DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured article candidateDavid Duke is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2025.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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

[edit]

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

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

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

These sources aren't very good. The AP article was taken from the Washington Times. See WP:RSP The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. DN (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the Jerusalem Post? TanRabbitry (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only quote I can glean from it says "One of the personalities that attended the protest at TPUSA’s convention was Duke, according to journalist Cam Higby. Duke said in a clip published by Higby that he was there to support Fuentes and all those working “to save our country and save us from Jewish supremacism because we’re being genocided just like the Palestinians, just [in] a different form.”
The claim "He recently expressed support for Hamas and joined a rally in Detroit" is not supported by the citation, since support for Hamas and general opposition to genocide are not interchangeable, therefore this appears to be WP:SYNTH. Aside from that, it's not all that notable per WP:RECENT
Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that? TanRabbitry (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not improve the quality of the source given that AP is reposting it? It's not the opinion section of Washington Times. Ergzay (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But regardless of that, who said he supports Hamas? TanRabbitry (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the first comment posted in this section. DN (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I didn't notice. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are Three Issues Here

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


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

I think you're trying to do too much all at once, which is why things like #2 happen. When there are few involved editors, it's fine to make more involved changes. But when there is clearly a difference of opinion by several editors, you need to slow down and tighten the scope. Only work towards a couple of things at a time so when there is pushback, you can make the discussion more clearly defined. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re #3, the lead should be a summary of what is covered in the article. If it's not covered in more detail in the article, then it shouldn't be in the lead. The first paragraph should include the things that establish notability (i.e. what he is notable for). You've probably already looked at these, but WP:LEADDD and then MOS:LEAD are worth reviewing. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the interdict has been lifted, what do we want to do in regards to the three issues we have discussed? TanRabbitry (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously no consensus for inclusion of Omar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is obviously not true. I, @Ergzay and @Slatersteven are all for inclusion. Additionally, we have achieved consensus as to issue 1's inclusion (if not the language of it) as we have closely followed Wikipedia standards in our arguments. See Wikipedia:Not A Democracy. Let's decide on the first issue before tackling the others. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just your opinion of those against consensus. I see no consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not how you worded it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying to editor Objective3000 "(That is) not how you worded it," or are you saying it to me? If the latter, I believe we worked out a compromise on the language that we all accepted. TanRabbitry (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The indentation is as a reply to you, and you are the only person making claims as to what I have said. I was under the impression you had refused to accept anything other than your choice of words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have adjusted the wording multiple times to what ither editors wanted. Two other editors were under the impression you were against including it at all. I asked about that and you said, "I did not object to mentioning his support (which should be clear from what I have said above)." Have you changed your mind? TanRabbitry (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actauly I am reconsidering it as the issue of these seems to be about guilt by accusation seems a valid objection. So maybe naming them is a violation of wp:blp. It migfht in fwct be better to say "offred tupport to other policians accused of antisemitism", if that isd the point being made. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in adding Omar to be consistent and avoid the current WP:NPOV issues with undue focus on republican candidates, but the wording needs to be careful. You should propose specific wording and then we can discuss that. Otherwise it's hard to discuss. Ergzay (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help explain the "focus on republican candidates", and how it relates to the Duke article? Why it is undue? Is there not significant coverage by RS to justify it, or am I missing something else? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection to wrong page

[edit]

“Former Boris Yeltsin press minister Boris Mironov wrote an introduction to the Russian edition, printed under the title The Jewish Question Through the Eyes of an American.” This part of the text contains a link that redirects to an article dedicated to the Russian historian Boris Nikolaevich Mironov, when in fact the author of this introduction was another man named Boris Sergeevich Mironov. 185.30.229.162 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Now linking to the Russian article since there's no article on enwiki for the politician / journalist Boris Mironov. Nakonana (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2025

[edit]

Under the 'Antisemitism' drop-down, in the 'Activities in Ukraine and Russia (2005-2006)' part, it says, "gave Duke a non-accredited PhD in history.", and it should say something like gave Duke the first non-accredited PhD in history or something along those lines. 108.59.115.79 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I think you're misreading the intended meaning. It's a university whose accreditation is not recognized. The PhD itself is in the subject of history. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duke NSLF

[edit]

PARAKANYAA, in regard to your recent removal...

According to this, DUKE joined the National Socialist Liberation Front around 1970...

  • Kaplan, Jeffrey, ed. (2000). Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. ISBN 978-0-7425-0340-3. (p. 98-99)

I realize its not exactly the same, so I am not suggesting a revert, but would a correction using this source be acceptable? DN (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NSLF was a different group. It is also kind of confusing because we do not actually have an article on the NSLF that Duke joined. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm asking. DN (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not be appropriate to cite that he was a member of one group to a source that says he was a member of a different group. The NSLF was also not a "political party" so it would not go in that parameter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand what I'm suggesting. Jeffrey Kaplan (academic) is a reliable source for stating Duke joined the NSLF. DN (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said we would "correct" it. If you are proposing an addition in the body to say he joined the NSLF in about 1970, sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


early life

[edit]

BlacKkKlansman (movie) asserts that Duke had a black maid/nanny growing up, and google AI claims that "seems" to be truthful.

if so, it should definitely in any bio of the man! ~2025-38061-76 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are reliable sources. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, google AI is non-RS -- and oft wrong -- but is synthesized from other sources. which could be RS themselves. needs some digging.
here's the blurb as i get it:
Yes, it has been reported by several sources, including the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), that former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was nurtured by a Black woman who served as a nanny and domestic worker during his childhood. ~2025-38061-76 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's without value in the absence of actual cites of WP:RS. AI makes stuff up frequently enough that you can't assume the cites provided are legitimate. Go ahead and dig if you're motivated. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 07:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is from the AI confusing him with his campaign manager, Michael Lawrence, who was in fact raised by black maids [1], which since the article is about Duke, I suppose confused the AI (and all the details these AIs give is about Lawrence).
There is one book about him that mentions in passing his family had one, though it's not dwelled upon:
"While Duke was glad to be back in New Orleans, relations with his mother, which had been tense, worsened with his father thou-sands of miles away. He hated his mother's drinking and yelled at her that she was a drunk and had to stop. Once he threatened to set her on fire if she did not quit drinking, according to the family's black maid, Florence Parker. David Duke's mother was so afraid of her son that she often accompanied Parker for the weekend to her home in a New Orleans housing project. "She couldn't stand David," Parker said. "She once said she must have gotten ahold of the wrong child."" PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]