Talk:David Duke/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Naming wife and kids

Why are we naming his wife and kids? I generally remove this when I find it. WP:BLPNAME talks about this. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If his wife and kids have engaged in newsworthy activities, but not notable enough to warrant a page, then I don't see a problem including them if it is widely published. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think naming them is a problem (nor do I think it's necessary), as long as DOB's and other private information is withheld. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"sourced" is the minimum to mention thing. BLP is additional, on top of that. Please engage with what WP:BLPNAME actually says about naming people. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. This is not needed for "complete understanding of the subject". There is certainly no need to mention the children by name, and Hardin is not notable and has not been his wife for more than 30 years. I can't find the cited ref for her remarriage, but the same site does have another page https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/don-black that says she married Black. A tenuous case could be made for mentioning her since she married another prominant white supremacist, Don Black, and is mentioned in that article, a s is her previous marriage to Duke, but I'm not going to make it.. Meters (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OVERLINKING

WP:OVERLINK suggests that "a good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from". Do I need to have a link to Laos, the Netherlands or other countries mentioned in the article to understand who David Duke is? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked myself that question, in the form of "Would it be helpful to the reader to have a link here?", and the answer was "Yes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language in this article

"what he considers" "what he describes" is this really encyclopedic language? And before anyone tries to poison the well, I've no interest in defending this guy's ideas.--HalMartin (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

what’s your proposed alternative? Editors can’t be at the whim of your gut feeling that an undefined revision is necessary. What if I change it and you still don’t like it? It would be better for you to suggest an alternative and we can compare with the old version. Edaham (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Guiletheme: re this edit They had an interview with Duke. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean it isn't factual and verified, EW is not a reliable source on the genealogy of Duke. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not, if it is an interview?Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Do they have a reputation for checking the facts in their interviews, or are they simply passing along what the interviewee told them? Pleasee see the discussion I've started at WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

David Duke YouTube Channel

• David Duke's YouTube channel

I restored the link to David Duke's YouTube channel, though we might not like what he have to say it provides context for the article. Seems we have an activist editor pushing their own political agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for people to push their political agendas. TonyMorris68 (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

AGF and lay of the PA's. This appears to be an unverified youtube account with material no younger then a year old. As such there is no way to verify it is his or just some fan uploading videos.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

David Duke's official website uses the YouTube channel to embed and promote his videos, his twitter account uses the YouTube channel to promote his videos, so you are unable to prove it is not his channel, contrary the content proves it is his (twitter and davidduke.com website).TonyMorris68 (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This does not make it his official youtube page. It might well be, or just a fan site he makes use of. As I said it is unverified. It is odd he does not appear to have uploaded a video in a year or more, especially as he is still making podcasts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If Duke's website already includes links to the videos, linking to the youtube channel directly is redundant and spammy. Official or not, it's gratuitous, promotional, and provides no useful, encyclopedic information. Duke is not a reliable source for factual information, so this is not a reliable source, and we are not in the business of helping neo-Nazis with their social media. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We are also not in the business of censorship. If (and I say if) this can be shown to be his official video site none of the above is a valid reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. There's nothing censorious about this, and WP:NOTADVERTISING is a valid reason for exclusions. We already provide a link to his website were he can say whatever he wants. That's plenty. Grayfell (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There are no advertising banners on the YouTube channel, so your statement about no advertising is illogical. External links are not about advertising but providing relevant links pertaining to the article. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promoting your own personal political agenda. We provide external links because they relate directly to the article. You are clearly an activist editor whose purpose here is a political agenda. TonyMorris68 (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about advertising him, not commercial advertising. We are not a platform for advertising people's fringe ideas. Misguided personal attacks about my supposed agenda doesn't change the fact that this also isn't the place for Duke to promote his political agenda. Linking to his youtube channel serves no encyclopedic purpose, especially since it's redundant with his own website by your own admission. The entire point of these articles is to summarize reliable sources, and that means independent sources. Duke is not a reliable source for anything other than his own birthday, and even that's borderline. Grayfell (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So you accept this is his youtube channel? And this is not being used as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume it is official. Yes, it is not being used as a source... so what is it being used for? I could point to multiple entries in WP:LINKSTOAVOID, but per WP:ELMIN: More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. This is precisely such a case, and therefore this link places undue emphasis on what the subject says. This is the third link on his website, there is a dedicated set of pages on his site for embedded videos, and even on the main page these videos are very prominent and are as easily viewed on his website as they are on youtube directly. Further, it's not clear why this specific outlet is being given prominence over his blog, his podcast, his radio show, etc. Grayfell (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Its an external link, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" So if this is an official page LINKSTOAVOID does not come into it. " If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances" so ELIMIN is not in fact a blanket ban on more then one official site. So (TonyMorris68) what does this add his "official" official site does not have?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. When you click on "Videos" from the menu at the top of Duke's homepage, it takes you to the YouTube site and should thus fall under ELMIN. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As there seems to be pretty much a consensus that this is an official site my revert reason was not valid, so I have undone it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

But as it links from the top of his website, I don't see how "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances" makes that link ok. If it didn't, there might be an argument for "a very few limited circumstances" although I doubt it."

This is why I asked the adding ed what it adds.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn’t the lede just introduce him as the Devil?

Wow, that is quite a catalogue of negative things in the lede. “Former leader of the KKK DAVID DUKE!” And don’t let that word “former” fool you! It’s not like Jimmy Carter was still president when David Duke left the KKK. It’s not like he was still in his twenties when he left it, and is now nearly seventy! Can’t the lede be changed to be a little more kind and fair? 184.53.33.82 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Why should we be kind, our objective is to present the facts, not be kind.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Article by Dick Lehr on his infiltration of the KKK & meeting with a 29 year old Duke

[1] Doug Weller talk 13:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Doug, I read the article. Considering what happened the story as regards this article, while fascinating, is bit of a non-entity. I could see a sentence or two in the criticism section where we could add it as sub-section 7.5 - The infiltration could be noted along with some info on how he carried out this plan. His narrating of the event is quite editorial and its tricky to repeat any of it in an encyclopediac fashion but we could try and boil it down to the facts. Are you in agreement that it could be added to section 7.5 of the article? Edaham (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I could add all a bit oppeddy to me. I would rather we used third party sources reporting this to establish its credibility.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

they are most likely out there in bulk. I’m going to pull the China excuse to claim that I’m unable to google at the moment. It’s also getting on for 11pm. You want to take a look? Edaham (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

To be frank I am not sure what this adds anyway. We know he was in the KKK, and title tattle about him adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

The category "White supremacists" should be replaced with the category "American white supremacists". 108.245.173.217 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Misleading line

the line about the "little known New Hampshire Vice Presidential Primary" should be changed.

The New Hampshire primary is the 1st in the nation and has brought major media and political attention for 50 years.

Strike the "little known" from the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8800:47AB:4471:BB82:E16D:B58C (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The primary in New Hampshire that is so well known is their Presidential primary. There is a Vice-Presidential primary that happens at the same time that no one really pays any attention to. They're not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

Wish to include a section about Duke's views on the 2020 Presidential elections and candidates he has endorsed. Dragonslayer826 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

For clarity, his own websites and social media are not necessarily enough for this. Wikipedia is not a platform for him to share his opinions, so reliable, independent sources should be proposed. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

is a prominent American racist, white supremacist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist,

can you prove any of these lies? since when wikipedia is spreading lies???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.130.86 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

look at the sources, or are you saying these are not RS?.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It is incumbent on the anonymous OP to explicitly state what they believe does not accurately reflect references- after making a good-faith effort to discover (what are easily sourced) determining references.Mavigogun (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What lies? He openly admits that he is a racist.2600:1702:2340:9470:8870:1FAE:CBFA:2C0C (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Disputed changes

@Lmatt:, the fact that your edits are "good faith" does not mean that other editors have to accept them. I do not consider your recent changes an improvement. If you disagree, you will have to discuss your edits on the talk page and get consensus for them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: You are reverting my edits using an anti-vandalism tool. I have edited the lead for NPOV and added references by changing it from this:

David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American white supremacist, white nationalist politician, white separatist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
— User:Lmatt 23:59, 9 September 2019

to this:

David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American white supremacist and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who has been described by the Anti-Defamation League as "perhaps America’s most well-known racist and anti-Semite".
— User:Lmatt 19:30, 9 September 2019

Could you explain why this version is not an improvement? Lmatt (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove your changes because they were vandalism, nor do I consider them such. Rather, I removed your changes because they were not an improvement. You are the one who wants to make them. That means that the burden is on you to both get consensus for them and explain why they are an improvement. You have done neither of those things. The previous version contains more information. Your changes remove information about Duke that is obviously important, including the fact that he is a Holocaust denier and convicted felon (the former is especially serious, since your version of the lead nowhere acknowledges that point). That is good enough reason for reverting them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining you don't consider my edits as vandalism. If you want to add information then do so, but please do not revert every single one of my edits. Lmatt (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll revert them if A) I do not consider them improvements and B) you are the only person who thinks they are improvements. Thus far, I don't see anyone saying they agree with you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you just add the important information about Duke without reverting everything I change? Lmatt (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the previous list of attributes in the opening sentence. As FKC says, that version is superior to yours.

I have also restored the use of "reflist" instead of "references", a change you have been making to a great many articles, as far as I can tell without a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Making a large number of style changes without a consensus is a problem, and I have alerted you to the problem on your talk page. Please stop making that particular change, as "reflist" is by far the standard choice now. Also, WP:Discretionary sanctions are in effect in the subject area of Manual of Style changes. (Again, see your talk page). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Article image

Would it be possible to find a better image of Duke to put in the infobox? The current image does not seem appropriate, given Duke's facial expression - an "aw shucks" smile. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no better image on Commons. The one that comes closest is really too small for the infobox, and the one of him in Klan gear would defintely be POV, since it's been a long time since he was a Klan leader. If someone could find a better free image of him, that would be great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of using an argument bordering on whataboutism, isn't that kind of like saying the pictures of Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter as president should't be used as their main picture because it has been a long time since they were presidents? The KKK is what he is primarily known for, I don't see anything POV in using the picture of him in klan garb (it would be a different story if he was in the full hood and you couldn't see his face, but that is not the case with the picture on commons). AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It was what he was primarily known for, but he's done quite a bit sinice then. The KKK pic would hardly be neutral. Better choice is to find a superior picture. 07:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request September 25 2019

I feel like the wording of this sentence in the introduction is a little awkward

"Duke supports the preservation of what he considers to be Western culture and traditionalist Christian family values, as well as abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, voluntary racial segregation, anti-communism, and white separatism."

I put the troublesome part in bold. When I first read the article, I thought, "Wait, he's in favor of abolishing voluntary racial segregation?" and then I read the anti communism part and it made sense. Would it be possible to change the order of this sentence to:

"Duke supports the preservation of what he considers to be Western culture and traditionalist Christian family values, as well as voluntary racial segregation, anti-communism, white separatism, and abolition of the Internal Revenue Service."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwedodah (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

David Duke is not a registered Republican. FotomanDave (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dave FotomanDave (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

He was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That information is sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

'Failed' -> 'Unsuccessfully contested elections'

I did not know what was meant by "failed" first time reading this article. I questioned: did he merely fail to participate in the party (as the subsequent sentence discusses, with his failure to "gain traction in the Democratic party"), or failed in elections? I had to scroll to the body of the article to figure out it was the latter. I clarified this as "unsuccessfully contesting elections", selecting phrasing that's inline with other political articles. This was reverted, questioning the grounds of this phrasing. Hopefully this explains. Thank you. JAYFAX (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your choice of words was "awkward" at best.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I will not continue contributions to this article, as there is clearly some confusion. However, may I recommend someone update the WP:LEAD adequately summarises Duke's early electoral performance in some manner. Thank you. JAYFAX (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Expulsion from Italy - Edit request

I would like to propose the following edit.

from: "In 2013, an Italian court ruled in favor of expelling Duke from Italy.[176] Duke, then 63, was living in mountain village Valle di Cadore in northern Italy".

to: "In 2013, an Italian court ruled in favor of expelling Duke from Italy.[176] Duke, then 63, was living in mountain village Venas di Cadore in northern Italy.

I know this because I live in this town and I personally know the landlord who was renting the apartment to David. The reason why international articles report the town of Valle di Cadore is that the name of the municipality that comprises a few towns around here is Valle di Cadore. However the actual town where he used to live is Venas di Cadore. I can provide links to local newspaper articles that verify the fact if necessary, but they are mostly in italian.

Mt6432 (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What you know is irrelevant (see wp:or), we only say what we see in wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph is not rs? Newspapers are not rs? I understand my knowledge is irrelevant. I put the links. Where did you get the info that he lived in Valle then? Cause he did not live in Valle. He was living in Venas. Mt6432 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Capitalization

In the phrase "former grand wizard David Duke", "grand wizard" is lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES. "Former" modifies "grand wizard", making "grand wizard" a descriptor, not a title. The corresponding example in MOS:JOBTITLES is "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972", where "US" modifies the lowercase "president". —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Duke em 1978.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)