Talk:David Duke

Duke's website needs be added

Duke's website needs be added in the box at the top. Here it is: https://davidduke.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not link to websites that that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. A current headline on his website is The Giant Jewish Vampire Squid Criminal Bank With Its Blood Funnel Stuck Into the Face of Humanity! We should not link to a blatantly antisemitic disinformation site. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal; Category:Antisemitism in the United States

Forgive my unfamiliarity with certain process regarding Cat-Removal, I'm just curious as to why StAnselm made this change. Edit summary says "per category description and long-standing consensus", but I'm not sure which consensus they are referring to, or how the category description would be construed as inaccurate. Duke is notable, at the very least in part, due to his advocacy and ties to antisemitism in the US. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The "category description" means the words on the Category:Antisemitism in the United States page. It says, "This category is for issues relating to Antisemitism in the United States. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Semitic." It links to this discussion from 2011 - that is the consensus I was referring to. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see quite a few groups and individual names in this category, so I'm not sure why Duke is somehow an exception while the others aren't. The discussion you linked is from 2011, and does not seem to specifically mention Duke, a character that seems to represent a "clear-cut case" for this type of categorization. This is not a recently added category, but one that I believe has been in place for quite some time, correct me if I'm wrong. It would make more sense if we were removing some sort of redundancy, but I'm afraid I'm still having trouble understanding the rationale. Would you mind clarifying a bit further? I'll go ahead ping the original closer of that discussion, Timrollpickering, as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The other groups and individuals should be removed from the category as well. The discussion close was actually worded more strongly than the description on the category page - it doesn't seem to allow for any individuals or groups being in the category, even if their presence there is established by reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case, what is the point of the category? That seems to make it redundant. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent revert - "content blanking"

See here.

IMO, a majority of the content/citations removed seems somewhat trivial, overall. (See below)

"In 2017, he accused Anthony Bourdain of promoting white genocide; in response, Bourdain offered to "rearrange" Duke's kneecaps."

"Duke rented an apartment in Moscow beginning around 1999."

Supposed "Zionist control"

"Duke told a gathering of nearly 70 participants."

I also find these changes to be somewhat of an improvement over the original text, including removal of WP:WEASEL wording.

I'm willing to let the removal stand unless someone has a compelling reason to keep it. DN (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I find the latest revision to be proper, as the ADL is a reliable source. DN (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary Line

This individual is a notorious crook and con man amongst other infamous designations. I do not think that the very first paragraph should mention he was briefly a Republican. The opening paragraphs go on to say that he tried various parties before inventing a deceitful story of redemption and subsequent changing of his views. Later, after his (never actually abandoned) true colors were revealed, he was condemned by the party, lost office and left the party. I think mentioning his involvement at the very top would slightly imply some sort of representation, just as saying he was a Democrat would, since he likewise attempted to gain political power through them. I think the edit I made removes the possibility of misunderstanding. TanRabbitry (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a better solution would be to add George H.W. Bush's condemnatory quote about his character alongside the other in the top paragraph. That would also remove any possible confusion while preserving the regular standard for politicians. TanRabbitry (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Party affiliation is a defining trait which people expect to find when looking up an elected official. He was elected as a Republican. The second paragraph already provides context, and adding any particular quote seems like a form of editorializing, especially in the very first paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell

What about changing it to say "as a Republican?" "For the Republican party" seems to indicate an involvement obviously absent from someone who changes parties all the time. Later, in the article he is referred to as a perennial Democrat candidate. Wouldn't it be also confusing if it said "was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives despite having been a lifelong Democrat?" TanRabbitry (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you point me to the relevant standard? All other politicians' pages I looked at are either phrased differently or else don't mention party at all. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No such standard was provided. I looked at other examples of politicians' pages including specifically pages of politicians who share his evil views and they did not include party affiliation at the top. I changed it back. TanRabbitry (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Newest Comments

@Slatersteven

Hello,

You have twice reverted my edit. In the first place the two comments are unconnected, so why have you removed the 2024 statement? Next, there isn't an accusation of personal antisemitism on Congressman Omar's part (which is something we can't know), however she has made antisemitic comments on several occasions and been heavily criticized for it. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No she had been accused of doing so, which she has denied, so we can't accuser here of making them in our words. And yes there is "after a series of antisemitic comments she made." that clearly says she made anti-semitic comments. Now if you want to re-add the 2024 stuff go ahead. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

You said it accused her of being antisemitic. All it said is she made antisemitic comments. Neither you, nor I, nor any reporter can know what is in someone's heart, but we can hear what they have to say. And several of her comments have been condemned by many as antisemitic.

Here are just a few sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/11/its-all-about-benjamins-baby-ilhan-omar-again-accused-anti-semitism-over-tweets/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/us/politics/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/ilhan-omar-engel-statement/index.html

TanRabbitry (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I quoted your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

What?

TanRabbitry (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"after a series of antisemitic comments she made." we can't say this. Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

I mean this genuinely, not in sarcasm, you realize there is a difference between statements and beliefs, right? Additionally, you realize the subject of this article would likewise deny that his beliefs are "antisemitic?" Did you read the articles I referenced here? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In these sources it is her colleagues and fellow party members condemning her comments. That is just a handful of articles describing only a couple of her comments. If you insist, I guess I can change it to "after a series of comments she made that were widely perceived as antisemitic." TanRabbitry (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some more:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-pass-resolution-backing-israel-jayapal-racist-state-rcna94897

https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/299461/nyc-mayor-denounces-bds-in-radio-interview/://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/world/middleeast/bds-israel-boycott.htmlhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/03/ilhan-omar-accused-anti-semitic-remark-israel-criticism/3048379002/ TanRabbitry (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No. "Widely perceived as" is WP:WEASEL wording, and this kind of editorializing about Ilhan Omar does not belong in an article about David Duke. Further, it isn't clear from your edits why this belongs at all. As you say above, he is a "notorious crook and con man" (which I agree with). When an attention-seeking conman says something to gain more attention to himself and his cause, we do not have an obligation to help him with his obvious trolling publicity stunts by repeating it as though it were encyclopedically noteworthy. Use reliable, independent sources about Duke to explain to readers why this is significant to Duke as an encyclopedia topic. Do not use this as an excuse to add subtle editorializing about Omar. Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"The examples above are not automatically weasel words."

I would consider a Representative who due to her comments, has not only been repeatedly threatened with censure, but more importantly, has had said comments condemned by her own party leadership, to have said statements "widely perceived as antisemitic." I would also say that something that the Associated Press reports on is frequently notable and it is certainly an independent source. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Condem yes, and we can say words to that effect, we can't say they were. Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So "after a series of comments widely condemned as antisemitic," is acceptable to you? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable to me, because it is weasel wording. I did not say it was "automatically" weasel wording, I linked to a page explaining what "weasel wording" meant. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided a quotation from said page. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed my objection. Looking at sources about Duke's "support" of Omar, it's clear that most sources recognize it for what it is: Duke is trolling for clout. If you insist on mentioning this, you need to include context, and with context, it's a WP:FART. Without context, this is a WP:BLP violation. We cannot pass-along these comments as though they mattered if we cannot indicate why they matter. This article is absolutely not the place to weaselishly condemn Omar's comments. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is not alleged in the report from the AP, from the Jerusalem Post, the Washington Times or others that his statement of support was in jest. It is not our place to make such a judgment. And once again it would only be "weaselish" if I didn't have sources that show her comments were in fact widely considered antisemitic. Also his recent support of anti-Israel groups lend credence to the notion he legitimately supports Congressman Omar's comments.

TanRabbitry (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell If this counts as "trolling for clout" then the same would apply to his support of Tulsi Gabbard, but that is in the article. These two are one and the same. Ergzay (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That is false equivalence. I would support removing mention of Gabard, but that's not what this discussion is about, obviously. As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and being neutral doesn't mean we must robotically pretend to be stupid to Duke's asinine games. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am unaware of what context you are referring to. I can suffer a non-assume good faith guess that you think that support for Democratic candidates is somehow trolling but support for other candidates is valid. I would not know where to draw the line personally so I think they should all go in, no matter if we think its trolling or not. It's not editors position to pick and choose. Ergzay (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven's removal of the Ilhan Omar material; Shoogiboogi's most recent addition shows enough of his current Jew-hatred without dragging Omar into this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the added information, but I still think that his praise of her should be included. It was fairly widely covered. If you can find a good source that calls its genuineness into question, then it should be a qualified mention, but there nonetheless. I do not think we are called to judge whether he was serious for ourselves. To be fair though, a liar of his caliber would be admittedly hard to judge. Either way, that isn't our job. TanRabbitry (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the last line I added? It was reverted, but the user didn't make clear (so please do so if you read this) if they didn't think it should be included or they just wanted it to gain consensus first. I think it more clearly shows what he is saying. As it is written now, it isn't clear what he is referring to. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with Slatersteven's removal. It is well documented that Omar's remarks were widely believed to be antisemetic. Example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-ilhan-omar-backs-israel-resolution-ahead-gop-vote-oust-committee-rcna68816 "Republicans ousted her from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday for what members of both parties said were antisemitic remarks."

Talking about "dragging Omar into this" is nonsense when he was literally making comments supporting Omar. We have in the article comments of him supporting Tulsi Gabbard which are somehow WP:DUE. You can't pick and choose which people of which party are allowed into the article. Don't engage in partisan editing. Ergzay (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point. TanRabbitry (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it, though? That source doesn't mention Duke at all. This is basic WP:NPOV/WP:BLP/WP:COI stuff. As I said, this article isn't the place to discuss Omar's comments one way or the other. If a reliable, independent source explains why this is any different from any other snotty publicity stunt he has pulled, I haven't seen it yet. If such a source exists, we could use that source to contextualize that. Without that context, this doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell We're not discussing Omar's comments, we're discussing David Duke's comments and contextualizing why he would state such a comment as otherwise it leaves the reader confused why he would offer such support (the same issue is actually happening with his comments endorsing Tulsi Gabbard as well). Again, if his comments in support of Omar are not allowed then neither are his comments in support of Tulsi Gabbards and many other politicians. They're basically identical situations. Ergzay (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a source that claimed his endorsement wasn't genuine. TanRabbitry (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/ilhan-omar-bds/582520/ (archive link: https://archive.ph/JtaG5 ) "Ilhan Omar Just Made It Harder to Have a Nuanced Debate About Israel"

> Notably, these leaders were not the only ones who heard anti-Semitism in Omar’s comments. David Duke, the prominent white supremacist and former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, defended the congresswoman. “So, let us get this straight,” he tweeted. “It is ‘Anti-Semitism’ to point out that the most powerful political moneybags in American politics are Zionists who put another nation’s interest (israel’s) over that of America ??????”

That seems like a clear statement that this Atlantic writer thinks the support was genuine. Ergzay (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Agree with Grayfell and Slatersteven that this incident, which Duke had only a minor part in, doesn't belong in the article. Other concerns aside, I think it is WP:UNDUE. (I also think, for similar reasons, that the "2024" subsection recently added does not belong.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree with removal of his other comments in support of various other politicians then? I'm just trying to figure out where the dividing line is here because I myself cannot see the difference between these cases. Ergzay (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure the position of editor @Slatersteven is clear. Maybe he would be willing to weigh in, in light of recent discussion? TanRabbitry (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not object to mentioning his support (which should be clear from what I have said above). Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure and another editor thought you were of the opposite opinion. TanRabbitry (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

So is that consensus for his endorsement of Omar being included? I think every question has been answered on it. It's not our place to assume the genuineness of a statement without a source saying there is doubt. TanRabbitry (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not how consensus works. Further, local consensus cannot be used as an excuse to violate WP:BLP, so you need to address that issue directly.

Duke is noteworthy for being an extremist provocateur. We are not a platform for helping him sell his wares, so we need a specific reason to include any examples of why he says what he says. It's painfully obvious that Duke is making himself useful to Republicans who like to disparage the Democratic party. With Gabbard, we can and do immediately explain that Gabbard rejects Duke's endorsement, and a presidential endorsement is in a different context than a tweetstorm.

This isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Everything here needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we already shown that this doesn't violate any policy. I find it strange that his endorsement of Donald Trump in 2016 is covered heavily only to end with Trump's disavowing his endorsement. Yet there is another paragraph about Duke's 2020 endorsement. According to you, that shouldn't be there, since it doesn't include a rejection and we know from 2016 that there would have been one. Also, you seem to assume a great deal in this. We aren't called on to interpret someone's motivation. We can't know that. Unless you can provide valid sources that say his endorsements are meant to be jokes or nonsense, than you have no grounds for assuming they are. You can't have your objections answered over and over and still say that consensus isn't established. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No one else seems to object? You have been reverted by more than one editor. DN (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Lack of sections discussing his support for various anti-Israel/pro-Islam people/groups

He previously expressed support for Representative Illhan Omar for her anti-Jewish positions:

• https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-david-duke-a97b8b2d48c163c5965c2574ccbbe3d3

He recently expressed support for Hamas and joined a rally in Detroit:

• https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-806611
• https://nypost.com/2024/06/17/us-news/kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke-sides-with-anti-israel-protesters/
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-kkk-grand-wizard-david-150704326.html

I think someone should add some of this content to the article. Ergzay (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

I have asked for a specific guideline that describes party affiliation. Nothing has been provided. He changes parties like clothes and the way it is worded is confusing. Also, can you explain "Cotton Tom" Heflin, William Henry Pope, Preston Brooks, Lurleen Wallace and Rebecca Latimer Felton? None of them describe their party affiliation at the top. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried making changes to those articles? DN (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)