Talk:Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question

Tags
FYI, an editor dropped a number of tags on the article without a valid rationale. Note that the user was recently blocked per ANI.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have explained my rationale. But where is yours? Strivingsoul (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is wrong and wrong-headed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strivingsoul: I have no rationale for any tags that were dropped by you. Nor do I need to have one.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually asked you to explain your reason for opposing the tags with the rationale I have offered below! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that I haven't even commented on what you've posted below, why are you accusing me of having opposed it? Are you merely trolling?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that your post came earlier than mine (before I had posted my explanation below) and hence your assertion that there was "no valid rationale" offered. Anyhow, my rationale were posted within minutes. So if you have any comment, I'd welcome that. And it is clear that I'm not trolling. I'm editing pages in best of my conscience and observance of the rules (still I might be wrong but willing to admit fault if any). Strivingsoul (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased sources with conflict of interest
Very nice hit job from the masters of propaganda. Almost like reading an ADL press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.212 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has serious problems with neutrality. Considering the book topic, having most sources belonging to the very same views and institutions that the author criticizes in the book, makes the article a worst example of bias and conflict of interest:
 * 5 out of 9 references are ADL, the very organization that the author strongly criticizes in the book!
 * Vallentine Mitchell also seems like a quite partisan Jewish pub.
 * At least 4 out of 6 explicitly named authors are also Jewish.

Moreover, the article also fails to mention the political office that the author has held in the past, Louisiana House of Representative; and the history doctorate he holds.

Therefore, I added POV, one source, and ref improve tags until the article is balanced and completed by POVs of the author himself, and sources with less bias and conflict of interest. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're talking about giving artificial prominence to a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. No thanks, we at Wikipedia are not a bunch of Nazis. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we all know that you all at Wikipedia are a bunch of commies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.228.197 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, those are what the sources with the conflict of interest claim, and are rejected by the author. And we don't also have to be "a bunch of Nazis" to point out and admit the blatant bias of the article! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, David Duke himself claims to be a white supremacist antisemitic neo-Nazi. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing this topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you then provide evidence for your claim that Duke himself claims to be so? Strivingsoul (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to stop with this behavior. A topic ban may be the only way for you in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, Strivingsoul, read the David Duke article. Pretending he's not an antisemite only makes one appear to be some combination of dishonest or stupid.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been a couple of months since this debate started, but just as back then, I still think this page as well as the author's page need substantial revision for they rely mainly on blatantly biased sources such as the Anti-Defamation League notorious for its history of shameless espionage/spying operations against civilians, blatant political bias towards Israel, and its persistent campaign of defamation and smear against all critiques of Israel or Judo-Zionist political power by resorting to its typical arbitrary anti-Semitic labeling nonsense (See Anti-Defamation League and Anti-Defamation League). Add to that the organization history of receiving fund from big-time criminals of various sorts!

These are the things that seriously undermine ADL as a reliable source! And this is amazing that some Wikipedians blindly cite ADL's positions as facts in many articles related to Antisemitism, politics, etc.

As for this article in particular, it is also clear to me (based on my close information both about the author and his book) that many of the allegations against the book and its author are either very inaccurate or downright false. I will hopefully discuss them in length in a separate post when I get a time. By the time I'm going tag this article for neutrality. Strivingsoul (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could quit trying to whitewash articles on a known, documented, and proven racist. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, Ian Thomson you could start thinking for yourself for a start and stop being a brainwashed idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.228.197 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Holocaust Denial point
I have edited this bullet point from:

"no Jews were killed during World War II, and the Holocaust was a Jewish plot to garner sympathy"

to:

"no attempted extermination of Jews took place during World War II, and the Holocaust was a Jewish plot to garner sympathy"

My edit was reverted FreeKnowledgeCreator who said, "Your personal opinion about what a Holocaust denier would or would not claim is irrelevant.". Ignoring the hostility of that statement, I will make my case for why my edit should stand.

Nowhere in this book, nor any other works by David Duke as far as I am aware, does he claim that "no Jews were killed during World War II". If you just take a look at the book in question, you will find this paragraph on page 289:

In reality, I discovered that no responsible revisionist denies that large numbers of innocent people, including many Jews, died at the hands of the Germans and their allies during the Second World War. No one denies that the Germans rounded up the Jews from all over occupied Europe and put them into deplorable concentration camps. Revisionists do not deny that Nazis committed atrocities against Jews; they do, however, contend that the numbers of those killed have been grossly inflated. More importantly, they maintain that there was no central program, plan, policy, or order by the German government to exterminate all of the Jewish people. Revisionists claim that the Nazis created the camps to confine Jews because they considered them a security risk, much like the American government rounded up and incarcerated Japanese for security reasons.''

- Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, pg 289

Here we can plainly see that Duke does NOT state that "no Jews were killed during World War II". He says he and other revisionists only deny the number killed, and the policy of extermination. If anyone demands that the wording be changed back to the previous version, they should provide a counter to this. In the form of a statement by Duke, or by reputable source(s), which will demonstrate that Duke believes (and writes in this book) that "no Jews were killed during World War II". 73.20.33.105 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason you gave for your first edit - ' no holocaust denier would argue "no Jews were killed" ' - was indeed inappropriate and unacceptable, and you should have expected an edit with an edit summary like that to be reverted. Since you have made a better case above, I am content to let other editors decide the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)