Talk:David Duke/Archive 3

Nick Griffin
The BNP's Nick Griffin was at a Texan meeting with the ex-KKK boss David Duke []. 86.29.134.225 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you mean former State representative of Louisiana as that was the first time that they met. And so what if Griffin shared a platform with Duke?

Adultery section
I have removed the adultery section again, since it is irrelevant to Duke's notability (or notoriety) and violates WP:BLP. Specifically,
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

and also
 * It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

I just see no good reason for discussing Duke's marital infidelities, whether well-sourced or not. Phiwum (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, if you're going to revert the deletion, let's discuss it here. I can certainly imagine that persons of good will may disagree with my assessment, but we should at least talk it over and find the consensus. Phiwum (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs in this article. I read several articles that Dr. Duke is a homosexual and was seen limping out of a hotel room in Kentucky with a large black man behind him. But I don't think it's appropriate or relevant for wikipedia. This isn't a tabloid site no matter how factual and true these stories definitely are. --24.155.111.25 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Many biographies on Wikipedia (for example, Anita Bryant's and Pat Buchanan's) have sections describing the subject's notoriety in popular culture. Should there be one in this article, too? David Duke has been referenced and satirized quite a few times in the media; for example, Doonesbury depicted him as a swastika, while John Mayer compared his own penis to Duke. If no one has any objections, I will soon add a short section detailing this. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With any material like that it's probably important to have a secondary source to both show that we're correctly identifying this Duke as the subject of the satire (as opposed to other people named "Duke" who might appear in Doonesbury) and that the satire is notable. And such sections should be kept short.   Will Beback    talk    16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest, rather than in an unsorted trivia section, any popular culture references noteworthy enough to be added to the article should be placed in appropriate sections? For example, the Doonesbury depiction could easily be placed under the heading of the political campaign which inspired it. Anita Bryant's article does contain an unsorted "cultural references" section, but Pat Buchanan's does not.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's better to avoid "popular culture" sections when the material can be better integrated into the article.   Will Beback    talk    17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism
NatDemUK added this article to ; I removed it because I don't think Duke's views constitute legitimate "criticism" of Judaism, any more than Fred Phelps' views would constitute legitimate "criticism" of homosexuality; both Duke and Phelps seem to be motivated by hate, not "criticism". Is there even a need for at all, given that that category only has 3 articles in it (was 4 until I removed this article from it)? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So your rebuttal is that Dr. Duke is "motivated by hate"? Try refuting his claims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.239.233 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, Fred Phelps screams hatred to sodomites all the time, David Duke does not do anything like that. David Duke only criticises pro-Zionism in the US government.

Actually David Duke is criticising the pro-Jewish government and how Judaism holds hateful celebrations such as Hanukah and Purim. Perhaps you should look at his YouTube channel http://wwwyoutubecom/drdduke —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when have Hanukkah and Purim been "hateful"? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Watch his videos and find out. Since European-Americans are not allowed to celebrate George Washington Day because that is seen as "hateful", Purim and Hanukkah celebrate Jewish supremacy over Gentiles.

Anyone who has listened to Dr David Dukes commentaries on Judaism can tell you he is well versed in the Jewish religion and thoroughly intellectual in his commentaries about Judaism. He is highly biased and selective in his discussion of Judaism and it's literature. But to compare Dr Duke with Fred Phellps is truly rediculious. Dr Dukes ranks with William F Buckly and Malcomb Muggeridge, surly not with Fred Phellps.Johnwrd (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, except for maybe the racism and bigotry part, which Buckley was the conservative movement's bulwark against; it's a shame there seem to be no major voices in the modern movement with such integrity and such influence. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you say that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are motivated by hate? They are always ranting about the dangers of religion. Christopher Hitchens said to an audience to treat religious people with bigotry and hatred.


 * DAVID DUKE IS MY HERO..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.38.94 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What a load of Crock, David Duke's views (the views of the once leader of a terrorist organization) on Hanukkah and Purim are as relevant as Hassan Nasrallah's views (the views of the leader of a terrorist organization) on non-muslim holidays, i.e. worthless. Quoting things out of context are not by any means being "intellectual", quite far from it, and certainly dishonest. Purim is a festival of happiness that celebrates the survival of Jews at the hands of a potential genocidal maniac, and Hanukkah celebrates the victory of the Hasmonite jews against the Syrian greek invasors, partly due to a miracle related with the Menorah (which is why it's sometimes called the festival of lights). So no, these holidays aren't "hateful", only neo-nazi morons would take David Duke (and his "credentials", let alone his beliefs) seriously.


 * Go ahead and add whatever you think it's relevant about Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. The big difference is that Dawkins is the worldwide leading scientist and Hitchens, while nothing special (at least in comparison to Dawkins), is in no way affiliated with terrorist organizations or ever was (though he does have friends of friends of terrorists like David Duke). It's hilarious how people are supposed to ignore David Duke's past when it comes to debating neo-nazis. His intolerance is evident when talking about those who don't share his view of the world. (Bootsielon (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC))


 * OH SHUT UP!! David Duke is NOT A MEMBER OF THE KKK, IS HE????????????????????!!!! For over 20 years he was a member of the Republican Party, by what part of that do you not understand?? He is not a member of a terrorist organisation and never was. His KKK was non-violent but just a pro-whites organisation against affirmative action and illegal immigration as he used it to patrol the American-Mexican borders. He LEFT his KKK in 1980 which was the same time he LEFT the Democrats! Robert Byrd was a member of a KKK WHY ARE YOU NOT SMEARING AGAINST HIM??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do RS say about the KKK?Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

well finally
finally Wikipedia recognizes this man as Dr. David Duke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.255.231 (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Doctor in what? Denialism? His credentials are belong to a widely discredited university in Ukrain. Hardly worthy of being recognized.(Bootsielon (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)).

what a shock. it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.255.231 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The current Wikipedia guidelines call for removing "Dr." as a title, and "Ph.D" as a postnomial in all biographies. Instead, the academic degrees should be mentioned where relevant, such as in an education or early life section. WP:CREDENTIAL. This article isn't being treated in a special way.   Will Beback    talk    08:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

what is the world is "denialism"? are you referring to his refusal to tout that six million jews that never existed in the first place died in gas chambers with wooden doors that locked from the inside? I think you are showing your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.255.231 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: weasely white nationalism
As well as being overwritten, this article downplays Duke's repugnant racism with weasel wording.

Examples:
 * Duke describes himself as a racial realist, asserting that "all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage."[5] He speaks in favor of voluntary racial segregation and white separatism.:This is whitewashing of views printed elsewhere.
 * Beth Rickey ... began to follow Duke to record his speeches and expose what she saw as instances of racist and neo-Nazi remarks.:The citation demonstrates unambiguous racism.
 * He was also endorsed by James Meredith, black civil rights figure.:And? Why is this relevant? No context is given.
 * [the] NAACP became outraged when it discovered that...:As if this is not inherently outrageous.

I could easily fix these myself but I'd also like to see additional close reading of this article. Shii (tock) 21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Shii, and my 2c on the topic:

Im not a regular Wikipedia contributor, and I have not read up all the debates and guidelines going into detail what weasely/npov/etc mean when used in the context of Wikipedia, just want to add that disclaimer since I might have some weasles and biased views in my response. While im certainly trying to convey an exact perfect fix to the problems Shii illustrated i know i will fall short since im not the best writer, so i will be happy if i get a few parts wrong but am able to convey a general idea of what i believe would be best to fix certain problems areas, which then leads to the exact wording being worked out.

With that out of the way I will contribute my view. In todays day and age its hard to imagine a reader not already knowing what white nationalism is and what it stands for. It seems to be that NPOV would not judge the articles topic (or in this case the articles person) based on societies current hate-fad that everyone who (looks like so and so / thinks that so and so / acts like so and so) are inhuman/scum/dirt/perverted. Do I agree with Duke? No, I personally believe his views made reality would make life extremely difficult for me, but my disagreeance with duke is not the articles topic, if it were I would write something like "David Duke has worked his entire life towards achieving discord and suffering for large swaths of society, it would appear he consorts with devil regularly - sometimes in a sexual manner" since its loaded with my view of his actions. Using words like repugnant and attaching negative emotions seem be off limits if you want to educate rather than indoctrinate.

With that out of the way, I do agree with your basic contention - that some of the article is not quite right. The line you quote that is placed in the most valuable spot of an article - its intro - seems out of place, it doesnt seem right for some PR-produced political double-speak to be so highly placed uncontested. I'm referring to the first line you mention:
 * .Duke describes himself as a racial realist, asserting that "all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage."[5] He speaks in favor of voluntary racial segregation and white separatism.;

My suggestion is something like: "David Duke is known for his role in the transformation of White Nationalism from its original ideals of forced segregation using the power of the state to its current focus on voluntary segregation and separation of races. Due to his association with the KKK and White Nationalism controversy has generally followed him along his career."

I feel I need to point out I am not a good writer, and I know someone can do better than what I just wrote. Im trying to convey a general idea of the layout, tone, and content, hoping someone with better writing skills will put my ideas into an acceptable sentence form. A 3rd view would be helpful in my opinion, so if youve got one that doesnt match mine or Shii's please contribute.

70.107.84.177 (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sue Wikipeida
I'm surprised this guy hasn't sued wikipedia yet, this article is full of hatred for this guy specially in the criticism part. What has the web come to when nobody can escape the noises and barks of wikipedia editors and wikipedia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.159.184 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, shouldn't David Duke be sued by pretty much everyone in the US multiple times? The answer is yes, in case you didn't realize this was a rhetorical question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootsielon (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr/PhD
He claims to have a PhD, how come nothing is mentioned about that? Or is it considered irrelevant? I cannot see how it is not relevant, I'm curious about him and want to know and couldn't care less about some immigration troubles in Austria or Chezoslovakia... Hope somebody add the information since I want to know. Thanks for you time. / Mikey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.80.186 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * we would really need ton ow were he got it fro and what in. Any one can claim to have a PHD.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's covered in detail. See David_Duke.   Will Beback    talk    20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1989 state senate section
Most of this section is the personal opinion of Ron Gomez. Which is very interesting, mind you. But what is it doing taking up about 3/5ths of this section? Why not just one paragraph which would be Gomez' summation of Duke's term? That's in there right now. Otherwise the heading is inaccurate. If this stuff is in the article (and this much of it shouldn't be, he's just one voice) most of it needs to go under a criticism heading. Thoughts? 96.239.184.251 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Ribacoff
"No matter how many examinations David Duke has passed, the volume of his research, number of academic citations of his dissertation, or the cleverness of his literary style, his work libels the Jewish people. It concludes that Zionism is an ideology of ethnic supremacy and that Israel is a Jewish-supremacist state. It's all a lie. In truth, Israel is the only true democracy in the Mideast. ... Jews had to be concerned that in spite of the fact that David Duke fulfilled the technical academic requirements for the Doctorate, awarding such a degree and title was dangerous because a legitimate doctoral degree adds authority to his statements and writings. The fact that David Duke now has the formal title of Dr. David Duke is maddening. It seriously hampers the intellectual struggle against anti-Semitism. Someone has to do something about MAUP, it is a national disgrace for Ukraine. "
 * ''Abraham Ribacoff, who read Duke's dissertation defended at MAUP, which the Anti-Defamation League describes as a "University of Hate, where Duke received his doctorate for his paper , stated that:

It isn't clear who "Abraham Ribacoff" is, and the only source we have for this quote is Duke's own website. I don't think we can use his website as a source for quotations from 3rd parties. I propose deleting this quotation and the reference to Ribacoff. If someone can find a different source, and the identity of Ribacoff, then that'd be fine.  Will Beback   talk    22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we can assume that Rubacoff is a living person, I'm going to go ahead and remove this. If we can find a better source, and the identity of the mysterious Rubacoff, then we can restore it.   Will Beback    talk    04:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't even find any evidence he exists other than in the rhetoric of "Doctor" Duke. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, remove the section on ==Abraham Ribacoff== and his quote. Especially since it is far from the truth; Disputed "No matter how many examinations David Duke has passed, the volume of his research, number of academic citations of his dissertation, or the cleverness of his literary style, his work libels the Jewish people. It concludes that Zionism is an ideology of ethnic supremacy and that Israel is a Jewish-supremacist state. It's all a lie. In truth, Israel is the only true democracy in the Mideast. ... "

It is unacceptable for this 'Abraham Ribacoff' to make the above claim. For those interested in the truth, spend some time and do your own impartial research. In my experience a country that has separate roads for Arabs and non-Arabs cannot call itself a democracy. See here - Amnesty International: Israeli Authorities Must Stop Demolitions of Palestinian Homes - Democracies don't indulge in acts of imperialism. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israeli-authorities-must-stop-demolitions-palestinian-homes-2010-06-16

Can someone more experienced than me, please remove it. Abu-bakrUK (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, remove the section on Abraham Ribacoff and his quote. --81.0.203.121 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Plastic surgery allegations
I think this section is silly, and violates the spirit if not the letter of BLP. Why is it necessary? It's not as if there isn't plenty of more serious criticism of the subject. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's starting to look as though you're following Will BeBack's contributions, what with you arriving at LaRouche pages, then Prem Rawat, and now here. Are you? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed description of Ukrainian educational system and its comparison to US education system
Article noted: "The degree of Kandidat Nauk is routinely translated and officially recognized in the United States of America as the equivalent of PhD (in thousands of cases, today, both as academic credentials in CV, and in job appointments or scientific publications). The former Soviet system and its descendent scientific classification in the ex-USSR countries has an even more advanced degree of Doctor of Science, of which the American tradition possesses no equivalent." Irrelevant content so removed. Article is about a person not the Ukrainian or US educational systems. Section has a link to the degree of Candidate of Sciences so information on the quality of the degree should be put there. --mgaved (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ku klux clan and anti-Zionism should go separately
I see no logical reason to combine statements of his involvment in Ku klux klan and anti-Zionism. So believe they deserve separate sentences vs being combined as one sentence and giving impression that those two events of his life are somehow connected. Steelmate (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are two aspects of his bigotry/dislike of the other. They seem intimately connected to me. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

serving in Vietnam?
I have read this mans books. Nowhere does he state that he was in the military or that he served in Vietnam in ANY of these books. So, where does this article get that his "claims" of serving in Vietnam were refuted? Trueethnic (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That must have been someone confused and working from memory, as the claims were about Laos, which I've added. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Holds a PHD?
saw on his page in Youtube a PHD, but saw no such data here, way?.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.37.155 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea why you didn't see it, I presume you didn't read the article to the bottom? Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Boris Mironov
I see a little edit war over Boris Mironov. He is indeed a self-acknowledge anti-Semite, and has been prosecuted for it in Russia. Many other sources are available.  Will Beback   talk    06:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

POV
Whether or not one agrees with Duke's politics, the articles should be balanced and neutral. It is neither. There are few more obviously biased articles in Wikipedia. Even Adolf Hitler has more balanced coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 September 2011
 * Articles are not meant to be neutral, they are meant to present a 'neutral point of view', "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV). You'll need to be more specific. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
I see a lot of back and forth on the page, but no discussion here. Could editors please discuss more and revert less?  Will Beback   talk    04:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about citing who is in charge of content/running a website
I have a question. When stating that the subject of an article is in charge of content and is running a website, such as the "Internet commentary" section on this one, is citing the website itself enough? would it help to cite a "whois" record or source code? How would one cite whois records and source code?

Aj2410 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012
 * I don't think citing the records prove anything at all about who is "running" a website or who is "in charge"; all it tells you is that the person's name is on the whois record. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben Jealous claim
The last section contains the claim that many within the Tea Party have requested that Duke run for President in 2012. This claim is sourced from an earlier op-ed by Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP. The NAACP has campaigned against the Tea Party relentlessly for quite a while and I would suggest that this may be an example of an NPOV violation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.238.69 (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it can be verified by an article on Duke's official site, it should stay. I've added the url, fixed the Duke website url in another sentence, removed stuff sourced to blogs and a YouTube video which doesn't seem discussed in the media, if it is it can be replaced. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
For starters, the lead - which basically just summarizes Duke's positions rather than summarizing the article as per WP:LEAD. The article avoids calling him a white supremacist, although more sources seem to call him a white supremacist than call him a white nationalist(not that it even mentions that in the lead). The note at the top refers to him as a white nationalist although the article doesn't even call him that. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In most articles, this would go under "controversies," but in the case of just blatant racists, you've got to set him up as one. The dinks 18 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You forgot degree of doctor
Dr. David Duke PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.186.16.88 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's in the article. We don't call people Doctor unless it's like "Doctor Hook" (or add post-nominals). Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Family and personal life
In the section Family and personal life the middle part should be added (a native speaker may correct the phrasing):

As of 2009, it was confirmed that David Duke was living in Zell am See in Salzburg, Austria,[18] from which he ran the Internet business "Art by Ernst", taking and selling photographs of rare birds, mountain scenery and wildlife[19][20] under the pseudonym "Ernst Duke" (his middle-name "Ernest" Germanized).[21][22]

Local authorities have stated that Duke is not permanently living in Austria as he holds no resident permit but is staying in the country by tourist visa(s), valid for ad most 3 months. Further authorities have stated

that as long as he does not break any laws, Duke is allowed to stay in Austria if he wishes.[23] Duke has stated: "I'm not in Austria for any political activities. I just come to Austria to relax – the mountains are beautiful. The Austrian Alps are just beautiful. There's beauty all over the world." In May 2009, Duke issued a statement denying that he resides in Austria and saying that he is a resident of Mandeville, Louisiana, and is registered as a taxpayer in his city, state and on the national level.[24]

Source: german wiki ↑ Colette M. Schmidt: Salzburg-Tourist mit radikalen Ansichten. bei derStandard.at, 30. November 2011 (Abgerufen am 3. August 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.138.1 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm II and David Duke
Hello, I have some photographs of David Duke and some other information that is closely related to a particular event in David Duke's life. It has been published in two books and includes much information related to Germany pre-Hitler and pre-Weimar. It is of the anti-semitism of Kaiser Wilhelm II. The source is a book and there is a copy of the book here http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050404/will.html Also I have the information in photographic form of the relation to David Duke. However I haven't got a google source. I merely have the photographic information. Now my question is what can I do to enter the photograph into Wikipedia. Do I need to get permission from the German authorities? Also I am in a position to have contact with anybody who can assist me. My friend has told me that I mustn't edit the article without permission. Is it correct that I must post a message here and request somebody to help me in my goal? I have more sources and I am not exactly sure how to enter them into the main page. If I quote from the New York Times or any other location, will I be sued for copyright infringement? The photo in my possession is my own property. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeMaster123 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect quote from SPLC
Article quotes SPLC as describing Duke as "the most recognizable figure on the American far right". This quote is incorrect - the actual quote is "the most recognizable figure of the American radical right." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/david-duke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabapu (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

SI equivalents
For clarity, two sentences within the "Youth and early adulthood" section should be revised to include equivalent international measurements:

"He also claimed to have gone behind enemy lines twenty times at night to drop rice to anti-Communist insurgents in planes flying 10 ft off the ground, narrowly avoiding receiving a shrapnel wound. Two Air America pilots who were in Laos at that time said that flights were during the day and flew no less than 500 ft from the ground."

Wtf? This isnt conservative
Why does it say that on this page? Politicians dont even want to be in the same room with this nut, especially since about almost all conservatives support Israel. Got it?

"Good point, based on a obvious fact. In the early days of Wikipedia, you could have just edited the page, put the same fact as the explanation, and that would have been that. Today's days differ."

Alleged Tax Fraud and Missing Information
Suspiciously missing from the imprisonment section of his Wikipedia entry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTsuDk2rqAA

Lost Elections and Missing Information
Entry simply states that he lost elections, or was unsuccesful. Fails to mention that he went on from his radical younger days to win four elections. He won the New Hampshire Democratic Primary for Vice President of the U.S. in 1988 with over 60 percent of the vote (the same election Al Gore won in 1996). He won election to the House of Representatives in Louisiana in 1989. In 1991 Duke defeated the sitting Governor of Louisiana (Buddy Roemer) for the Republican nomination. Duke was elected Chairman of the Republican Executive Committee (1996-2000) in the largest Republican district in Louisiana.

New Orleans Protocol
Regarding the following paragraph:


 * Commenting on the protocol, one author noted that "the New Orleans Protocol particularly emphasized the Jewish role in deliberately encouraging miscegenation to weaken the white race. In other words, miscegenation was viewed not only as bad in itself, but also as a weapon of the international Jewish conspiracy."

I removed this paragraph, saying: "Since the "New Orleans Protocol" appears to consist only of the above three lines, this paragraph must be based on a misunderstanding." Galassi reverted, saying: "It is based on a Reliable Source." The following is moved from his talk page. – Smyth\talk 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

-

Do you have any actual response to my point? Even reliable authors make occasional mistakes. – Smyth\talk 12:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to reliably source the "mistake".--Galassi (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Every other source indicates that the entire text of the protocol is those three lines which we have already quoted. Since those lines do not mention Jews (in fact they do not mention race at all), the paragraph simply cannot be true as stated, and the article as it stands is self-contradictory. Clearly the author has confused the protocol with something else Duke wrote or said. – Smyth\talk 00:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely the Protocol has more than 3 lines.--Galassi (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done a considerable amount of searching and I can't find any evidence that it does. Everybody just keeps quoting those same three lines. – Smyth\talk 10:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess those 3 lines made a real impression on everybody.--Galassi (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A bigger impression than the alleged part about "the Jewish role in deliberately encouraging miscegenation to weaken the white race"? That seems unlikely.

In all seriousness, though, I think I can explain what happened here. The paragraph is sourced to this book chapter by Mark Weitzmann. Unfortunately the Google preview doesn't cover the citation attached to the statement in question. However this book chapter by the same author in Holocaust Denial contains virtually identical wording. In this second book, the material on the New Orleans Protocol meeting is sourced to this report by the SPLC, which refers to the antisemitic statements as having been made "during the meeting", but not actually being part of the Protocol document. In fact, the SPLC, who claim to have directly "monitored the gathering", refers to the Protocol itself as being "nothing more than a smokescreen". It wouldn't be much of a "smokescreen" if it actually contained explicit antisemitic statements, would it?

So what appears to have happened is that "during the meeting" (SPLC) became "along with the pledges" (Holocaust Denial, page 196) and then actually part of the protocol itself (Holocaust Denial, page 197).

If you think it's important to retain the information about antisemitic speeches at the event, I suggest we change the paragraph to reference the original source of the information, which is the SPLC. – Smyth\talk 15:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the ref (as long as the relevant import is intact)!--Galassi (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)