Talk:David Duke/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

white supremacist --> white nationalist

I just listened to David Duke's podcast https://davidduke.com/friday20091002/ and I think it is pretty clear he is a white nationalist not a white supremacist. Please listen starting at 33:41. Here are some quotes:

"Ironically, Don, you and I, are exactly the opposite of what would be called a supremacist: we are not trying to rule over other people, exploit other people."

"We don't define ourselves in any way as supremacists, and we would condemn supremacism if that is what means for people to exploit other people."

I would propose to change the first line of this article.

SlaterDeterminant (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not taking his word over that of reliable sources.

White nationalism is just white supremacism pretending that it's local and doesn't affect non-white people who are already living in that nation.

Why were you listening to his podcast to begin with? Is it in any way related to you checking InfoWars before asking us to tone down our coverage on how moonbatshit that site is...? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am just going by Wikipedia's own white supremacy and white nationalism pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism. "White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them." is Wikipedia's own definition of "white supremacy". I have briefly looked into his past writings/statements, and I don't see any evidence that he believes the white race should dominate other races. David Duke is widely referred to as a both "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" in reliable sources (e.g. in https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-declines-to-disavow-david-duke/ he is referred to as a "white nationalist"). I was listening to his podcast in order to get direct information from the person. I feel rather strongly that the term "white supremacist" is not accurate for him, so unless you have some evidence that he satisfies what is written on the "white supremacist" Wikipedia page, I will unrevert the change or file for dispute resolution. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You do not have consensus, and any attempt to push this further will be seen as disruptive. Other Wikipedia articles are not sources, per WP:CIRC. Duke's podcast is not reliable. Reliable sources about Duke say that he's a white supremacist. If you insist on wasting more time in defense of a neo-Nazi's public relations then WP:NONAZIS will apply. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute opened here (sorry I added username Ian.thomson and not Grayfell by mistake, probably you can add yourself): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#David_Duke. I am not using the other Wikipedia article as a source. It is an issue of consistency between the David Duke Wikipedia article and the White Supremacy Wikipedia article. I am not a racist. I am a person trying to ensure that Wikipedia's articles on racists are accurate. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@SlaterDeterminant: From the White nationalism article: Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism. White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts. There's a reason why Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" is simply a "rebranding" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence.

You are using the cherry picked selections from the white supremacist article and comparing with Duke's own words to counter one of the labels that even you admit is used by reliable sources. That is original research, which we don't use. And you're only doing that because you realized how bad it looked starting off explicitly saying that you were listening to his podcast as if that was a completely normal thing to do. If you were really concerned about this article and the white supremacism article not lining up, you would have started there but no, you started off with admitting that you listen to Duke's podcasts. And this is after you previously made it clear that you browse InfoWars, which overall suggests that maybe you need to be editing a different topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This "critics argue" sentence is apparently not the prevailing view, and I think we should ignore it for the purpose of this discussion. It is a separate discussion whether the distinction between "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" is important. There are currently two Wikipedia articles for "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" and so we should make other articles like this one link to the one of the two that is more appropriate. I am open to being corrected about whether David Duke is a white nationalist or a white supremacist, but I just do not see any evidence that he satisfies what is written in the white supremacy Wikipedia page. I would not call it "original research" to go to a person's website to get information about their beliefs. And there is nothing wrong with listening to someone's podcast, this obviously does not imply endorsement or agreement with them, and I am not going to apologize for doing it. The edit to Infowars is not related to this edit and I don't understand why you are referring to it. In general, I am interested in improving the accuracy of some of the articles related to right-wing groups and figures, but there is no specific connection between the Infowars edit and this edit. Just for your information, I belong to one of the racial groups that David Duke is not a fan of. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

In almost all cases "critics" of white supremacy are, inherently, more reliable than "non-critics". Your interpretation of Wikipedia's articles does qualify as WP:OR. David Duke, a white supremacist podcaster with a flaky sham PhD, is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising, so we do not favor unreliable primary sources over reliable, independent ones. Grayfell (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Critics of white nationalism should include pretty much anyone who isn't one of their allies.

The reason I bring up the InfoWars edit is because your recent activity has been nothing but super suspicious. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If you do not like the reference to David Duke's website (although there are other references to it in the article), the same thing is stated here in a reliable source: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/228418-ex-kkk-leader-threatens-to-blast-lawmakers. David Duke has stated clearly that he rejects "white supremacism". I think that is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that there are reliable sources that refer to him as a "white supremacist". So, then it becomes an issue of what does "white supremacism" mean and is it consistent with David Duke beliefs. There is a separate article on Wikipedia on "white supremacism", and so just going by that article, I don't think it is consistent with David Duke's beliefs in either his website or reliable sources, but as I said I have not extensively looked at his history, so I am open to being corrected.

I take issue with the idea it should be immediately considered suspicious whenever anyone modifies a Wikipedia article about a far-right figure or group in a way that makes them seem less far-right. That does not seem consistent with the "assume good faith" principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlaterDeterminant (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"White people don't need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because n.... are basically primitive animals" read to me like whites are higher up the evolutionary scale.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that is a really messed up quote. But I still don't think it satisfies what is described on the Wikipedia "white supremacy" page i.e. that white people should dominate other races, and I still think the plethera of much more recent quotes in which he disavows "white supremacy" need to be considered. But in light of this, I would propose "white supremacist" be replaced by "racist, white nationalist". SlaterDeterminant (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet gain, your personal interpretation of the article white supremacy is WP:OR. It doesn't matter if you think this satisfies that definition or not. Reliable sources have documented Duke's white supremacist statements, publications, and associations. White supremacists like Duke or Jared Taylor love to play word-games to imply that their position is somehow reasonable. "White supremacy" has too much baggage, so they occasionally push back on this term, even though they used to embrace it. This PR move also aligns with their conspiratorial world-view. They imply that some nefarious minority is misrepresenting them. They can pretend they are brave enough to speak the truth, when in actuality they are playing the victim card and dodging accountability. Most people, including white people, reject Duke's brand of white supremacy based on substance, not word-games. Further, all of this is based on scientific racism, at best. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, so there is no obligation for us to play stupid to this nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can't see how that's a white supremacist statement I'm under no obligation to continue entertaining your claims of not being racist, nor to avoid openly admitting that. If your ignorance on the matter is sincere, you need to find another topic. If you aren't going at this from sheer incompetence, you aren't welcome at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am just reading the Wikipedia article about David Duke, the Wikipedia article about white supremacy, and quotes from David Duke (as reported on his website and in reliable sources) and thinking about whether these three things are consistent. This is not original research, just thinking, which I assume is allowed. But OK, I don't think I am going to convince you that "white nationalist" is the right term and I don't think you are going to convince me that "white supremacist" is the right term, so we are in a situation where there is not consensus. Let me propose two options: 1) we could change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist or supremacist" everywhere, 2) we could use one of the terms (let's use "white supremacist" if you want) and add a footnote or tag or something explaining that there is not consensus on this. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What? No. That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works, and you still don't understand WP:OR, either. You need consensus to change the article, and that consensus has to be built within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This change would be euphemistic, so I block consensus on changing this. Since you started this discussion by referencing a quote from half an hour into one of David Duke's own podcasts, you have severely damaged any credibility or good faith you may have otherwise had. Back-tracking to cite cherry-picked sources that only tangentially support your position is not helping. It's time to drop the stick. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree this discussion is not productive at this point, so I just want to find an easy way out. Why are you opposed to adding a footnote to the term "white supremacist"? There is an obvious problem which is that he is on record (in reliable sources) saying he strongly opposes "white supremacism" and the things that are described in Wikipedia's "white supremacism" article, but he is labeled a "white supremacist" in this article as if it is uncontested fact. If you are not OK with adding a footnote, could you please propose a way such that my concern may be included in the article? SlaterDeterminant (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The "easy way out" is to drop the stick. Duke is not a reliable source, and his public relations efforts are irrelevant to improving this article. There is no obligation for your concerns to be included in this article, because they are unfounded. There is no discrepancy between these Wikipedia articles, and it wouldn't matter if there were, because that's OR. Duke is not a credible expert on the definition of white supremacy. I do not know, or care, why you think he would be qualified to define this term. Your opinion of this term, apparently based on Duke's own statements, is irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that David Duke is not a reliable source on his own beliefs is a very strange and contradictory idea. Especially, when it is reported through reliable sources that presumably verify they are actually talking to David Duke. There are countless examples of biographies on Wikipedia that cite quotes from the subject. I understand if you don't trust what he says, but it is still relevant for the article that he said it in order to maintain a neutral point of view. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Because people lie about what they are all the time. We can (and should) say if he denies it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

True. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

See the 'Racial theories' section. It now includes a statement from the ADL profile indicating he denied the white supremacist description (the ADL profile establishes its validity too). Philip Cross (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, looks reasonable. Just a small issue is that the "Racial theories" section is a subsection of the "Antisemitism" section, which logically seems inverted or incorrect. Maybe change "Antisemitism" to "Antisemitism and racism". SlaterDeterminant (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Antisemitism a form of racism? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unclear (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/opinion/trumps-executive-order-has-firm-legal-grounding.html). But my point is the "Racial theories" section describes racial theories not only related to antisemitism, so it is not logical to put it under "Antisemitism". SlaterDeterminant (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

Duke was a registered democrat. Accordingly he was not a “Far right politician.” 2603:9001:4F05:CB38:918F:81D3:446F:A376 (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Far-right refers to beliefs more so than membership of a party does. The rest of his life in summary gives him this title. — IVORK _Talk 04:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Remove grand wizard. USA Today fact check said this is false. Bfields7203 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about why Duke lived in Moscow for five years, and what he did while he was there. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

In the early life section of Duke's page, in the third paragraph, second and third line, there is unneeded language ("in 1970" appears twice in the same sentence) and in the case of the first "in 1970," if that one is kept, the "in" should be lowercased since it's part of the section before the comma. Thesleepingjournalist (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Hemanthah (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"Neo-nazi" description

Added the description of "neo-Nazi" to the opening cited to the SPLC profile article, but this was reverted. The 1992 article by Julia Reed in The New York Review of Books only ever describes David Duke as being a Nazi or having such sympathies, which is not quite close enough or too interpretative to use the term "neo-Nazi". Reed's article can support describing Duke as a "white supremacist", I was wrong to assert this in an edit summary a couple of days ago.Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes need to be made about Election Page

Whomever wrote the David Duke page seriously had some glaring errors in the elections. There's also a subtle bias there painting Duke as more flattering but wrong. For instance, the U.S. Senate (1990) states he's the only Republican and three Democrats. Then it contradicts and says Ben Bagert was nominated. Then it tries to infer Bagert was pushed out by the party. In the Governor 1991, it implies Roemer was squeezed only by Duke and ignores the effect of Clyde Holloway, who was the official endorsed GOP candidate. I think the whole page deserves and auditing and realism given to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpritt (talk • contribs) 08:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Current photo?

Can anybody confirm that the photo is really from 2022? Pretty sure he looks nothing like that anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.90.151 (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Replacing infobox image

Hello, I found Duke's junior class image from the Riverside Military Academy. Copyright is annoying and has so far prevented us from using many images for this article. I am wondering if we could use that image in place of the low-quality 2020 version we have. Here are the reasons why I want to do so.

1. Duke became an active white supremacist during his teenage years, joined the Klan in the 1970s, became a Grand Wizard in 1974, ran for president in 1980, and ran for state senate twice in the 1970s. This image from 1967 is only a decade away from those activities while the one we are currently using is around fifty years afterwards.

2. This image is higher-quality than the one we are currently using.

3. Many news reports from his time in politics constantly talked about his good looks (even though to me he seems to look like anybody else) such as this: "He is a tall man of 40 with tousled, sandy-colored hair and pale-blue eyes. He has soft, disarming good looks which in recent years have been reshaped by several bouts with a plastic surgeon." Therefore we should show a picture more representative of that image than of a more recent image.

BTW I hope to start working on this article soon. The state of this article is shameful and we need to drastically improve the public knowledge of this evil man.

That is so weird. Duke was never an overly handsome man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Jon698 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed infobox image

Current infobox image

References

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

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

• DavidDuke.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)