, and votes please! 69.167.100.155 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First, sorry, but you\'re not fooling anyone. You and DocFisherKing use the same language, edit the same pages, revert to the same edits, and even remove legitimate warnings from each others\' talk pages. Second, David Duke is no longer a member of the Ku Klux Klan, therefore he belongs in the \"Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan\" category. Third, I\'m not Poison sf, as any administrator can confirm (see Template:WP:SOCK). He is just another editor who sees your destructive edits for what they are. And lastly, there you go again with your false accusations. Please give me a link to a single instance of me modifying your messages or votes.

--Ryodox 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don\'t care anymore, whatever you say. David Duke is a racist and so are you! If you can live with yourself fabricating David Duke\'s biography with falshoods to make him sound like a god, then go ahead. Wikipedia was not designed for your propaganda, but if thats what Jimbo Wales likes, then that\'s what he got. So go ahead, keep destroying the integrity of these articles. I can live with myself knowing that I treat all men equally with no malice. You are nothing more than a Neo-Nazi who loves hurting others. Can you sleep at night?

69.167.100.155 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I further neutralized language and prose throughout the article. We don\'t need to say Hitler is evil, we leave that up to the reader to decide through his actions. Same thing with David Duke, leave it up to the reader to decide if he is racist or not. Electrawn 05:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not find anything in the article or past reverts that stated \"Hitler is evil\" what on earth are you talking about?

216.32.86.210 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He/she is saying that the facts must speak for themselves, giving Hitler as an example of how. We all know that Hitler was an evil man, however, in an encyclopedic article on Hitler, it would neither be appropriate or nessecary for Hitler to be described as evil. Instead, you would simply list the fact about him (ie, the things that he did, famous quotes and speeches, etc), and let the reader of the article come to his/her own conclusion.

As to this "clan members"/"ex-clan members" catagory business, it's rediculous. Whether a person has been in the KKK is info that belongs in the article itself - whether a member of the clan has left (and when) belongs in the asrticle itself - niether belongs to existance in a catagory. The one and only catagory for the KKK should be something along the lines of KKK involvement/association or similar.

THAT is neutrality. --Crimsone 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more Crimsone, yet to create a catagory is giving the situation too much dignity. This entire article is nothing more than a hotbed for racial debates. I don't know what can be done to preserve it's integrity from biggots attempting to display Duke's life in a positive light. It is a fact that Duke was the leader of the Klan during the 80's, therefore it seems to be that he is a part of Klan history and belogs in the Klan catagory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

There is also somthing going on with this / (slash) marks that pop up after every " (quotation) mark, is that some type of glitch?

66.246.72.108 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO WAY IS HE BORN AGAIN

it is disgraceful to call him born again. that is a lie and should be indentified as such. take him off the list.

Right. Just as soon as you share your flawless test for who counts as born-again and who doesn't. Until then, we will just have to depend on the testimony of the individuals.Phiwum 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I wondered about that too and found a source which described an interview with Duke in which he was asked about it. He said it occurred when he was 13 years old and admits occasional backsliding since then. -Will Beback 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP citing controversy

Editors might look here to find DD citing a WP article in one of his podcasts (listen for 3 minutes) in order to put his case on Jewish supremacism. But the article cited, Halakha, has a talk page full of debate about anti-Jewish editing of the article itself! It raises questions about the manipulation, and influence, of WP.--Shtove 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixes

Bolding
Centering
Grammar

66.246.72.108 06:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but capitalization of words that are not proper nouns in headings, other than the first word, is against Wikipedia's manual of style: WP:MSH#Capitalization. Also, please stop removing the reference I moved. I think the facts that Duke formed the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and that he worked for Air America are typically common knowledge. I'm not able to edit the article now, though, because this out-dated browser can't handle over 30 kilobytes of text in a single textarea, apparently.

Also, I don't believe the /* Controversies */ section should be bulleted. There are too many bullets as is; the article doesn't need to read like a list.

--Ryodox 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that the sky is blue. It is not common knowledge that "Duke formed the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and that he worked for Air America". If these facts are commonly known then we should be able to find sources for them. Doesn't Duke mention them in his bio? -Will Beback 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the sky can be any number of colours depending on the environment, weather, and time of day, so I wouldn't say it's common knowledge that it's always blue. But in seriousness, yes, Duke mentions it in his autobiography, and it's also covered in Tyler Bridges's book. I have used the rule that if three or more reputable sources state a fact, then it's common knowledge and doesn't need to be sourced.

--Ryodox 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's this rule? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Common knowledge. If something is referenced in three places then it is triply-easy to use one for a citattion. -Will Beback 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that 66.246.72.108 has edited the article again without regard for consensus, and nobody reverted his edit. He reverted the article to his own version without explanation. These same editing patterns were seen about two months ago, by a user who repeatedly reverted the article to his own version, then proceeded to level false accusations against me, "report" me to the Wikipedia administration, and harass me on Xanga. I have a strong suspicion that this may be the same person.

As luck would have it, though, I can't edit the article here because of the 30 kb limit. --Ryodox 06:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. -Will Beback 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bla! Bla! Bla! You are all a bunch of racists! You White Supremacists make me sick! 208.101.4.34

Oh sure, David Duke! LOL, the only peorson who has had more plastic surgery than Michael Jackson. Jacko and David Duke are both wacko, did anyone ever hear him tell his so-called "Jewish-Skinned" lamp story? What a wierdo. The guy can't even live in this country anymore because he alienated his loyal followers by stealing from them and gambling it away at Tunica, Mississippi's casino in Ole Miss. I played blackjack with the jerk for about two hours. He is very creepy, and can't go 5 minutes without tooting his own horn.

66.246.72.108

P.S. I never heard of Xanga until this very moment, sorry.

Well, either way, I'm removing all of your bullshit categories. They aren't qualified in the body of the article and do not even accurately describe Duke (even "segregationist" is wrong; Duke advocates racial separatism, not segregation). Oh, and you played blackjack with him? Oh, that's right, I was there too.

--Ryodox 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove segregationist, it's been sourced. -Will Beback 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been sourced that he's spoken against racial integration, but just because he speaks against racial integration doesn't make him a segregationist. Throughout his autobiography he explains that he advocates racial separatism, as segregation implies a multiracial society. See White separatism.

--Ryodox 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a source that calls him one. -Will Beback 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the ADL page? So that means if I cite a White nationalist organization labelling Abraham Foxman a "Jewish supremacist", with a quote by Foxman to support the claim, I can then add that to the Abraham Foxman article as a matter-of-fact statement?

--Ryodox 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for Duke denying being a segregationist? -Will Beback 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, watch your language around you elders young man! Secondly, there is little point in arguing semantics. "Racial separatism" is "segregationalism" son. Lastly, I can clearly tell that you despise me merely because I am an African-American, but I hold no harsh feeling toward you. One day you shall overcome your foolishness. God bless you. 66.246.72.108

@ Will Beback: That's not how it works. It's up to you to prove that he is a segregationist if you want to include that information in the article, which you have not done. The ADL page doesn't even refer to Duke as a "segregationist"; it simply quotes two statements by Duke's regarding racial integration. He also makes clear his support for racially homogeneous societies here. Since segregation implies a multiracial society with a racial heirarchy as opposed to a racially homogeneous one (again, see White separatism), this makes Duke a White separatist. It is on these grounds that I'm removing the "segregationists" category from the page and changing "segregation" to "White separatism".

@ 66.246.72.108: You're almost funny. Almost. Your vandalism will be reverted as it has been in the past.

--Ryodox 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Racially homogeneous" socities are achieved by segregating those who do not fit the preferred racial profile, and the source indicates segregation; that's all that's required. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke, on his own website, says that segregation is Biblically-endorsed [23], and he psots an essay that calls it biologically natural.[24] He writes of seeking out pro-segregationist literature as a youth. [25] An article from the Toledo Blade says:

David Duke grew up in New Orleans and first became involved in race issues as a teenager, when he was assigned to write a school paper on segregation. He became convinced that segregation was the only way, and from that moment, Mr. Duke says, “the race question” became his life.[26]

There are plenty of sources that associate Duke with segregationism. -Will Beback 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Jayjg, Will Beback: You two clearly have no understanding of the difference between racial segregation and separatism. The former requires separation of different races in public places, even though they may exist in close proximity; the latter requires complete separation, i.e. on a national scale to achieve a homogeneous society. Regarding your first link, Will Beback, he writes "The Bible also clearly advocates separation or segregation." The last one you cite is from an editorial piece (from a blog page, no less) in opposition to Duke, so it will obviously distort his views. Neither of you have so far proven that Duke advocates racial segregation per the Jim Crow era, and later today I will insert a quote by Duke from his autobiography which will settle the matter.

--Ryodox 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the last link is to a profile originally published on the front page of a major newspaper, the Toledo Blade and reprinted in the reporter's "clipfile" blog. Here's the article in the paper's archive.[27] -Will Beback 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am staying by my version because I have proven that Duke is not in fact a segregationist, but a separatist. As an example, just because I happen to be, say, an outspoken opponent of Communism, doesn't make me a fascist by default, especially if I have been quoted in my autobiography speaking in support of democracy. I'm also going to keep the ridiculously non-NPOV categories out of the page, as Duke has made clear that he does not advocate ethnic supremacy of any kind, and including the "American terrorists" category is nothing short of libel. --Ryodox 17:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When did you prove that Duke is not a segregationist? You said you'd post a quote from him to that effect, but I don't see it. In the meantime, please don't remove the assertion that he is favors segration, as we have sources that support that view. -Will Beback 10:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote is there; it's the third paragraph in the article, taken from his autobiography.

--Ryodox 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To begin with it's inappropriate to have a long quote in the introduction. Secondly, he says nothing about segregation. Integration, which he opposes, is normally considered the opposite of segregation. You haven't proven your point. -Will Beback 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I quote from White separatism:

Since separatism is predicated on separation of sovereign powers, there are people (specifically white separatists) who claim that white separatism is necessary to maintain self-determination, which is predicated on a single sovereignty. According to most standard dictionaries, racial segregation and apartheid speak of a society within which racial discrimination takes place, whereas separate sovereignties imply separate societies.

Since Duke advocates, as evidenced by his words in his autobiography, separate societies for the races, instead of a segregationist society in which racial discrimination is practiced, he is a White separatist, per the definitions of many dictionaries and Wikipedia itself. If you can find a recent quote from him in which he actually and unambiguously speaks in favour of segregation (not simply being opposed to integration), then by all means add it to the article. As of now, I'll move the quote down to the section about the book in which it's printed.

Secondly, the ADL "review" of the book doesn't belong. It's light on actual in-depth analysis of the book and heavy on anti-Duke polemics (the ADL is probably Duke's biggest political enemy), and per the NPOV policy it should be accompanied by a corresponding positive review if it's to remain in the article. This was discussed a couple of months ago by myself and Poison sf. --Ryodox 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryodox, you seem to have a wrong idea of NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

White separatism as a goal does not imply rejecting segregation as a current practice, nor does it mean someone like Duke is not a White supremacist, since he obviously is a

White supremacist, as well as an antisemite and anti-immigrant xenophobe. There is plenty of published material to back up these claims, and they should not be sanitized from this article.--Cberlet 21:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

@Humus sapiens: Is that so? Please elabourate.

@Cberlet: Sure, there's plenty of published material, by Duke's opponents, that consistently refers to him as being a White supremacist and an anti-Semite. However, these cannot be considered accurate at face value by any means, especially considering the facts that (1) they are from biased sources, and (2) that Duke's own statements don't support them (which I've shown; the most recent example was when whoever tried to claim he advocated racial segregation per the Jim Crow era).

Instead of applying labels to Duke and using extremely biased "evidence" from his opponents to back them up, it would be far more consistent with the NPOV policy to rely on Duke's own words and let the reader form his or her own opinion. As it is now, we've got a "book review" from a biased source, the Anti-Defamation League, that even uses the guilt-by-association tactic of describing Duke's autobiography as a "minor-league Mein Kampf". This is obviously not a source of facts, since it's an editorialized piece, so the only purpose it serves in the article is to provide a viewpoint on the book, and it is the only viewpoint being represented. This needs to be changed.

--Ryodox 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke and "My Awakening" have been linked ith "My Struggle" by a variety of sources from across the political spectrum. [28][29][30][31] Making that comparison is not, in and of itself, a signof a source being biased. -Will Beback 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See David Duke's own words [Audience in brackets]:

Antisemitism:

"But, I don't have respect for Zionism, and frankly, I do not have respect for Judaism. Because it's a very vile [Yes.] anti-Christian [Amen.] faith. And if you are familiar with it, then you'd realize why I feel that way. It doesn't mean all Jews are that way. But I don't respect the Talmud, I think it's a very vicious and vile book and it attacks all Christians and non-Jews in the world. And I don't like it." [Amen.] [Applause]

White Supremacy (which Shockley tried to "prove" using pseudo-science):

Incidently, this was a speech that Duke did not know was being recorded, and he later tried to claim he did not say what he said, when I confronted him on a radio program. transcript here.--Cberlet 15:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how that transcript proves that Duke is a White supremacist; in fact, in that very conversation he's noted as saying that he has no desire to oppress other races.

Merriam-Webster's definition of "white supremacy":

a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over other races and the correlative necessity for the subordination of nonwhites to whites in all relationships[32]

--Ryodox 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I reverted DocFisherKing's edit. He operates under that username and a number of different IP addresses; his signature move of reverting a week's worth of edits with nothing more in the edit summary than an accusation of vandalism directed at me usually gives him away. --Ryodox 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The "week's worth of edits" seem to have mostly involved removing sources. I think that more sources are better than fewer. -Will Beback 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's preposterous. Are you even aware that he reverted to a week-old edit?![33] If you want to re-integrate the sources, fine, but don't just revert to his version without checking what you're doing. It's been firmly established since then that Duke is a racial separatist, and a number of other minor improvements have been made since then. Don't just revert to a week-old edit and then tell me to go to the talk page.

Also, the edit in question is in violation of WP:BLP. In it Duke is categorized as a fascist and a terrorist, among other things. If you really think we need five sources indicating that Duke established the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, then go ahead and re-add them, but I think after three it gets a bit redundant. Besides the all-important additional sources, the older edit contains a number of factual inaccuracies and said categories violating WP:BLP. I really wish some of you would slow down from your haste to undo my work and actually look at the edits in question before clicking the "Save page" button.

--Ryodox 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've kept all but one of the (superfluous) sources from the previous version intact. The one I removed was a profile of Jared Taylor, and did not focus on Duke's views about racial integration/segregation. This obviously brings up the issue of the WP:3RR, and here I'll point out that the first three reverts of mine were invoking the WP:BLP policy, which exempted those reversions, as Will Beback and Brimba continued to re-add malicious categories to the page in their blind adoption of DocFisherKing's (and his IP address accounts') version. I am making a final demand that Wikipedia etiquette be adhered to, that other editors stop senselessly reverting to the old version, before mediation is requested.

--Ryodox 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, yet what you call editing Ryodox, the non-racist Wikipedia users consider vandalism! Grow up, and stop with the (superfluous) propaganda...

DocFisherKing

P.S. Half the time I don't even understand what you accuse me of with this IP nonsense.

Feel free to use these news article, photos, and court proceedings to support the article.

[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]

[44], [45][46]

[47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]

DocFisherKing

[edit] Ryodox/208.192.66.196

You are refering to Ryodox's edits as vandalism, that's bad faith. And why are you spamming the talk page with links? --208.192.66.196 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

208.192.66.196

Record Type: IP Address

UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET1996B (NET-208-192-0-0-1)

208.192.0.0 - 208.255.255.255

WS/EXOP OF KEARNEY MISSOURI DBA UNITE | GREATER KANSAS CITY |

EXOP OF MISSOURI | CLAY COUNTY |UU-208-192-64-D4 (NET-208-192-64-0-1)

208.192.64.0 - 208.192.79.255

I am adding sources... DocFisherKing

[edit] Well, nice try Ryodox

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kearney%2C_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=87189434

You didn't fool me! DocFisherKing

More sources: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] DocFisherKing

That doesn't prove that I'm User:Ryodox, just because he made an edit to the page. And it's not nice to post DNS information on talk pages. It's not relevant to the article either, so I'll remove it.

--208.192.66.196 09:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you remove the evidence of your sock puppetry, I will revert it ASAP! DocFisherKing

The proper forum for this discussion is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Brimba 09:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is laughable. The entire cadre is coming to get me! I didn't register a new username, so it's not a sock puppet, sorry to disappoint you. I was mocking DocFisherKing's use of IP address accounts in order to make it appear that there's more support for his position than there really is.

--Ryodox 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, laughable? Maybe to a David Duke supporter! I will repost you DNS as soon as you are blocked to prevent you from you sock puppet stunt in the future! DocFisherKing

Yes, laughable. I don't see myself being blocked for anything, not WP:3RR, because I was reverting your edits when you repeatedly added unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and (in the case of "American terrorists") libelous categories, and you repeatedly revert to inaccurate material. This is not a content dispute, as you never actually bring up valid objections to my edits; you have a vendetta against me plain and simple and simply desire to undo my work without regard for Wikipedia etiquette or policy. I also don't see myself being blocked for WP:SOCK, because a sockpuppet is an alternate user name that is registered.

--Ryodox 10:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you are a David Duke fan and a conspiracy theorist. Great combination! What next, I work for the FBI and have been investigating you? DocFisherKing

American terrorists and David Duke, I never added, but it makes sense because did address the Syrian government and pledged his support. The link to that article is above! DocFisherKing

Nope, you added the category, see for yourself here! Still, to claim that anyone who supports the Syrian government is a terrorist is very non-NPOV and libelous.

Another thing, I fail to notice any minor grammar fixes in your most recent edit to the page, it just looks like the same old revert to me. So if it's not accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary, it's lying about the changes made. I must say, that is a practice truly of your calibre.

--Ryodox 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. To tell you the truth, it's been very hard for me to adhere to the WP:NPA policy tonight. But as of now, let's just say some people have more pressing matters than fulfilling personal vendettas on an online encyclopedia, and for me that just happens to be sleep. Hopefully the Wikipedia administration will see your lowly actions for what they are and this will be cleared up soon. Good night.

I guess I did add that David Duke's name to a list of American terrorists. I must say Ryan, you never cease to amaze me with your loyalty and devotion to Dr. David Duke and his seemingly fascist idiologies that could be considered domestic terrorism or even constitute treason. DocFisherKing

P.S. Good night to you as well my dear...

To be honest, this has nothing to do with any "loyalty and devotion", real or perceived; it has everything to do with being accurate and fair. If you'll notice I have never made any attempt to remove negative information about him which is factual and properly sourced. Also, just because you happen to disagree with Duke's opinions doesn't make him a fascist or terrorist.

In the future, it would be much preferred, both by myself and Wikipedia etiquette, that you discuss major changes to the article on the talk page. If you do this, instead of simply reverting and accusing me of vandalism, I'm sure we could get along much better.

--Ryodox 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Duke as segregationist

I have shown that Duke is a white separatist, not a segregationist, because the two cannot be practiced concurrently, and Duke's statements has evidenced his support of separatism.

Segregation:

The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.^[1]

White separatist:

One who advocates the creation of a society in which whites live separately from other races or from which nonwhite races are excluded. ^[2]

This is in reference to and in negation of Will Beback's insistence on stating that Duke is a supporter of racial segregation. I await a response.

--Ryodox 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke has stated his opposition to integration. Here's the dictionary definition of the term

The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.[63]
1: the action of incorporating a racial or religious group into a community [syn: integrating, desegregation] [ant: segregation] [64]

So, according to the dictionary, segregation is the opposite of integration. -Will Beback 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Segregation is an opposite of integration, yes, but not the only. Here, as opposed to racial integration, Duke advocates separatism. Since separatism precludes segregation, and Duke has made clear his support for the former, then he is not a segregationist. You'd have to provide a quote from Duke in which he explicitly supports segregation, and since not even the Anti-Defamation League has done this, my argument stands.

--Ryodox 13:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If different races, classes, or ethnic groups, must attend different schools, live in different housing, and use different public or commercial facilities (i.e. segregationism), then they are clearly living separately. Furthermore, if different races live separately, they must, by definition, be engaged in the above described segregation. If whites live separately, then different races will attend different schools, live in different housing, and use different public or commercial facilities. White separatism is patently a form of segregationism. To claim that he is not a segregationist if he is a white separatist is just absurd. -Switch ^t 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

^ "segregation." (2) The American Heritage« Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 14 Nov. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/segregation>
^ "white separatist." The American Heritage« Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 14 Nov. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/white%20separatist>

[edit] "David Duke is a malignant narcissist"

I read about the essay David Duke is a malignant Narcissist on the List of Internet phenomena talk page; I know nothing about it and have not read it, nor do I know much about Duke specifically. Has he referred to, retaliated to or made mention of the essay in any way? If he has, it warrants a mention, but if not it should be left out - I was surprised it was not mentioned in the article, as the phrase gets a number of Ghits, but if he has completely ignored it I guess there's good reason it isn't mentioned (though if he said "I choose to completely ignore it", that would be enough attention to get it in the article). -Switch ^t 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

David Duke claims the article was writen about Hitler and not him. Good luck finding the source, it was around 2002 after he was found guilty of federal tax evasion. I can only find the article on message boards now, the origional website has been moved.[65] 69.167.103.146

19,300 GHits - Still can't find published copy... Ironically, the article is discussed on Stormfront.org by members, yet in order to read the comments I would have to sign up as an official Stormfront member, and I'm not into that stuff.

[66] 69.167.103.146

There is a name attached to that article (Wasps Against David Duke) I don't know what that has to do with anyting though. 69.167.103.146

The consensus at Talk:List of Internet phenomena#David Duke is a… seems to be that the material is not notable. And it isn't available from reliable sources. I don't see a reason to include it. -Will Beback · † · 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was that it was not a notable internet phenomenon, but seeing as there isn't really anything to be said about it, I don't see a reason to include it here either. -Switch ^t 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about Duke's malignant narcissisism, who deleted him from the Domestic Terrorist American terrorists [67] after the stunt he pulled in Syria, he should be tried for treason. 69.165.223.15

[edit] Why is this article so extensive?

The guy is a babbling idiot. Can we trim this article down *a lot* Kupesoft 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are all of you self-styled "researchers" so narrow-minded and bigoted? I recently started reading Dr. Duke's book on Jewish Supremicism, and I was shocked at what I read. I realized that I am a victim of the media spin against Dr. Duke. His research is impeccable and his reasoning sound. What is it such a crime to level any sort of criticism against Jews? Let's face it, their record is far from impeccable. It reminds me of what Marlon Brando said back in April of 1996 regarding Hollywoods portrayal of ethnic groups:

“Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of -- of people who are suffering. Because they’ve exploited -- we have seen the -- we have seen the Nigger and Greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the Kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the wagons around."

Jews are not YHWH nor are they YHWH's chosen race as they claim. Stop catering to them and start some REAL research.

Yeah, because movies never have anti-semitism or jewish stereotypees in them. o_O -Switch ^t 03:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice points. But IMHO, your message, much like Duke's, is convoluted and contradictory. That is to say, you find your common ground and understanding with hate. Kupesoft 07:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Duke article needs to be changed

This David Duke article need to be formally edited and looked over due to some incorrect changes. I find many of these post have nothing to do with the article, some are so racist in origin one could not expect this article to be shown in the correct light. Duke is a provincial racist and should be show as such, only tobe fair to the readers. Bias views should not be allowed. This article needs to show people what David Duke is all about, whether it be his inability to know about his own state of Louisiana, or his arrogance of superiority, or how he used campaign money to purchase a bar/lounge. This person is a white supremacist and nothing more, it is quite obvious he is a racist. We know that those who ride on their race usually have nothing else to look forward to. The United States was founded by those cast out of Europe,uneducated commoners and peasants who then stole that lands from Native people, of course it would be the home to many bigots, all the world knows that. --Margrave1206 05:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments appear more likely to offend editors of all stripes rather than to improve this article. Please stick to commenting on the article. -Will Beback · † · 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will my comments are not to offend anyone, however if the editors have a bias slant then this is not what the article needs? You are an administrator aren't you? This article is poor and needs to be improved. Or is this discussion only for those who use it to uplift Duke? The comments I read about besides being racist in many ways are used as platforms to promote their ideas instead of the article. It seems like there is more arguing than actual improvement. However it appears that some people can say whatever they wish. I see. Also where in any of my comments do I offend editors?? Or is historical fact offensive?

    --Margrave1206 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about the United States are not necessary. -Will Beback · † · 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will when shall someone add the information about David opening a bar with campain money? Is this article against truth or did he not open a bar/lounge? When shall this article be place in the correct direction? Wiki should not be bias. --Margrave1206 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Give us a reliable source for the assertion and we can add it today. -Will Beback · † · 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable historical facts are good. Which facts are missing from the article? And are there any clearly false statements in the article? Let's look at specifics and not broad claims that the article is biased and that the public needs to know that white supremacists are losers. Phiwum 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The public doesn't need to know that white supremacists are "losers," but it does need to know that Duke is a white supremacist, as reported by many scholars. The distinction between white supremacism and "white nationalism" is spurious in the first place, for "white nationalism" is merely a euphemism invented by white supremacists and bears no value among non-racist academics. -- WGee 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But if one believes that white nationalism is, in fact, a legitmate ideology, then I'd like to see a reference from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal or another source of similar repute. -- WGee 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a long-standing policy to defer to self-descriptions of one's philosophy and political positions. That is, we use the same terms to describe the subject as he uses — but it is perfectly fair to point out inconsistencies between their actions and self-descriptions.

Nonetheless, right there in the introduction, the article acknowledges that many people consider Duke a supremacist. So what more do you want?

As far as the distinction between nationalism and supremacism goes, we do not require peer-review to justify using terms of self-description. Nonetheless it is very easy to find uses of the term, many of which are peer reviewed. I don't know what you mean by "legitimate ideology", but clearly the term is used by sociologists to describe a certain political stance. Phiwum 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell "owns" or runs wiki. Not just this article, but the vast majority have degenerated into junk. Pretty soon wiki is going to be Jews talking to Jews - everyone else will lnot bother to even look it up. The only purpose it serves is to show the world that our ( Jews) detractors are right-on.

I didn't suggest that we omit Duke's description of himself; however, I maintain that "white nationalism" is nothing but a euphemism for "white supremacy." In other words, the ideology of white nationalism is not recognized by mainstream scholars. That Google Scholar search of yours, yeilding only 358 results for "white nationalism," indicates that. -- WGee 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Three hundred results means the term is not recognized by mainstream scholars. Regardless, the distinction is in common parlance and we make it here on wikipedia. And the article says that many believe he is a supremacist. So again, how would you suggest we change the article? Or did you just want to register your own doubts about the term "white nationalist" without any real impact on this article? Phiwum 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed the article to say that "he is commonly referred to as a white supremacist," and I'm the one who changed the article so that it does not imply a contradiction between "white nationalism" and white supremacy. I'm simply justifying my edits in case they provoke controversy. -- WGee 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. I'm in favor of the change—as long as you can support it with a citation. (I also hadn't noticed it was unverified.) Think you can find someone willing to call Duke a supremacist? Surely that's not too hard. Phiwum 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Due to the subject's recent activities he's been in the news. Many of the reports describe him as a "supremacist". [68][69][70][71][72][73][74], etc. Very few called him a "nationalist", here's the only one I found: [75]. -Will Beback · † · 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously if Duke is teaching and speaking at Ukraine's largest university, he's not shunned by the entire world of academia. Or would you rather argue that that university is not "mainsteam", because it's been been critical of Zionism, or because it's Ukranian? The road to dogma starts with assertions of knowledge based in authority. Racial nationalism among Black people is certainly not disregarded by "mainstream" scholars, whatever that means.

In any case, I reverted. It's been proven and sourced that Duke is an advocate of racial separatism, and the other removals of material were not necessary.

--Ryodox 19:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

@ Will Beback: You still don't know the difference between separatism and segregation?! The two are mutually exclusive. Besides that, segregation has been left out of the article for weeks.

--Ryodox 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was any consensus for your view of this matter. -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided a single quote from Duke in which he supports segregation (nor has anyone else), and segegation and separatism by definition cannot be practiced concurrently. Ideally it wouldn't matter who agrees with me, but rather that I happen to be correct. But then I guess that's Wikiality for you.

--Ryodox 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We have provided information that others view him as pro-segregation, as well as his own opposition to integration. What's our source for the supposition that segregationism and separatism are mutually exclusive? -Will Beback · † · 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

White separatism outlines the distinction between the two. Racial separatism follows that different ethnicities are separated among specific boundaries, while segregation follows that they live in close proximity yet are separated in public facilities, schools, and so forth. Racial diversity is a prerequisite for segregation (for obvious reasons), and since separatism eliminates such multitudes within a nation, segregation cannot really be practiced. This is beside the fact that not one source in the page claims he supports segregation; all three are Duke's own words about the matter, and he clealy advocates separation.

--Ryodox 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is an unsourced assertion in White separatism about segregation. Which brings us back to the original question: what's our source for the two being mutually exclusive? -Will Beback · † · 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My source is the two contrasting definitions of the two terms. Regardless, the burden of proof falls on you. You must provide proof that Duke is a supporter of segregation (which has not been forthcoming); It's not my responsibility to prove that he doesn't. In light of the contrasting definitions of "separation" and "segregation", one cannot simply insert the assertion that he supports segregation based on evidence that he's actually a separatist, or at least not without being inaccurate. --Ryodox 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Duke image

I do not know the legality of the use of the image, whatever it is. I say whatever it is because it does not come up - clicking on same says it cannot be displayed because of errors in the image file. --69.39.105.19 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tehran conference

The paragraph on this in the Conferences section is written in pure tabloid style, with the audience "incredulous" at Duke's assertions. Here's an audio link to Duke's speech [76] Hope that helps.--Shtove 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

I removed the image link because there is no image, but an anonymous IP restored it. Is there any reason for this? .V. 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone added an image. .V. 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The new image must be removed because it was taken from Duke's personal website and is not up for fair use. 69.167.118.223

[edit] Wolf Blitzer "exposed" as Israeli Lobbyist

removed the material about duke "exposing" blitzer as a lobbyist for aipac. the source used [77] is an interview with blitzer in which duke makes two accusations: 1. "you are an agent of Zionism. You work for AIPAC…" and 2. "You’re an Israeli agent." that's the sum total of the information in the source. since this is more of an 'unsubstantiated accusation' than an 'exposure', i have deleted the statement. -- frymaster 07:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Come on you, use the internet a bit, before you revision things! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-8aTGnjHnI Here you have your Israel Lobbyist!

[edit] 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)

[edit] David Duke Photos