Talk:David Duke/Archive 10

Placement of Convicted Felon in the Lead
Now that the opening sentence question is settled, there was some discussion about mentioning the arrest/conviction/jail sentence in the first paragraph. Currently this information is contained in the last paragraph of the lead.

I'm fine with the status quo. Most of the lead is dedicated to discussing why Duke is notable. Most of the article also dedicated to that as well. The conviction and jail time receive due mention in the lead. Obviously people are free to disagree and we can discuss here. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the discussion, Nemov. I WP:BOLDly added a fourth sentence to the first paragraph, and perhaps a consensus can be worked out through editing and discussion. I think inclusion there is justified by WP:PRESERVE because the conviction has been mentioned in an early sentence of the article for most of the last 10 years; by MOS:BLPLEAD to reflect the balance of reliable sources since the conviction; and by MOS:LEADREL because the conviction and imprisonment are described with more than a dozen sentences in the substantial "Tax fraud conviction and defrauding followers" section. Llll5032 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think BLPLEAD and LEADREL were already met by the entire paragraph with context included in the lead. It seems odd to mention it twice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Without the inclusion, it was not mentioned until the seventeenth sentence. Is that proportionate? Llll5032 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's 350 words of a 7000 word article and it already has an entire paragraph of a four paragraph lead. Seems like plenty of weight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * please remove the edit since I've already stated my opposition. You'll need to find consensus to justify mentioning the conviction multiple times in the lead. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply since the RfC settled the question about it being mentioned in the first sentence. The status quo lead after the RfC was an adequate reflection of the article. Nemov (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You or any other editor is free to change or revert the edit in the article. In the talk discussion above, a number of editors supported some inclusion in the first paragraph, so it may be better to see if a natural consensus develops through WP:BRB editing. Llll5032 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored the the status quo. While some in the RfC argued for inclusion in the first paragraph it was far from a consensus. One would be necessary to justify the change. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any objection to removing that bit sourced to the smoking gun that got reverted as well? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, about that. I was rolling back to the status quo and missed your edit. I restored it and removed the additions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for the fix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I reviewed the RFC as an uninvolved editor who saw the close request at WP:ANRFC; I was actually planning to close the discussion on around 26 January, but got stuck on wordsmithing. I agree with 's closing statement, but I would have added that because the discussion about mentioning the conviction in the first paragraph was rather thorough and did not result in consensus, the disputed material should stay out unless there is an explicit consensus to add it (see WP:NOCONSENSUS and material about living persons).Additionally, there was another side discussion started by ScottishFinnishRadish on 23 December about streamlining the opening sentence. That discussion did not result in specific consensus, but I see no reason why this minor dispute could not be resolved relatively easily, i.e. through talk page discussion and/or bold editing.Hope this helps, Politrukki (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

WKKK
In the section "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" the text reads: "Duke also reformed the organization, promoting nonviolence and legality, and, for the first time in the Klan's history, women were accepted as equal members..." This, in spite of the WKKK (Women's Ku Klux Klan) having been formally established in 1923, 27 years before Duke was born. 192.34.130.215 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have listened to David Duke
 * The guy talks about peace
 * He rejects any kind of supremacy
 * I think he is getting a bad rap
 * Because he has never advocated violence toward anyone; in fact just the opposite.
 * He is obnoxious, his ego is way out of control and he tends to exaggerate. 216.49.41.56 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

His website should be posted in the Introduction Box.
https://davidduke.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the External links section, even though it violates WP:ELNO. It should be removed entirely, as we do on other articles of this type. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, David Duke's website belongs in the box at the top. Look at Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, that's where Trump's Website is, right in the box at the top. Please do the same with David Duke, here it is:  https://davidduke.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Duke's website needs be added
Duke's website  needs be added in  the  box  at  the  top. Here it  is: https://davidduke.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not link to websites that . A current headline on his website is We should not link to a blatantly antisemitic disinformation site. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal; Category:Antisemitism in the United States
Forgive my unfamiliarity with certain process regarding Cat-Removal, I'm just curious as to why made this change. Edit summary says "per category description and long-standing consensus", but I'm not sure which consensus they are referring to, or how the category description would be construed as inaccurate. Duke is notable, at the very least in part, due to his advocacy and ties to antisemitism in the US. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The "category description" means the words on the Category:Antisemitism in the United States page. It says, "This category is for issues relating to Antisemitism in the United States. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Semitic." It links to this discussion from 2011 - that is the consensus I was referring to. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see quite a few groups and individual names in this category, so I'm not sure why Duke is somehow an exception while the others aren't. The discussion you linked is from 2011, and does not seem to specifically mention Duke, a character that seems to represent a "clear-cut case" for this type of categorization. This is not a recently added category, but one that I believe has been in place for quite some time, correct me if I'm wrong. It would make more sense if we were removing some sort of redundancy, but I'm afraid I'm still having trouble understanding the rationale. Would you mind clarifying a bit further? I'll go ahead ping the original closer of that discussion,, as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The other groups and individuals should be removed from the category as well. The discussion close was actually worded more strongly than the description on the category page - it doesn't seem to allow for any individuals or groups being in the category, even if their presence there is established by reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, what is the point of the category? That seems to make it redundant. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)