Talk:David Duke

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)

@DN If you'd read the edit history you'd see that he wasn't the only one. Ergzay (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not answering my objections. Instead, you appear to be trying to answer some other set of objections you assume I am making. Omar is not a presidential candidate. Instead, she is someone who made some tweets. There is no indication from sources that this one event had any lasting significance to either Omar or Duke. Further, we are not obligated to play stupid to an extremist provocateur's attention-seeking political stunts. Intentionally ignoring that context would be a violation of WP:NPOV, among other problems. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, it's not our place to assume it was a "stunt." Numerous news websites found it notable. You have not provided one source that validates your assumption. Most of the editors here have agreed it should be included.

Now, what do you object to in my changes to the 2024 comments? I made several changes and yet no one has explained why they object to them. Your version completely glosses over what he said. I am astounded that you would accuse me of edit warring when other editors have agreed with how it was written and yet you continue to change it. You alone do not establish consensus. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Greyfell, please understand that people are trying to understand you better as you're not explaining what you mean. Whether Duke is an extremist provocateur is not relevant. If something is covered by verifiable sources then it's fine to include in WP:BLP articles. You mention that for Gabbard we immediately explain that Gabbard rejects Duke's endorsement, but you seem to be against even doing that with Omar so that doesn't seem relevant. If I'm understanding you correctly. As for presidential endorsements and tweetstorms, those are often one and the same in this day and age. They're just statements. I certainly agree this isn't an "all-or-nothing" situation, but the objection to refusing to add any mention regarding the endorsement of Omar seems to violate NPOV. Ergzay (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• The only reason I see for including Omar in this article is to besmirch her with guilt by association. It belongs in her article, without mention of Duke. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. That would look strange and appear biased to say somewhere in her article that Omar is endorsed by this individual. There is no way that would be acceptable there. Better to state it here, without adding our own opinions as to his motivation. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good, so let us not use guilt by association in either article. She has nothing to do with this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 22 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)

These sources aren't very good. The AP article was taken from the Washington Times. See WP:RSP The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. DN (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Jerusalem Post? TanRabbitry (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The only quote I can glean from it says "One of the personalities that attended the protest at TPUSA’s convention was Duke, according to journalist Cam Higby. Duke said in a clip published by Higby that he was there to support Fuentes and all those working “to save our country and save us from Jewish supremacism because we’re being genocided just like the Palestinians, just [in] a different form.”

The claim "He recently expressed support for Hamas and joined a rally in Detroit" is not supported by the citation, since support for Hamas and general opposition to genocide are not interchangeable, therefore this appears to be WP:SYNTH. Aside from that, it's not all that notable per WP:RECENT

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Who said that? TanRabbitry (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it not improve the quality of the source given that AP is reposting it? It's not the opinion section of Washington Times. Ergzay (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

But regardless of that, who said he supports Hamas? TanRabbitry (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

See the first comment posted in this section. DN (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't notice. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:30, 22 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)

That's fine, but you will note that those people were lifelong members of their parties. This individual has been part of almost half a dozen. Please establish a case that party affiliation belongs at the top beyond, "I think it should be here." TanRabbitry (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@TanRabbitry Party affiliation is one thing, but removing that he was a Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives is pretty absurd. Don't do that. That is well sourced and he ran on the Republican ticket. Ergzay (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The next paragraph fully explains his continued change in parties. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove that he ran and won as a Republican. That would be absurd. But the way it is phrased now makes it seem more than that he briefly became a Republican after disavowing his evil beliefs, then revealed he never changed his mind and was subsequently condemned by the party. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There are Three Issues Here

1. Praise of Omar. It looks like 3 are for inclusion and 3 are against. I would argue that against has lost any consensus due to their continued insertion of personal assumptions on the motivation. This violates WP:No Original Research and WP:Neutral Point of View.
2. 2024 Comments. I'm really not sure who is in favor of what. No objection to various changes I made has been elaborated beyond "this doesn't have consensus." Yet if no one will actually make an argument so it can be established, there can't be a consensus. The changes on his comparison comments especially, remove the entire scope and go against what was reported.
3. Party Affiliation. Show me a guideline or policy that says it is required at the top. I have laid out my reasoning on this issue several times. He's changed parties multiple times, it isn't consistent among similar articles and there isn't a relevant policy. "I don't like it," or "that's how it should be" aren't arguments.

TanRabbitry (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to do too much all at once, which is why things like #2 happen. When there are few involved editors, it's fine to make more involved changes. But when there is clearly a difference of opinion by several editors, you need to slow down and tighten the scope. Only work towards a couple of things at a time so when there is pushback, you can make the discussion more clearly defined. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Re #3, the lead should be a summary of what is covered in the article. If it's not covered in more detail in the article, then it shouldn't be in the lead. The first paragraph should include the things that establish notability (i.e. what he is notable for). You've probably already looked at these, but WP:LEADDD and then MOS:LEAD are worth reviewing. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that the interdict has been lifted, what do we want to do in regards to the three issues we have discussed? TanRabbitry (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for inclusion of Omar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That is obviously not true. I, @Ergzay and @Slatersteven are all for inclusion. Additionally, we have achieved consensus as to issue 1's inclusion (if not the language of it) as we have closely followed Wikipedia standards in our arguments. See Wikipedia:Not A Democracy. Let's decide on the first issue before tackling the others. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just your opinion of those against consensus. I see no consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not how you worded it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying to editor Objective3000 "(That is) not how you worded it," or are you saying it to me? If the latter, I believe we worked out a compromise on the language that we all accepted. TanRabbitry (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The indentation is as a reply to you, and you are the only person making claims as to what I have said. I was under the impression you had refused to accept anything other than your choice of words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have adjusted the wording multiple times to what ither editors wanted. Two other editors were under the impression you were against including it at all. I asked about that and you said, "I did not object to mentioning his support (which should be clear from what I have said above)." Have you changed your mind? TanRabbitry (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Actauly I am reconsidering it as the issue of these seems to be about guilt by accusation seems a valid objection. So maybe naming them is a violation of wp:blp. It migfht in fwct be better to say "offred tupport to other policians accused of antisemitism", if that isd the point being made. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree in adding Omar to be consistent and avoid the current WP:NPOV issues with undue focus on republican candidates, but the wording needs to be careful. You should propose specific wording and then we can discuss that. Otherwise it's hard to discuss. Ergzay (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you help explain the "focus on republican candidates", and how it relates to the Duke article? Why it is undue? Is there not significant coverage by RS to justify it, or am I missing something else? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)