Talk:David Duke

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

	This Nazism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

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 ^{— Unsigned, by: Rob / talk / contribs 15:35, 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. ^{— Unsigned, by: AlanA / talk / contribs}

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. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 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)