Talk:David Duke/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

alt right

Here are some of his comments praising and promoting the views of the alt right.

http://davidduke.com/incredible-conversation-dr-duke-andrew-anglin-alt-right-revolution-jewish-supremacism/

https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/800737273990041600

http://davidduke.com/dr-duke-lauds-white-hero-richard-spencer-the-npi-and-the-true-alt-right/

http://davidduke.com/patrick-slattery-and-mark-collett-discuss-brexit-the-british-immigration-situation-and-what-can-be-done/

An RS referring to his "alt right acolytes"

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/decoding-alt-right-how-fringe-white-nationalism-invaded-mainstream-1594035

It is clear he has links to the Alt right, thus it should be a link in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The David Duke website and twitter are primary sources and not necessarily reliable for statements about him. The IBtimes article needs to be specifically cited somewhere in the article to support alt-right ties. "Seems to" without sources is not allowed per WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about a link to the alt right page, not text in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Wrong. Per WP:BLPCAT, all categories must be supported by text in the article -- no text in the article, no category. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, and primary sources are RS for the subjects statements.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Gambling and fraud

OK do we actually have any sources for the claim that Mr Duke pleaded poverty to con supporters into helping him pay off gambling debts?Slatersteven (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's like a two second google search [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, well that settles that.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust denier. Again.

This has been a recurring source of edit warring, and has already been discussed in the talk page's archives, but to avoid further edit warring, current sources support that Duke is a Holocaust denier.

The idea that we can only include this if Duke himself uses the term is total nonsense, as Wikipedia uses reliable sources (which Duke is not), and doesn't provide any special protection for advocates of extreme WP:FRINGE ideas (which this is). Sources are trivially easy to find. Adding them to the lead would be bending-over backwards to give the false impression that this is a controversial point. It's not. It's a basic, repeated point used to describe him by many sources, both news and academic. For convenience, here are some sources, but Google isn't that hard, so I'm not sure why this is necessary: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]("Holocaust-Leugner") etc. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That is of course correct. Aside from anything else, anyone who actually is a Holocaust denier is virtually certain not to use that term to describe themselves. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm in it now, here are some book sources for this point:
So, so many more where this came from. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem noting in the article that the above all consider him to be a Holocaust-denier. It's calling him one in Wikipedia's voice without a direct quote that's a problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Give me a break. This is not an opinion which needs equivocating. It's a fact about him according to many, many sources. It's a position he has strongly advocated for years, which is supported as a statement of fact by a massive amount of sources, including book-length biographies. What reason is there for WP:WEASELing out of stating it as a simple fact? Why would we cast doubt on reliable sources like this? WP:CRYBLP isn't a valid excuse for edit-warring, either. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The one source from his comments concerning the Iranian conference does, in fact, seem to come close enough. It should really be added to the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Grayfell is right, you don't get to first deny the holocaust and then deny that you've denied it when loads of reliable sources document it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
If there's an RS in which he himself is quoted as denying it, you could note in the article that he attempts to deny it despite the massive amount of literature (some of it written by him) which proves that he advocates it. Due weight could be maintained if such a quote were shown along side the conflicting sources. i.e.
"Duke has repeatedly supported holocaust denial in 'a, b, c, d', etc while in some instance 'e' claiming that he is not a holocaust denier".
That would of course, make him look a bit silly, but if it were well reported then we would be right to include it. If there's no published RS in which he clearly and unabashedly says, "I'm not a holocaust denier", then there's no need to consider the inclusion of such a quote as the evidence given to show him supporting this position is massive. Edaham (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
We generally do not put sources in the lead, as it is a summery (or at least should be) of what is in the body. But I also agree, we should say he has been accused of being a holocaust denier, and until he is prosecuted it remains an accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
no, no prosecution is required. A reliable source is required and we have them.Edaham (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It is still only an accusation. It would be A BLP violation to say he is a Holocaust denier, rather then saying "he had been called one"Slatersteven (talk) 18
25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
From WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Which is what we have here. It's fine for you to have the opinion that "it would be a BLP violation", but you'll have to have some basis in Wikipedia policy for that to actually be the case... which it isn't. Rockypedia (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
So we do not say "He is" we say "X has said he is" we document what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
None of what you copied and pasted is applicable to David Duke. Reliable sources have documented his Holocaust denial. Sorry. Rockypedia (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
How is it not? Just change Affair to holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
he cannot be prosecuted in the country where he lives for what you are saying. Nor is it a crime to deny the holocaust in the country in which Wikipedia is based. He is called a holocaust denier in Wikipedia because reliable sources describe him as such. This does not amount to an accusation of a crime because it isn't a crime (in the US).Edaham (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I think if I did that on the Wikipedia BLP page, it would be met with some resistance. However, you are certainly welcome to try it yourself. Go ahead and change "affair" to "holocaust denial" on the WP:BLP page, and let me know how that turns out. Rockypedia (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
What? you do understand what an example is? But you are correct I think...to a degree. This does need to be raised there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that's settled. Rockypedia (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

David Duke's political affiliation

In this revision the user IOnlyKnowFiveWords added a republican affiliation for David Duke from 2001 to present, based on this source. I'm having the usual VPN issues in China and cannot check this source to be sure. In any case the edit was reverted by MrX because there was no summary. Could a diligent watcher of this page with normal internet access please check to see if this person's info box actually needs updating. Thanks Edaham (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

notifications: @IOnlyKnowFiveWords:@MrX:. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
oops - wrong user name - editedEdaham (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The source verifies that Duke self-identified as Republican as of February 20, 1989, and that Lee Atwater refuted it.- MrX 12:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
So no then it does not support anything other then the claim he was a Republican in 1989.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for taking the time to check that Edaham (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

In the election of 1989 George hw bush and Regan denounced Duke not endorsed him. Multiple sources on this confirm it including the one that was linked to it. 75.167.29.225 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Presuming you are referring to this sentence:

Treen's candidacy was endorsed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other notable Republicans

Nothing needs to be done, it says that his opponent, Treen, was endorsed, not Duke Cannolis (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017

The Wikipedia entry includes the sentence below. Picketing and holding parties on the anniversary of Hitler's birth, he became notorious on the LSU campus for wearing a Nazi uniform.[11] That sentence is inaccurate. The citation [11] is to my book, The Rise of David Duke. I double-checked my book last night and confirmed that that sentence is not accurate. I would request that it simply be deleted. My name is Tyler Bridges Tyler Bridges (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to have the quote here, so we can judge.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Instead of deleting the sentence, why don't we replace the sentence with something else? Preferably something in your book that's more accurate than what's already here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If it fails verification then it should be removed, hence my request that a quote is posted here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Google books only offers previews of this book. The claim about throwing parties for Hitler's birthday is supported (p. 120) as well as Robert E Lee's, incidentally (p. 11). The uniform thing is also supported, although it's very slightly less clear from the preview. It specifically says he was photographed wearing a "swastika and a Nazi uniform" to a 1970 protest against William Kunstler (p. 152). There is another comment on Nazi uniforms which might be about his college years, but it's not clear enough from the preview to say either way, unfortunately. That's on page 17, if it matters. Grayfell (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, a different edition can be read in greater length on Google books. It appears at a glance that it's all in there. His Nazi antics are what prevented him from advancing in the ROTC, ending his military career. Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

--> Suggestion to add short (maybe just one sentence) paragraph to David Duke page under 2016 Senate Campaign heading.

Those who made donations to the campaign were publicly outed in several states in 2017, leading to boycotts, lost business, and one restaurant to close entirely. https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2017/08/30/18802406.php

--> Feel free to include as much information about the response to donors as you like. 50.1.57.163 (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've read the source and my feeling is I'd like to see more mainstream coverage of these events. My searches only saw the story reciprocated in a publication called the democratic underground - hardly a WP:RS. I've left this SP open to allow you to furnish the request with further citations. If it is just the Indy Bay source, I'm super reluctant based on WP:V. Edaham (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
update I found another source here http://www.citypages.com/news/julius-de-roma-on-david-duke-donation-its-just-free-speech-whatever/442229233. I'd like to hear the views of experienced editors on this inclusion. While seemingly relevant, I'm concerned about the BLP issues of including any kind of material on an "outing" campaign. Edaham (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If there's one thing that can be said, it's do it! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I would rather seem some mainstream sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Same here Slatersteven. However, the event does confer notability to the subject by demonstrating the weight and sphere of his influence, so if it can be better sourced I'd say its worth a sentence. Edaham (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Edaham: Here are several sources I found that can be used, which I have not checked for neutrality. [9] [10] [11]. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Still a bit local, but yes I think there may be enough here now for a brief mention.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Done I have used both the City Pages and the Mercury News references. The other links either required a subscription or would give the article WP:UNDUE. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on David Duke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Conviction in lead

I have removed the conviction from the lead as per my reasoning at BLPN. As written it implied the conviction was related to the other things, which is untrue and giving it undue weight. It is featured in the body, which is fine, but there is no need for it in the lead as written. There seems to be some agreement forming on this point at BLPN, and regardless, WP:ONUS, now requires us to achieve consensus for restoring it to the lead since it has been challenged. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I've put it back - reverted. There's already been discussion regarding the inclusion of this piece of information in the lede. Policies are not tools to circumvent BRD. This conviction and its mention in the lead meets the criteria for inclusion per BPLCRIME and PERP. It's well documented, is a part of the activities for which this subject is notable and contributes to an understanding of the subject. There are possibly grounds to elaborate, clarify or attribute the info, but not to remove it. Additional: thanks for the reminders on my talk page it was a correct thing to do to place those discretionary sanction reminders if you were uncertain of how to deal with potentially controversial info being added to an article. Please do look at the archive as well as related policies, which state that sourced information, when contraversial should be carefully examined as to whether or not it contributes to an understanding of the subject, which in this case it does. Again, to be clear - I fully support the care you are taking in ascertaining the validity of the inclusion of this piece of information Edaham (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Edaham: there is currently rough consensus at BLPN that it should not be in the lead. It is not a question as to if it should not be in the article, but to the prominence that being in the first sentence places the information, which is a question of weight. BLP policy actually is a reason to ignore BRD (and even 3RR see WP:3RRBLP). WP:ONUS requires those restoring content to gain consensus for the restoration. The closet thing I see in the archives is this discussion, which I don't see as a very strong consensus for inclusion in the lead at all. Noting that he is a felon is definitely appropriate elsewhere in the article, and might be appropriate elsewhere in the lead, but putting it in the first sentence is certainly undue weight, and I'd ask that you self-revert the restoration per WP:ONUS until we can get a consensus on how specifically to deal with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 removed term and altered wording of sentence concerning conviction lower down Edaham (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I also tweaked a bit to include the guilty plea, which I think adds important context. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
sure thing, agreed! Edaham (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It gives the impression that his conviction is for one of the things mentioned in the lede. It should not be there. It is not what he is notable for. You would have to add it to everyone with a felony conviction, which ranges from public urination to murder. --RAN (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I saw the discussion being held there. I've also recently argued for the removal of similar information during the course of a disupute mediation rather than wait till the dispute has been resolved owing to an almost identical issue regarding BLP policy, so I'm not unfamiliar with the terms of the policies surrounding this issue. I do think that the information contributes to an understanding of the subject and it is one of the things which belongs in the lede. I do think, however, that calling him a felon is wrong, if the same information could be imparted by simply referring to the details of the event rather than attributing it as a personal label. For this reason I will self revert and reword a sentence which refers to the information without labeling him directly and hope that this neutrally diffuses the situation while the mediation/discussion is ongoing.

Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) RAN that is a falicious argument. His is not an unrelated charge like urination. It was a serious conviction which he acquired while carrying out a campaign in which he deceived his supporters. It is one of the things for which he is notable, as well as for continuing to attempt to advance his political career after the conviction, which is often mentioned in post-conviction reports on the subject. Please stick to policy based arguments when debating content.Edaham (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

News articles rarely discuss Duke without mentioning his felony conviction (ex, ex) it's a pretty significant note that he used his public notoriety to bilk his supporters out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and spent a year in prison. I don't know if it absolutely needs to be in the first sentence, but the notion that it doesn't belong in the lead section seems indefensible given the way he is described in other sources. Nblund talk 02:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I probably should have worded this section better. I was referring specifically to the first sentence. It still is in the lead now explicitly, both that he has plead guilty and that it was a conviction. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
With regard to this discussion and that which is ongoing in at BLP I think the current version conforms to our policies and should be kept the way it is. It's fairly clear, well sourced and avoids value laden labels which might step on policies like PERP and NPOV. I do think that inclusion of the word conviction should be kept in there as it implies a legal detail which is both sourced and is subtly different from just saying pleaded...(pled?, pleadeded?... help me out here) guilty. I would not contest a reversion to the previous label, "felon", "criminal" etc, if it is demonstrated during the discussion that he is referred to in this way in a preponderance of sources. Edaham (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine, but feel free to play with the guilty plea wording for grammar, etc. The first sentence issue is that it implies his conviction was for all those things, which it wasn't. I've searched this article several times not as an editor but as a reader, and every time I read it, I always assumed the conviction was for something related to the other things mentioned in that sentence, which I don't think is good for either the reader or Duke. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Your explanation of the location of the information regarding his felony conviction and its wording makes sense. It originally did risk imparting the erroneous notion that the conviction later sourced and referred to was due to the activities listed in that sentence. I think had you made this explanation clear in this edit summary you would probably not have been reverted the first time as the relocation of the information is clearly neutral and in the interests of improving the article. This article has been the subject of numerous whitewashing attempts, and many editors will in good faith have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to removal/blanking of content accompanied merely by canned policy referrals such as WP:ONUS. Thanks though for your assumption of good faith and for your balanced handling of the dispute. Additional: content was restored by another user Edaham (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

We have plenty of BLP's that mention felonies in the lead, and yes Duke is noted for it. It may not be what he is soley noted for, buyt it is as much now a part of his fame as his politics.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It is still noted in the lead, just not the first sentence. The issue with the first sentence in the implication that the conviction was related to everything else that is also in that sentence. Keeping it in the lead but further down helps to avoid this problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I never read it like that, and we also do sometimes (an inconsistency?) list convicted felon in the first line of some BLP's. And I do think (as I said) he is as now famous for his felony as for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree -- that reading is not necessary, and it doesn't amount to an argument for omitting it from the first sentence. Since this was the long-standing version, I've restored it, pending an outcome of the discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Its been challenged on weight, which is a BLP consideration, so it should not be restored unless there is a consensus to restore it. It doesn't matter if that reading is not a necessary reading, it is quite a likely one. Despite the claims here, Duke is not noteworthy for being a convicted felon as much as for everything else in the first sentence. Mentioning it elsewhere in the lead is acceptable and gives it proper weight. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well for a start it is not libelous, as it is not false. So on what other grounds does it violate BLP?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPSTYLE in particular the section on balance. Something doesn't have to be libelous to be a BLP violation. The natural implication of including the fact that he is a felon with all the other things that he is more widely known for in the first sentence is that it is related to those things. Having it included in the first sentence isn't broadly neutral because of this. Keeping it further down in the lead informs the readers that he was convicted while also making it clear it was for crimes other than his other activities. That can't be appropriately covered in the first sentence, so it shouldn't be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to its removal per the fact that the details of the conviction are made abundantly clear in the third sentence. That said, I haven't seen a good case for its removal other than the fact that (in all good faith I presume) talk pages are being spray painted with discretionary scanctions notifications by those who want it removed. I've seen a reasonable argument that it remains unexplained in the first sentence where it appears, which is why when this conversation begun I said, elaborate on it, attribute it but don't remove it wholesale. I think moving words from the third sentence up, to directly follow the "convicted felon" label would be prudent as it's probably a good idea to quickly justify the inclusion of what could be considered a contentious label with more details from a reliable source. Edaham (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Duke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Duke/Archive_5&oldid=819940496"