Talk:David Duke/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Running for office 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Censhorship galore on Wikipedia 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  their assessments are highly controversial 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV is not the same as sanitizing history

message: 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)
replies: text: Right-wing insanity? Hardly. Just plain insanity. --24.47.31.1 18:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unbelievable Racism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who signed the NO Protocol? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ku Klux Klan 

message: This photo from the ADL article is quite disturbing.  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)
thread_title: Photo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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  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)
thread_title: Bad Duke Photo

message: 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)
replies: text: You are a banned editor, Disruptive Apartheid editor.  Please stop editing, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish criticism of MAUP

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please clarify 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lead section: "just the facts" please 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Pleasse review Admin/Mod "Leading Jew"

message: 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.  
:::::&
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.  
:Admin/Mod is this placed under correct subtitle?
205.188.116.74 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Changed - Information Added 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uncited Attacks against minorities were removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catholics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NO WAY IS HE BORN AGAIN  

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP citing controversy 

message: The guy is a babbling idiot.  Can we trim this article down *a lot*  Kupesoft 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, because movies never have anti-semitism or jewish stereotypees in them. o_O -Switch t 03:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article so extensive?

message: 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)
thread_title: David Duke image

message: 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  Hope that helps.--Shtove 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tehran conference 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nevermind, someone added an image. .V. 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: removed the material about duke "exposing" blitzer as a lobbyist for aipac. the source used  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)
thread_title: Wolf Blitzer "exposed" as Israeli Lobbyist