Talk:David Duke

Source
According to no less a source than Wikipedia, the university that granted his degree is in fact accredited. As such, it's probably not fair to refer to the place as a "diploma mill". Instead, why don't we highlight the allegations of persistent antisemitism in its publications and teaching? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interregional_Academy_of_Personnel_Management#Controversies &mdash; Unsigned, by: Rob / talk / contribs15:35, 15 August 2011‎
 * Fixed? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

He's a beautiful man
He's the saving grace of the white race and only a bitter leftist would hate on him.
 * Seriously dude, you need to find a better person to idolize. And sorry for being shallow, but that guy beautiful? Bwahahaha. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that sarcasm or sincere? If the latter, please substantiate. 03:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly call him ugly, but beautiful? Lol, nope. Especially not in a way that might elicit "racial pride". Tastes may differ though, obviously. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As a bisexual man, I do not find him attractive. Personality in my opinion makes up a major part of being attractive. That being said, he is a douche.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of convicted felon category
I'm a little puzzled by IKanRead's removal of this category. He says that there is no text calling Duke a convicted felon and hence no citation backing it up, therefore defamation is a possibility.

I thought that, so long as the statement (here, that Duke is a convicted felon) isn't libel (in the U.S.) if it is true. The lack of a citation on this page is irrelevant if Duke has in fact been convicted of a felony, which (I think) he has. If I'm right, there's no reason to remove the category.

Mind, I don't really care about the category one way or the other. I just think that the reason behind its removal isn't compelling. Phiwum (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem not being the truth, itself, but the fact that Rationalwiki can't point to a source as honest intent of telling the truth, should the point be legally contested. We're going through a BLP phase, and I was going through the convicted felon category, looking for uncited claims of criminal activity. Ikanreed (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There are sources though that are easily found...
 * USA Today:David Duke pleads to mail fraud, tax charges


 * wp:Tax Fraud Conviction


 * David Duke Pleads Guilty To Tax Charge And Fraud -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could've gone further in investigating, but I honestly didn't know what he was in trouble for. Statement added, cited, and category returned.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems! Sorry for my confusion...  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Interregional Academy of Personnel Management
Maybe we could do an article on the school this douche went to.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)