Talk:David Duke

It is rather disappointing when a top Wikipedian...

and someone who has administrator access can feign a neutral point by engaging in an argumentum ad hominem. This is a grave disservice to free inquiry and intellectual debate. Only the content and significance of writings (and thus ideas) should be debated. Speculating on the motivations of why someone thought of an idea or wrote a particular book is what leads us down the dangerous path of dismissing ideas out of hand, simply because you don't care for the motivations of the person who thought of them.

The problem is, those motivations are often imaginary.

I realize David Duke is a controverial figure, but it is this sort of behavior that plays right into the hands of his radical opponents. This particular book is in many ways a trick, for people just like Infro. The book he wrote is not at all a discussion of any Jewish plot to control the world, but the title would certainly lead one to think that way. What Infro has proven here is that the seeds of censorship are already sown in this country, and people are willing and able to "review" books without ever having read them purely based on their opinion of the author.

Hitler did this with communist writings. Perhaps Infro wants this booked burned as well?

Oooh, aligations of "censorship" and implications of book burning! Please, anon, if you have a problem with one of my (or anyone else's) edits, discuss the substance of the edit, why you object, and how you think it might be improved. Don't rush to personal attacks and insinuations if you wish to be accepted as a serious contributor here. -- Infrogmation 19:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see why I should grant to you the same benefit of the doubt you failed to give me. Secondly, the issue here is NOT the pure substance of the edit but the implicit problem I have with ANY article on Wikipedia discussing the "motivations" behind an author. This is the issue you so gleefully sidestep. Replacing a factual description of a book with a discussion of the author's motivations has no valid defense, and I will discuss the author's motivations if and when you can explain why such discussion should be allowed on Wikipedia. Ultimately, what I wrote was factual, accurate, and informative of a particular book that offered no value judgment of the contents of that book. The simple fact you removed it and instead replaced it with your made up discussion about "motivations" and a "Jewish Plot" indicates that you are an intellectually dishonest person. You A) lied and B) engaged in a serious and egregarious logical fallacy (the aforementioned argumentum ad hominem). Why should I treat such nonsense as serious?

That is not serious writing. That is the writing of a dilettante who is more beholden to his ideals than the truth. My sincerest apologies if I cannot restrain my shock that a top contributer to WIkipedia is as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as you are.

Sheesh. My opinion is that I am not the one engaging in ad hominem in this discussion. -- Infrogmation 20:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you

Are we sure the date of birth is correct? I'm pretty sure he was born on July 1st. User:Pimpalicious

Supremacist or nationalist

It is more appropriate to refer to Duke as a White power or perhaps White nationalist advocate, not a white supremacist. He doesn't use "supremacist" to refer to himself. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia isn't limited to describing people in the way that they describe themselves. It's an encyclopædia, not 'Hello' magazine.
2. I made a large number of house-keeping edits, including spelling corrections, removal of a large number of duplicate links, etc. If any more people desperate to give Duke his fake title, and to pretend that he's not a white supremacist, wnat to clter the article, could they at least have the good manners to leave my edits in place?
3. Incidentally, what is this 'white nation', to which 'white nationalist' apparently refers? If I gave him the money, would Duke go and agitate there? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want a mention of David Duke being a white supremacist, cite someone calling him that, it shouldn't be very difficult to find. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that you accept my other points? Or do you not accept the Wikiquette guide's point about not ignoring questions? (Actually, I know the answer to that; I have a record of you admitting that you ignored my arguments and evidence because you knew that you were right.) To answer your question, a quick look at the external-links section finds the ADL profile referring to his start as the leader of a white supremacist organisation, and refers to his self-proclaimed forthcoming book 'The Ultimate Supremacism'. Do you really doubt that I can find a multitude of other, more direct, examples?

Let's try another question: on what grounds are you assigning Duke a doctorate?

And another: if, as you claim, you don't sympathise with racists, why do I never come across a debate like this one i which you're not defending racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the like? If it's a mere matter of principle, why don't I ever find you defending civil-rights activists, anti-racists, communists, etc? I only ask because I want to know. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree w your second point in theory, the third was a joke, yes? If you think the ADL is a good source, put a quote from them calling him a supremacist in the article. Why do you think I am assigning duke a doctorate? And why are you unable to resist ad hominems and other fallacies? I of course reject your comments regarding my sympathies and methodology. I insist on neutrality. On the rare occasion I find an article biased against communism (I can't recollect that ever having happened), I will correct it of course. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What theory is involved in your agreement with my second point, and what is the practice that (you imply) leads you to disagree?

The third point was in part a joke; the serious part is that it's unclear what a 'white nationalist' is. If it's just a nationalist who's white, then that doesn't fit Duke's own claims; If it's someone arguing for a white nation, then my question stands.

Citations aren't needed for every claim, every use of an adjective, etc. There are sources given, which include the relevant evidence. And if you don't think that the ADL is a good source, please explain.

I've no idea why you're assigning Duke a doctorate; the only evidence I can see is that he received a diploma, which could mean anything. If you have evidence for your claim, pleae provide it (an external link will, of course do; then we can assess its reliability).

Given your own attacks on my (and others') integrity in, for example, your request for page protection on this article, this is at best a pot and kettle point. Note also that they're not ad hominem arguments. An ad hominem argument claims to disprove a proposition by showing that it conflicts with a particular person's other beliefs or actions, rather than by showing that it's wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, you wrote on the request-for-protection page that Mel didn't debate with you adequately (or at all) on Talk. Now he's doing that, and has asked you on what grounds you're assigning Duke a doctorate. You answered with: "Why do you think I am assigning duke a doctorate?" You can't expect people to debate with you if you won't address the issues they raise. Could you please explain on what grounds you say Duke has a doctorate? SlimVirgin 17:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I gave a reference for "white supremacist," which was the chapter from his book in which he talks at length about the superiority of the white race over the black race. He's also on record saying that blacks revert to their "genotype" whenever they are not exposed to white culture. It is not libel to call someone a white supremacist when he quite openly is one. It is not inherently demeaning to call someone a white supremacist either. Gazpacho 21:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does Duke have a doctorate from an accredited university? If not there is no need for us to call him Doctor. AndyL 18:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK according to this link a) it's an "honorary doctorate", it's not usual to address someone with an honourary doctorate as "Doctor" although you might put DLL or something after their name if it's an honourary doctorate of letters, for instance from a recognised university. b) his "doctorate" was awarded by an NGO, the "International Personnel Academy" which is not accredited. While we can refer to the circumstances and controversy around this award in the article I see no reason for us to refer to him as "Dr. Duke". AndyL 18:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (though the link is also useful for yet another description of Duke as a white supremacist). Shouldn't the claim about his receiving a diploma now be altered? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For a sharper insight into the nature of the Interregional Academy for Personnel Management, Google Vasily Yaremenko, one of its foremost 'Professors' - especially for this [1] and this [www.oag.ru/views/love.html]. Adjudicating on this former correspondence course outfit's status as a University should not be too difficult. Since accreditation can be debated, I assessed it along these lines: Who are its faculty members? What internationally recognized academic journals are its faculty members published in? What other accepted universities exchange faculty members or share research programmes with it? For a control, to take in to account Ukraine's relative isolation from Western society, compare and contrast with Kiev University [2]. Oh, and no university I've ever come across pays a newspaper to print its professor's implausible anti-Semitic rants as a full page ad. So, even calling it a diploma is generous, in my book. Adhib 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no argument on that (well, apart from the last part, perhaps); it was SS (and 67.176.87.85, SS 88,Adolf, NSM 88, et al.) who kept insisting that we shouldn't call Duke a white supremacist. I'm still not clear why. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On his own web site David Duke notes that a recent television show promotion (the O'Reilly Factor) identified him as a white supremacist. In response Dukes states that he is not a white supremacist. --AYArktos 22:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point, though. Saddam Hussein insists that he wasn't responsible for human-rights abuses; should Wikipedia therefore refrain from saying that he was (and giving references to back up the point)? A lot of articles are going to have to be seriously neutered if we have to stick to following what people say about themselves. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then cite them, or rewrite them. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Can anyone translate? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, Duke's refutation of the label "white supremacist" is also an acknowledgement by Duke that he has been labelled as such.

The New York Times week in review of 6 March is a discussion of the white supremacist movement by Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the article the virtual community Stormfront (online site) is discussed and is linked back to David Duke as being established by one of his former followers. I note the discussion does not label Duke as other than a "former Klan leader". Similarly the Southern Poverty Law Center's intelligence report on Duke does not label him as a white supremacist but notes he keeps company with others who they do label as such.

As a foreigner (Australian) I have no opinion or prejudice one way or the other concerning Duke. I am interested (curious) only in how the neutral point of view is dealt with in Wikipedia.

It seems from the NPOV examples page that if the article attributes who has labelled David Duke as a white supremacist, then it becomes no longer a matter of opinion but a fact. Thus had O'Reilly labelled Duke as a white supremacist, then he could be quoted as such. In fact the segment summary of the O'Reilly show refers to Duke as a former KKK Grand Wizard; O'Reilly's reference to Duke as a white supremacist must be elsewhere. Duke however, can be quoted as saying that others have labelled him as a white supremacist. It would be fair though to note at the same time that he refutes the attribution. --AYArktos 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with AyArktos. Have the quote in the article and then a quote from Mr. Duke that says he isn't. Well, words do get thrown around a lot. and a shame factor is used in the words to make people fear the word and its connotations. Using the label "white supremacist" is a smear tactic that Pat Buchanan has been troubled with. I believe everbody is a racist at heart and everybody is an ethnic supremacist; it is natural to man. In my opinion everyone is their own ethnic supremacist.WHEELER 19:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with citing both POV's. Thats what Wikipedia:Cite your sources and NPOV are all about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general principle, it is perhaps better to written things like, "Duke has stated that Whites are superior to Blacks" or "Duke has expressed views associated with white supremacy", or even "Duke is a leader in the white supremacy movement," rather than flat out labelling him a white supremacist. Whichever, sources are still needed, as always. -Willmcw 19:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

There's a trend within the white-supremacist community to abandon the term "supremacist" because of the negative connotations, just as Holocaust deniers try to call themselves revisionists. Giving in to that attempted whitewash, so to speak, is POV. Also, it isn't clear what a "white nationalist" is, as there is no white nation, so to begin with "David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a White nationalist politician in the United States," is quite confusing. Also, is it true that he's a politician, as he can no longer run for office, I believe. I'd say political activist. And is it correct to capitalize White?

How about: David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a political activist in the United States, part of the White-nationalist movement, and widely regarded as a White supremacist. He is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States." SlimVirgin 20:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite reconcile the first of these two paragraphs with the second, SlimVirgin. Your suggestion is OK except that, whatever his apologists say, we have references that describe him as a white supremacist, almost everything that he's done and says shows him to a white supremacist — let's stick our necks out and call im a white supremacist (especially as 'white nationalist' is only nonsensical weasel-speak for 'white supremacist'). As for someone's (I forget whose) comment that we should describe the views, not the man — I don't follow; this is an article on the man. Besides, why should we describe the views if they weren't the man's?

Oh, one other thing. I don't really see that being Australian is incompatible with having a view concerning Duke (or on white supremacism in general). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree and would prefer white supremacist. I was trying to find a compromise because Willmcw has also expressed concern about calling him a white supremacist, as opposed to simply describing his views. Myself, I have no problem with using the label.

Will and I had this problem at the LaRouche articles: whether it was okay to call LaRouche a conspiracy theorist, with the LaRouche editors opposed. In the end, we had to compromise with "theorist of conspiracies." How about supremacist of whites, Will? ;-) I worry about the phrase "white nationalist" because it's meaningless: a term made up by the white-supremacist movement, and therefore perhaps POV of us to adopt it. SlimVirgin 21:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

But 'white supremacist' does describe his views (what else does it do? Well, it tells us something about the man, his mind, and probably the size of one of his organs, but that's part of the sense, not the reference). Does Willmcw want to describe Duke's views while somehow keeping them undescribed (how about 'Duke is a wh**te su***m**ist')?

Still, at least our vandal's latest User name has been indefinitely banned. I wonder what his next childish code word for 'Nazi' will be? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Supremacist of whites?" Sounds good to me! ;) But seriously, the terms "supremacist", "separatist", and "nationalist" all overlap so much as to be virtually synonymous. I don't believe that anyone calls themself a "white supremacist", just like no one calls themself a "racist" though a few will admit to being "racialists" (and what was the difference between them again?). I think that we don't need to use any of these terms in the first paragraph, but later in the bio it is necessary to investigate Duke's beliefs, words, and actions. To Mel, my point is that in bios we should not say, "Joe Schmoe was one of the most interesting people in the 20th Century", instead we should say, "Joe Schmoe was elected to the baseball hall of fame, landed on the moon, and won the hot dog eating contest." In other words, show readers how Duke is a white supremacist rather than just labelling him. It is not incorrect, IMO, to label Duke as a white supremacist, but it may not be the best way to begin an NPOV bio. -Willmcw 22:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

PS - do we still need to keep the page protected? -Willmcw 22:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• 'Nationalist' makes sense only if we're talking about a nation; 'separatist' makes sense only if we're talking about a would-be (or quondam) nation; 'supremacist' concerns the claimed supremacy of one group over another or others (which neither of the first two terms implies). If a person is a white supremacist, we should say so. if it's the only reason that they're prominent, as in Duke's case, then we should say so in the introduction.
• The reply to me is inadequate, I'm afraid. 'So-and-so is interesting' is vapid and subjective; 'so-and-so is a white supremacist' is contentful and objective. If you think that it is 'not incorrect' (by which I assume that you mean 'correct') to call him a white supremacist, then I don't understand your objection to doing so in the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously unprotecting the page would be a very bad idea, at this juncture. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree; it would allow his apologists to try to give him an unearned doctorate, and to change his description to the euphemistic and inaccurate 'white nationalist'. I'm a little surprised that you should agree with that, though. Still, it's good to find consensus at last. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for us to acquiesce to the euphemisms various groups try to promote in order to make their views seem more acceptable. I'm sure pedophiles don't like to be called that. Should we describe them by the preferred euphemism of "intergenerational sex activists" because that's what some of them call themselves? Our interest is with facts. Does "white supremacist" accurately describe Duke and his beliefs? If so the description should stand. AndyL 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whats wrong w white nationalist? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So would we avoid calling Marcus Garvey a "Black Nationalist" because there's no such thing as a Black Nation? Well actually we don't label him, instead we say he was a "crusader for black nationalism." That's not to say we should call Duke a nationalist rather than a supremacist, but that we should point to his actions and words primarily. To Sam, is the supremacist/nationalist issue the only one outstanding? Is there still a dispute about the doctorate? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

1. OK, add to what I've said about 'nationalist' (as for 'separatist') that we should be talking about an existing or desired nation; many or most black nationalists (so far as I'm aware, and as the article on black nationalism seems to confirm) argued for the founding of a black nation of some sort.
2. The crucial distinction between between saying that x is a supremacist and that x crusades for supremacy escapes me. Do we have to go through the encyclopædia changing 'so-and-so was a philosopher' or 'so-and-so was a modernist' to 'so-and-so practised philosophy' or 'so-and-so crusaded for (or practised) modernism'?
3. I assume that, after all the discussion of it on this page (in this section), SS is joking. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Whats wrong w white nationalist". It's not as accurate as White supremacist. AndyL 22:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, though we've had a nice discussion of this issue, it's not a big deal to me. It's a general principle, not a dogma. I don't think that this is the exact issue that is under dispute, so I won't pursue it. Thanks to all the editors for working towards consensus and a good article. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Doctorate

Regarding your question about the doctorate, Will, I think it's established that he doesn't have one; it seems to be an honorary doctorate from a little-known institution, and the normal thing with honorary doctorates is not to call yourself Dr. SlimVirgin 23:27, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything about a doctorate? Why do I keep getting accused of it? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who it was, but someone inserted this: "In 2002, Duke traveled to eastern Europe to promote his book. In August he received a Diploma from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management in Kiev, Ukraine, the former soviet-era All-Union Correspondence University of Personnel Management. Whether this entitles him to use the honorific 'Doctor' or not is a matter of dispute." The last sentence is a bit strange. If it's not a matter of dispute, we wouldn't be mentioning it. SlimVirgin 00:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

It was me. I inserted this chunk to correct a common misapprehension among Duke's supporters (yes, I'm afraid sometimes they err) that he possesses a Doctorate from the University of Kiev. The error had formerly appeared in wikipedia, and it seemed to me from observing correspondence on this question on usenet that it was likely to be reintroduced into the article unless the grounds for its removal were made explicit in the article. To flag up to potential Duke boosters that the article's omission of his honorific is deliberate, not merely an oversight, it has to be spelled out that the alleged Doctorate is a diploma, an honorary one at that, and awarded by a body which, while appearing to have no academic bona fides, does have a track record of anti-Semitic agitation in Ukraine (see my other comment w/links above). Adhib 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Adhib, I see. Actually, I think I had misread the sentence when I questioned it. I agree with you. SlimVirgin 23:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

More material on this over at my place. If it's anything, it's a diploma. Adhib 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Receiving a honorary degree from a correspondence school hardly seems worth mentioning at all. Anyway, so I gather the only real dispute is whether to call Duke a "white supremacist", or to say that "he has been called a white supremacist, but denies it". Is that it? -Willmcw 00:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Those are the issues on the table. I agree the doctorate is not worth mentioning. Regarding the white-supremacist issue, in order to find a compromise between you and Mel, I wonder whether it could simply be moved to lower in the introduction; that is, have a second paragraph in the intro, which is anyway rather short, and mention it there. Suggestion:

David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the United States, and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States."

Duke remains a political activist within what is known as the white-nationalist movement in America. He is widely regarded as a white supremacist by a number of organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League. SlimVirgin 00:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, there's no dispute between Mel and me, just a difference of approach. I think that it's another editor who is disputing the text. But your suggestion looks good to me. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that it's just a difference of approach. I think your approach has merit, and actually I learned a lot from watching you edit the LaRouche articles, because you're very good at letting the facts speak for themselves. Anyway, it's about one o'clock in the morning in Oxford, so unless Mel is awake editing Wikipedia, as he ought to be, we'll have to wait until tomorrow. SlimVirgin 01:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Mel didn't get back to us on this. Does the page still need to be protected? I believe we're all agreed that he isn't entitled to be called Dr. Regarding the supremacist issue, Sam, if the page is unprotected, are you going to revert what's there? SlimVirgin 18:44, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't get back tothis — but, to be honest, the only reason that I can see for not calling him a white supremacist is that SS keeps objecting — though for no good reason. (SS frequently (too much?)protests that he has no sympathy for racists like Duke, yet his stupefyingly stubborn attempts to defend them from an accurate description of their views is otherwise difficult to explain.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't run for office?

He may be barred from some offices (?) but he's not barred on the federal level. In fact I believe that most attempts to bar felons from running for office have been thrown out as unconstitutional. This sentence should be changed whenthe page is unlocked. Charles 21:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally voted for James Traficant, while he was in jail ;) Trust me, its possible. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. First, if a felon wants to run for the nomination of a major party, their rules have to allow for it. That tripped up Lyndon LaRouche when the Democratic Party refused to allow him to receive delegates because he was a felon. Second, there is difference between running for office and being sworn in. Here's a quote regarding a congressional candidate.

Kent Kaiser, a spokesman for the (Minnesota) secretary of state's office, says nothing prevents a convicted felon from running for office. But the felon couldn't take office if elected, Kaiser said.[3]

This page lists requirements for candidates in Tennessee, including being a registered voter:

Congressional Representative: Be at least 25 years of age; a citizen of the United States for at least 7 years; a resident of the State of Tennessee; and a qualified registered voter.[4]

Third, felons in some states can petition to be re-enfranchised. I suggest removing the definite claim that he can't run, but don't replace it with an assertion that he could. The issue is too complicated to settle definitively here. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Issues remaining

The discussion on this page seems to have dried up and yet it's still protected. What needs to be decided so we can ask for unprotection? SlimVirgin 01:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

dried up? Should Duke be described as a supremacist or not? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'dried up' because, in part, two days ago SlimVirgin asked you whether, if the page was unprotected, you'd revert the reference to his being a white supremacists; you didn't reply. Besides, numerous reasons have been given for calling him a supremacist (including responses to your demand for citations), and the only argument against is the spurious 'he doesn't call himself one' — a point that has been adequately answered. Do you have any further arguments?

Incidentally, the answer to your question above (as to why people kept referring to Duke's supposed doctorate) is that you reverted to a version of the page that referred to him throughout as 'Dr'; I suppose that people are assuming that you weren't just reverting wholesale without bothering to look at what was included. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted once, and calling him a doctor or not wasn't involved. I really don't like your pattern of bizarre personal attacks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Well, I only mentioned one reversion, which in fact was this; you're right that it didn't involve Adolf's other main editconcerning Duke's pseudo-doctorate, though — sorry.
2. My other points and questions remain (yet again, see Wikiquette concerning not ignoring other editors' questions).
3. I can't see a personal attack in my comments, bizarre or otherwise. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At this point nobody has produced citations that he considers whites inherently superior to Jews or Asians. His rhetoric against Jews seems to be that they're inherently "pushy." So instead of "White supremacist" I suggest "racist and self-described white nationalist." Gazpacho 00:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I second that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I believe you still haven't answered my question: are you going to keep on reverting or can we have the page unprotected? SlimVirgin 01:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I reject that false dichotomy, and oppose unprotecting the page until this issue is resolved. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Duke is a White supermacist who tries to mask his views through a careful use of rhetoric.

Consider these comments by Duke from 1988 (audience response in parens.):

"That's ultimately the issue of this campaign, the issue of the century, the issue of this planet--whether or not our people are going to survive. There is integration in Seattle, there's integration in New Orleans, and Detroit, and New York, and Toronto and Vancouver, Canada and London, England and Brussels, Belgium, and Paris, France. There's no integration in Kampala, Uganda--they're all Black. There's no integration in Beijing--they're all yellow. There is no threat to their people in any of these areas of the globe. There is a threat to our people. And I'm here to say it's not because we hate anybody else. I don't hate Black people or yellow people or any other people on this planet. They've got a right to live. They've got a right to pursue their own dreams, their own destinies. But, ladies and gentlemen, so do we." (Applause)

"But we have a media and we have a government that is not concerned about our people's welfare, our heritage or our basic rights. They're only concerned about minority rights and minority heritage. And if you look around you in Seattle or other parts of this country, you'll see that unless things change, they are the future. We'll be a minority, our children will walk as strangers in their own land that our fathers fought so hard to clear and build. We have major cities across this country that you--not so much this part of the country but to a degree--forced bussing. The city I come from, in New Orleans, our public schools are 94 percent Black. And the six percent white children, they go through hell. I mean, they are not safe. Not only can they not get a decent education, they are not safe. Their lives. They are abused, attacked, even raped sometimes in the hallways of our schools. And there's a lot of poor white people in the city of New Orleans--a lot--thousands, and many of them will work two jobs to send their child to a private school so they will be safe and sound and get a decent chance in their lives. They're already paying taxes for public education but they can't use public education. In New Orleans, we have the largest public housing in the world. We have over seventy thousand people in public housing. And you can count the white people in those public housing on four or five hands. There are poor white people in that city who need help. Mothers who have been abandoned, people who face sickness, disease, hardship, but in my city you can't get public housing if you're white. Because, ladies and gentlemen, you wouldn't survive. Because if a lady moves into a public housing project, into the Desire housing project, for example, and she moves in with her ten or eleven year old child, this children wouldn't last a week. But nobody, in the Democratic Party, in the Republican Party, will dare raise a voice to what's going on. "

"God created the different races. Why did he create us differently in terms of skin color, facial features, skull formation, body type? He created us different psychologically, psychically, physiologically. We have different blood types. We are afflicted by different diseases. There's no question that God created different races on this planet. There's also no question that God created those races and he separated those races. (That's right.) The white races were European, the yellow races were Asian, the Blacks, of course, were African. Now man has a tendency to come along and say that God's law doesn't really make, isn't very important. This natural law that God created isn't very vital. Well, I think that it is. I'm glad that God created different races. I think it offers greater possibilities for mankind. And I want my grandkids and great grandkids to look something like myself (Yes.) and the people that came before me. (Amen.) And I'm proud of that fact. (Applause)"

"There's one man at the core of all this, a man who will someday be looked at kind of like as a Newton of our age or Galileo of our age. His name is Dr. William Shockley. Shockley developed the transistor which started the whole revolution. He won a Nobel prize for it and later, Shockley started Skockley semiconductors, which started the entire computer industry that we have today. And you know what? This man who will impact everyone of us so much, he started studying the racial issues. And he dropped his computer research and he dropped his transistor research and now he spends all his time trying to wake people up, trying to make people realize that people make nations, societies, technologies, not the other way around. The real value, the real resource of this country is not again our land, it is our blood. And so the man who will change us so much, and give us an opportunity, the man who's giving an opportunity for us to educate each and every one of us and our friends and our relatives and so on and so on is also the person who believes we must preserve our heritage in this country, Dr. William Shockley. I think that can inspire us. I think it's one more little element that we can put in our hearts and to know in our minds, to know that we will prevail. We will prevail. (Amen.) (Applause)"

Shockley argues that White people are genetically superior to Black people. --Cberlet 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I had already noted and cited that. That's why I specifically asked about his opinion of Asians and Jews. Gazpacho

IMO duke is most likely a white supremacist, but he clearly tries hard to present a more moderate image, and it wouldn't be NPOV to contridict that in the narrative. As Willmcw so helpfully pointed out, we should focus on citing who says what, not telling the reader whst to think. Provide the facts neutrally, and they can decide for themselves. Thats what NPOV is all about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. Sam, would you agree to the compromise I suggested before, or some variation of it: "David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a leader of the American white-nationalist movement and widely regarded as a white supremacist. He is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States." SlimVirgin 04:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds OK. For the record, the terms "White separatist", and "White nationalist" (or "White racial nationalist") are used by several scholars in discussing different types of White ethnocentrism, most of which fall under the rubric of White supremacy. Duke is generally considered by scholars to be a White supremacist.--Cberlet 04:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to edit the compromise to make it more accurate, please feel free. It's meant only as a starting point. SlimVirgin 04:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

In the article, I see four uses of the term "white supremacist" that have been changed to "white nationalist". Only one of them is in reference to Duke. The other are to political contributors, a set of eight signatories to an agreement, and Don Black of Stormfront. Before delving further into Duke's biographical issues, may I ask if the objections are to every mention of the term "white supremacist"? I'd like to know if this is part one of a four part editing process. Thank you, -Willmcw 07:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Would Sam agree if we simply noted close to the top of the article that, although scholars and the media use the term "white supremacist," the term "white nationalist" is preferred by the movement itself? Followed by a quote from one of them to that effect. Sam, do you know whether any of the leaders within the movement have explicitly addressed the supremacist/nationalist issue, and if so, can you provide a link? SlimVirgin 08:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well firstly there is no need to overemphasize myself, I don't have strong feelings about, and have 0 affinity for, duke himself (for example he was a grand wizard of the KKK, a particularly unfortunate organization). That being the case, I have only a modest amount of insight into him and his views, but it’s clear to me that "White nationalist" and "white pride", etc... are attempts to put on a friendlier face. I feel pretty strongly that when someone wants to reserve an escape route, you should ensure they have one (see the art of war for more info on that). When someone says "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children", that is clearly more socially acceptable than "Six million more". I am familiar with the process of "curing" racism, and it involves allowing adherents to slowly de-escalate their rhetoric, enabling them to open up dialogue with a greater diversity of persons, rather than remaining in social isolation (often the cause of their sentiments in the 1st place). Religion is also key, and black ministers have had a lot of success in helping racists to reform by emphasizing the kindness of Christ and demonstrating their own virtues. Anyhow, I think its very obvious that while some prefer to call Duke & co. "white supremacists", that they prefer "white nationalists", and we should allow them that. Cite the ADL or whatnot calling him whatever you like if you must (a more neutral and widely respected source would probably be ALOT wiser, but whatever), but keep the political epithets out of the narrative, regardless of how true you think they are. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even though I am someone who works against racism and other forms of oppression, as a encylcopedist I have been trimming the most demonizing POV language out of articles I edit. There is a tendency for critics of these groups to frame reality in a hyperbolic and sometimes not accurate way. Within the movement supporting White rights (how's that for neutral?) there are a range of players. Some observers simply all them all part of "hate groups," but that is highly problematic. Even Kathleen Blee, one of the top sociologists of right-wing movements has suggested this language is misleading. And another leading sociologist Jerome Himmelstein has argued that the label "extremist" is improper for scholars to use, since it is essentially a label of derision. I think it is fine to first say what they call themselves, and then say what most scholars call them. Whenever possible I think it is better to cite scholars rather than the watch group like ADL, SPLC or even Political Research Associates, where I work. If we are the only source of information, that's OK. But that is seldom the case. (Note to HK: Yes, it is probably the case that the watch groups have the most recent material on Lyndon LaRouche and thus are appropriate to cite). So we are left with the question of which term is most accurate as a self-description. There are different ideological positions among White nationalists, White separatists, White segregationists. There are also groups that promote expulsion and extermination, but they seldom mention that in their self descriptions. So the question is has Duke described himself as a White nationalist or White separatist? Or has he used some other term? The book that maps the larger question of differentiation in the White Power movement is:

Dobratz, Betty A. & Stephanie Shanks-Meile. 2000. "White Power, White Pride!" The White Separatist Movement in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

They argued that White separatism was a relatively new innovation in the movement, and was competing with other forms. And they took so much heat for the original title, that the book was renamed:

The White Separatist Movement in the United States: White Power White Pride.

So this terminology thing is not a new discussion.--Cberlet 15:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good points, altho I didn't mean to suggest that citing "watchdog" groups was unfair to those they oppose, only that they are not going to be regarded as impartial or neutral in their assessments by insightful readers. For example, can you imagine what the JDL has to say about Mr. Duke? Or the NAACP? I can imagine they might have some colorful comments he and his supporters wouldn't likely agree with. Anyhow, you make some astute observations; racial opinions are a continuum, not a dichotomy, as many on the left interpret them as. People who are separatists and want to run off to racial isolation in Montana are quite different from Hammerskins who want to beat up immigrants in LA, who are again quite different from classical white supremacists, who actually wanted to rule over minorities in a colonial manner, often suggesting it was the moral, humane thing to do, taking care of their inferiors. These people are not the same, and it is quite unfair (and extremely unhelpful if the goal is to change their minds) not to allow them to distinguish themselves from each other ideologically and morally. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External links

• The Preface to Jewish Supremacism - A New book by David Duke

Protection

This page has been protected for too long without discussion going on here; we should move to some kind of agreement, or else at least agree that there won't be any reverting, so we can request unprotection. SlimVirgin 23:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are four uses of the term "supremacist" in the article and, as far as I can tell, the dispute is only over one of those uses, the one that refers to Duke himself. SlimVirgin proposed some compromise language which seems fair:

David Duke (born July 1, 1950) is a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the United States, and former Louisiana State Representative. He has run unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, and twice for President of the United States. Duke remains a political activist within what is known as the white-nationalist movement in America. He is widely regarded as a white supremacist by a number of organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League.

Time to move on. -Willmcw 23:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Should one of us request unprotection, or wait for other views? SlimVirgin 00:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

One editor has repeatedly asked to keep the protection on but there does not seem to be an ongoing march towards consensus. This dispute may be easier to resolve by actual editing than by leisurely discussion. In addition, at least one other editing issue, Duke's ability to run for office, is pending unprotection. I suggest that someone (you?) request unprotection. If an edit war breaks out again the page can always be re-protected. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

So requested. [5] SlimVirgin 02:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Granted. Play nice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I've inserted the compromise introduction. Hope that's okay with everyone. SlimVirgin 03:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Running for office

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)

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)

My apologies; I'll change it back. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK — you've done it. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links concerning David Duke.

I find it worth mentioning that apart from a website, the primary sources are completely omitted. Duke has written two books to date, but only secondary literatre is presented.

Censhorship galore on Wikipedia

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

their assessments are highly controversial

• 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)

• • Willmcw I think Duke's 2002 degree was honorary, but the 2005 was a full doctorate, and from separate universities in the Ukraine. We should all check the facts and get it correct.DannyZz 19:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine Doctorate

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)

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)

Willmcw see compromise above.

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

"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."

• It's more appropriate to include current information about the school than past USSR stuff that's over 15 years old. So should we delete the current info, but keep the 15 year old info? What do think about that? DannyZz 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine Full Doctorate in 2005

I believe the same univeristy (above) recently awarded Duke a full PhD. The honorary was in 2002.DannyZz 20:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Source? -Willmcw 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, what field would this doctorate be in, personnel management? -Willmcw 21:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know. That's why I suggested we should look into it and find out the facts.DannyZz 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In the future, it's a good idea to have the facts before adding such information to the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)