Talk:David Duke/Archive 11
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Slatersteven in topic There are Three Issues Here
 | This is an archive of past discussions about David Duke. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
There are Three Issues Here
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There is obviously no consensus for inclusion of Omar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- This is just your opinion of those against consensus. I see no consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not how you worded it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)