Talk:David Duke/Archive 9

RFC for "convicted felon" phrase in opening sentence
There has lately been a lively discussion of the appropriateness of including the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence of a biography. A consensus-building discussion has taken place at Here and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. There are also various arguments presented in favor of removing the phrase here on the talk page, but no arguments presented against it so far.

Therefore, my question is this: should the phrase "convicted felon" be excluded from the opening sentence of David Duke's page? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course. He is not Bernie Madoff, so his felony (for a non-violent crime, scarcely a year served) has little to do with why he is notable or what his main influence on the world was. And if we were going to put his transgression right top, "felon" is too vague. Say what he did: "fraudster" or whatever word is used for that. It's better to bring it up later where you can give more detail. (The permalink for the BLP Noticeboard discussion is here.) Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I agree with what you say, and I think you say it well. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes - Exclude - The opening sentence should be reserved for why the person is notable. The lead should follow the body of the article so it can appear in the lead, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence. Duke's conviction and jail time are mentioned in the final paragraph of the lead. That is sufficient. Duke isn't notable for being a tax evader. A more significant mention in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. Nemov (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is, in my view, self-evidently true and shouldn't even require a debate. Thank you for chiming in. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357 You should NOT be removing convicted felon while this RfC is continuing. You've been reverted by 3 editors. A discussion on a policy talk page is not a change of policy although you appear to be treating it as one.   Doug Weller  talk 08:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357 I agree with Doug. Since you brought this RfC up you can't close it and it should run its course. Let the closer make the final edit. Nemov (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357, I agree with the others. The longstanding status quo version should remain until the matter is settled here. Edit warring is not the way forward and your refusal to self-revert is a blotch on your reputation here. (Now that it has been fixed by another editor, you have lost your chance to remove that blotch.) That refusal establishes that you do not respect the civil and proper way to deal with these issues. Edit warring is never right, even when you may be right about every single issue involved. You have chosen the low road by refusing to self-revert and by attacking other editors. That's sad. You should have been blocked for edit warring and making personal attacks, casting aspersions, and assuming bad faith. In fact, you should still be blocked to prevent your disruption and super long comments. We know what you believe, so please stop posting walls of text. There are articles with fewer words than many of your comments. Just let process and other editors make the final decisions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * May I point out that according to the core policy WP:BLP we can not publish that kind of statement without an immediately proximate ref. "Oh, the ref is kicking around somewhere down there" doesn't cut it. It is a requirement -- as in, if you don't do it you are subject to getting in trouble -- to remove a statement like "convicted felon", unreffed, immediately and without discussion. And this action is not constrained by edit warring rules, WP:BRD, consensus, or anything else. BLP trumps all that. Advocating, insisting, and attacking in order to force the Wikipedia to publish unreff'd defamation is not a good look, at all, so please don't. I don't like the man either but let's not let that cloud our judgement. The relevant BLP passage is "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."  And if not it "must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Yes you could have put in the ref. But you didn't. I'm required to remove it again, but I'm not going to, not because I shouldn't, but because I'm not up for a pissing match. Just pointing out that you might want to back off on browbeating editors when they're right and you're wrong. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only seeing this now, interesting. A close request has been open for over a week, I hope this is handled soon. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion I added a ref to the first sentence, from the section about the fraud and imprisonment. Llll5032 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should leave things alone until the RFC is officially closed. Your edit is probably for nothing, since the overwhelming consensus here appears to be that the descriptor should be removed altogether from the first sentence. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The fraud conviction has nothing to do with why he is notable, and it sits awkwardly in the first sentence. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep some description of the conviction in the first paragraph, if it isn't the first sentence. Defrauding supporters and serving prison time for it is significant and related to the rest of his notability. Llll5032 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: In recent descriptions of Duke's activities, a number of RS including NOLA.com,Reuters,CNN, and the SPLC have noted the fraud conviction in headlines or first few sentences, or in a list of five things you should know (ADL). Llll5032 (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that is relevant here since this is a discussion about the guidelines for WP:BLP. For example, OJ Simpson is notable for being a football player,actor, and the murder trial. His later arrest and jail time is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. Attempts to add "convicted felon" to that article in a similar way have failed repeatedly on the same grounds. That article receives about 4-5 more pageviews than Duke. Nemov (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The O.J. Simpson article is a good comparison; it describes two other trials in its first paragraph (the murder trial acquittal, and the civil trial where he was found responsible for the deaths). Keeping a short description of Duke's imprisonment for defrauding supporters would also be due for the first paragraph, although it need not be phrased as "convicted felon". Llll5032 (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OJ is notable for one of the biggest trials in US history. Duke is not notable for being a tax evader. I guess we're at an impasse. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added links to RS above that made the description prominent to show MOS:LEADREL. In the most prominent example, the New Orleans newspaper described the felony conviction in a 2016 headline about Duke entering another political contest and made it the first item in a summation of the subject's life in its second paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep some description of the conviction in the first paragraph, if it isn't the first sentence. I really like this suggestion. It's clearly significant and related to his nobility. It isn't a minor thing. Doug Weller  talk 16:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep some description of the conviction in the first paragraph, I do think it should be in the lead and have no firm opinion on the exact location. I will follow consensus when it is established for this article. I know we treat people differently, and in some cases it is proper to mention "convicted felon" in the first sentence. That's why one editor doesn't get to decide the issue, especially by edit warring, abuse of other editors, and battlefield behavior. I made ONE revert and was promptly and vilely attacked on my talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Valjean, I felt that every time we have interacted on Wikipedia in the past, you have immediately assumed bad faith on my part. When I'm acting in good faith, and someone immediately accuses me of acting in bad faith, it causes me to question the good faith of the other individual. So when I saw your reverting my edit, even though it felt like my edit was reflecting a strong consensus, I thought "oh boy, this guy again?" - and I overreacted. My bad. I needed to get a good night's sleep and chill out a bit. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep some description of the conviction in the first paragraph, preferably close to the beginning - it lets the reader know he didn't just say something mean or hurt somebody's feelings - he committed multiple crimes. That should not be hidden somewhere in the depths of the text.Jacona (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you say that's a reasonable position to take on the page of *any* convicted felon, or should your comment be interpreted as narrowly focusing on David Duke's crimes exclusively? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an appropriate question as the RFC is only about this article. Doug Weller  talk 21:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Valjean and Doug Weller. Wikipedia does not and has never mandated consistency across different articles and different subjects. David Duke is uniquely known for David Dukey things. Andre🚐 18:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are "David Dukey" things? That doesn't really make sense, it just sounds like you personally don't like David Duke, which should have no bearing whatsoever on editing decisions. The fact that consistency is not "mandated" doesn't mean that it isn't a worthwhile goal, or that cleaning up blatant, in-your-face inconsistencies isn't a reasonable thing to do. Can you expand upon your point? Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we all know the things that David Duke is known for, which are covered well in the article. My opinion on him is irrelevant. What matters is how reliable sources describe him. Andre🚐 01:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in the first sentence and probably not in the opening paragraph but definitely in the lead. Also it should not be presented as "convicted felon".  Rather it should say something like, "He was convicted of felony fraud for..."  I don't think that needs to be in the first paragraph as I think the first paragraph is typically more boiler plate content.  It also isn't why he is notable.  It may add to his infamy but it isn't what makes him notable thus probably shouldn't be in the opening paragraph.  It absolutely shouldn't be in the first sentence.  Disclaimer: I came to this topic from the BLP talk page discussion.  Springee (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the lead "includes mention of significant criticism or controversies," I wouldn't consider the felony "significant" when compared to everything else he is known for. So definitely not first sentence, and probably unnecessary but not wrong later in the lead. The lead is a summary, so not every good or bad thing someone does needs to be mentioned; that's what the article is for. As an example, Tim Allen is a felon, but his lead doesn't mention that because it's not significant in his overall history. However, his felony is mentioned down in the article, along with a mug shot. It's not a deception when the reader is fully capable of scrolling down to read more. Scapulus (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. At best it should say "convicted tax evader". "Felon" is too vague, and creates the false impression that the felony in question is somehow related to his racism. But does "convicted tax evader" rise to the same level of what he is famous for as the other things in the first sentence? I don't think so. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong yes. "Convicted felon" is a sensationalist term, with a pejorative and essentializing tone, which makes it belong to the realm of persuasive writing, not encyclopaedic writing. See how this Reuters article does it (ignore the headline): substantially similar to the last sentence of our lead, which is well-written. DFlhb (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC) ; partly copied from my comment on WT:BLP
 * In my opinion, specific language like the Reuters article you cited would make for an improved few words or short sentence within the first paragraph of this article, as a substitute for the current first-sentence wording. Llll5032 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just think it would almost be whitewashing to highlight his tax stuff as prominently as the far more heinous things he did. It's not like the rest of the lead is glowing praise. It would also look poorly-written, and break the chronology, if we put that longer sentence in the first paragraph; I think it's fine where it is. DFlhb (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it could be summarized without poor writing or whitewashing. Perhaps a WP:BOLD edit could help in a decision. Llll5032 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, exclude. There are very few BLPs where "convicted felon" is appropriate in the opening sentence. Especially in the case of David Duke, where his fraud conviction is a very minor part of what this horrid person is known for. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, exclude as it's not primary reason for his notability, and probably leave from intro altogether. Ortizesp (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, as the first sentence already does enough to make it clear he's a pretty bad person, and there is a full paragraph already in the lead covering the fraud conviction. an American white supremacist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, far-right politician, and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is already overboard without having another descriptor. Something like an American white supremacist and antisemetic conspiracy theorist, and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan covers what makes him notable without going onto things that are already discussed at length in the lead. He's not a politician now, and the felon thing is small potatoes compared to the main points. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the sentence is over-encumbered and support that change. DFlhb (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree this change reads better. Nemov (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I like that. An alternative: "David Duke is an American white supremacist, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan." Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * White supremacist in any case immplies far-right, so we don't need far-right. I still think the felony conviction can be in the first paragraph. Doug Weller  talk 10:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I agree, and subjective, politically charged phrases like "far-right" needn't be in an encyclopedia at all, if you ask me. Who decides what is "far-right"? What is it about a person's "rightness" that makes it "far"? Is there any such thing as "far-left"? I've never seen the phrase "far-left" on Wikipedia to describe a person, but "far-right" is all over the place. Why? Because some RS used the same poor choice of words? Do we have an absolute commitment to regurgitate every bit of drivel and stupidity hat happens to get published in an RS?
 * I think the phrase "far-right" should be banished as a biographical descriptor on Wikipedia, too. As should "far-left", if it exists. But I have a bad feeling that removing "far-right" will cause an even bigger ruckus than the current topic, because the temptation to use this influential platform to smear people we don't like is so strong. One step at a time. :) Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The answers to your questions are trivial and academic. The reliable sources decide it. If reliable sources say far-left, we can use far-left. That is all that matters. Do we have an absolute commitment to regurgitate every bit ... that happens to get published in an RS? No. We have a commitment to regurgitate the majority in proportion to what gets published. use this influential platform to smear people sorry, no. This tendentious interpretation flies in the face of established community consensus and policy. If you pursue that line you will encounter resistance. Andre🚐 22:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're trivial questions. At all. They're some of the questions that will define American political life in the next 5 years. One thing I'd point out: because we "can" use a certain bit of language that an RS uses, doesn't mean that we should. In some cases, the way an RS describes a person or event might pass muster in the newsroom and meet the standards of the paper's editor, but would be wildly inappropriate in an encyclopedic context. I look forward to having that conversation/debate with you when I decide to dedicate more energy to the issue of unencyclopedic biographical descriptors. I intend to make a lot of RFCs on controversial language in the future and carefully scrutinize of Wikipedia's policy regarding how to choose information from RS. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia and a major stain on its credibility and reliability, so much so that I deem it worth my time to work against it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree Remove it but keep it close to the intro paragraph because, although his conviction wasn't for some violent crimes, and it certainly wasn't so notable part of his life, his worldviews were still too problematic to try to paint this man in a better light. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not in the first sentence and not in the opening paragraph but definitely in the lead. Also it should not be presented as "convicted felon". Rather it should say something like, "He was convicted of felony fraud for..." per Springee. Crime - of this kind - is obviously not why he is notable and the description "convicted felon" would be inapt IMO for almost anyone, except those primarily famous for breaking multiple laws, or laws for which there is not a more specific term (murder, terrorism, rape, fraud, smuggling etc). "Convicted felon" provides little specific information. While the conviction is worthy of note in the lead, it isn't a major part of Duke's notability/notoriety. Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep some mention of the conviction in the first paragraph - "Convicted felon" isn't the best way to describe it, but the fraud conviction is too signifcant to exclude. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone thinks it should be removed from the first paragraph entirely, the real debate here is whether or not it's appropriate to include in the very first sentence. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357 Plenty of editors have expressed that it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Nemov (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, I misspoke, I conflated "first paragraph" and "lead". I'm neutral on the question of whether to mention the felony conviction in the first paragraph (although it definitely belongs in the lead, and "convicted felon" is almost definitely not the ideal presentation). Thanks for the correction. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we try different short wording to that effect, in the first paragraph but outside the first sentence? Llll5032 (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Llll5032 No, that should be a separate question because it violates WP:BLP guidelines as pointed out by several comments here. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which guideline? Llll5032 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Llll5032 it's UNDUE to mention his jail time again outside the last paragraph. Several editors have pointed this out. Nemov (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any other guidelines you are referring to, or just WP:DUE/MOS:FIRSTBIO? Because I don't see where those guidelines say that. A quote from a guideline could help. Llll5032 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes – Do not include the descriptor "convicted felon" in the lead sentence. David Duke is not notable for this fact. He is notable for being a white supremacist, anti-semite, and former grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. This reasoning for exclusion of the descriptor follows the guideline MOS:FIRSTBIO which states:
 * "The first sentence should usually state: ... [4.] One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. [5.] The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)"
 * The discussion of his fraud conviction in the last lead paragraph is fine and of proper proportion (WP:PROPORTION). --Guest2625 (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, exclude. As I've argued elsewhere, it's poor writing to tack "convicted felon" onto lead sentences. The phrase reads like a little tag to add some extra negativity to articles about people who many Wikipedia editors dislike. If the subject is mainly notable for criminal activity, describe that criminal activity more specifically. If not, then the criminal activity doesn't belong in the lead sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "a little tag to add some extra negativity to articles about people who many Wikipedia editors dislike"...couldn't have said it better myself! Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude - He’s not really notable for his felony conviction, and it’s not a big part of his story. No need for it to be crammed in the first sentence with the 5 other descriptors.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No We don't need to try to whitewash a convicted felon and hate monger here. His felony was major news. 166.205.97.61 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes: Exclude from the first sentence, not from the lead entirely. Moving something out of the first sentence, or even to a subsequent paragraph in the lead, is not whitewashing. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO The first sentence should usually state... One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for... try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph. Duke has done many things, but a fraud conviction is far from among the most notorious. Felon is not an occupation, and his felony prison sentence ended in 2004. The felony was incidental to his already well-established notability, not a primary factor in it. As a comparison, Martha Stewart is also a convicted felon, and her conviction and imprisonment is rightfully mentioned in her article and its lead, but she is rightfully not introduced as "an American businesswoman and convicted felon", and Lance Armstrong is rightfully not introduced in his first sentence as "is an American former professional road racing cyclist, cancer survivor, and performance-enhancing drug user." --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Remark. While Rfcs per WP:RFCCLOSE do not necessarily need formal closure, I think that consensus is now clear here, and have removed "convicted felon" from the 1st sentence (as an uninvolved editor, brought in appropriately from the cross posting to the wikiproject).  There is a typo in my edit summary: there is a clear consensus that his conviction does not belong in the first _sentence_.  I don't see a clear consensus on the 1st paragraph.  Remark that it looks to me like including it in the first paragraph in an appropriate manner would require some substantial reworking of that paragraph. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is currently listed at WP:RFCL. I agree the consensus on the question is clear, but given the opposition it would probably be better to have a formal close. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I won't edit war if anyone wants to revert me. Alternatively, I could make a formal close.  It looked like to me like WP:SNOWBALL that it should not be in the first sentence but should be somewhere in the lede; for the 1st paragraph I saw reasonable policy-based arguments on both side. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RfC was specifically about the first sentence. I would prefer a formal close. If someone wants to discuss the first paragraph separately that's fine, but as you pointed out it would involve changing the entire lead since it's mentioned in the last paragraph. Nemov (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Reviewing this article, the conviction is covered by the final full paragraph in the lead. It's not hidden. The first few sentences should explain why he's notable. He's notable for his racist opinions and connections. Why would his conviction to be mentioned again in the first paragraph? This lead should follow the body of the article. Keep in mind MOS:LEADBIO.
 * Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.

The first sentence should feature main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.). The conviction is already covered in the lead. Nemov (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The fraud conviction and prison sentence are too significant to be described first in the seventeenth sentence. First sentence or not, this fact should be mentioned in the summary paragraph before the chronology starts, which is consistent with WP:LEADBIO and MOS:FIRSTBIO guidelines. Llll5032 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then remove the redundant final paragraph and rework the lead. From a WP:BLP perspective I'm perplexed at some of these arguments. The lead should reflect the article as it's written. The person isn't notable for being a felon. He was notable long before his conviction. The felony conviction is a WP:RP part of Duke's biography and should included in the lead. This RfC should focus on the question. Should it be in the first sentence? If editors want to rework the rest of the lead that's fine, but it's muddying the waters. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is good writing to summarize key facts in the first paragraph and then expand further in a chronology within later paragraphs in the top section. The top of this article takes that approach in other aspects of the subject's biography including his political career, and should do the same with the fraud conviction. The last paragraph need not be removed. Llll5032 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree that the conviction is a key fact/part of Duke's notability. It's certainly part of his biography, but he's notable for being a high profile racist politician. Nemov (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Nemov. His felony conviction is tangential to his relevance as a public figure. An example of someone whose criminal status is key to their notability would be Jeffrey Epstein, who wouldn't be a household name if he wasn't a sex trafficker. Ask 100 random people on the street why Jeffrey Epstein is famous, and most will mention his felonious activity. Ask 100 people on the street with David Duke is famous, and if they even know who he is, they'd mention white supremacy - I guarantee zero people would say "oh yeah, he's the guy who got convicted of felony tax crimes!" Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that his imprisonment for defrauding his political supporters should be the first or main part of the top paragraph, but rather listed as one of a number of facts in the top paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The conviction would not be covered by the criteria of either WP:LEADBIO or MOS:FIRSTBIO, since it's not the cause of his notability. You can't just name-drop guidelines without explaining how they back up your position. DFlhb (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors who want to keep or remove have both cited WP:LEADBIO and WP:FIRSTBIO. The MOS:FIRSTBIO guideline says the first paragraph should "reflect the balance of reliable sources" and suggests including "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for" in the first sentence. That's relevant because some RS have made the fraud conviction prominent in their own descriptions of Duke since his prison time, notably his hometown newspaper. Llll5032 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the article. The conviction and jail time are a small part of this biography so it would be WP:UNDUE to make it more prominent in the lead. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statement. That's the guideline argument. What I fail to see so far is how those guidelines support a more prominent placement in the lead when it's not a major part of this biography. It seems as though you're making the argument that if NOLA mentions the felony in the lead of a newspaper article then so should Wikipedia. That point of view is not represented in the Wikipedia guidelines. If I'm wrong please enlighten me. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE says we describe viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". So to measure what is DUE or UNDUE, we look at how it is used in the published reliable sources. WP:PROPORTION says we should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject", and MOS:LEADREL and MOS:FIRSTBIO say similar things. Llll5032 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Llll5032 Do you really think that the current lead summarizes the body of this article? Do you really think the jail time isn't featured more prominently in the lead than it is in the body? Nemov (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The description of the fraud conviction and jail time within the article is four paragraphs long, which is not short. Llll5032 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if "reliable sources" place a lot of weight on the felony conviction, doesn't *necessarily* mean we should do so in an encyclopedic context. For example, I can find lots of articles that talk about Lindsay Lohan's felony charges for grand theft, and her multiple convictions for DUIs and a variety of other crimes. These events have received much more media attention than Duke's criminal conviction, and a fairly high percentage of articles about Lohan mention her criminal activity prominently. In fact, most people who haven't watched her movies know about her primarily because of her struggles with drugs, alcohol, and the law. That does not mean that we should write "Lindsay Lohan is an American actress, singer, and convicted criminal". If someone were to change her article thusly, even if they could support this wording by citing RS, it would be pretty obvious that the editor has some sort of personal bias against Lohan - and likewise here with Duke. What passes muster in the newsroom of an RS and gets a stamp of approval from a newspaper editor isn't necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I listed some other RS above that also describe Duke's fraud conviction prominently, which appears relatively common since the conviction, including Reuters, CNN, the SPLC and ADL. Duke's fraud conviction has notable relevance to his biography because it was about his funding from his political supporters. Llll5032 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the difference between Lohan and Duke is that the felony for Duke is related to his career whereas the Lohan thing was a separate side story that was unusual Andre🚐 20:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Llll5032 You didn't answer my question. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To your question Do you really think that the current lead summarizes the body of this article?, mostly yes. Editing the disputed phrase and relocating it to a later sentence within the first paragraph would also be all right. Llll5032 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Llll5032 Again, we're at an impasse since you're unwilling to acknowledge what should be seemingly obvious. There seems to be little use in discussing the guidelines because you cite them with a disregard for what they actually say. I'm not sure what the source of this disconnect is, but I'm not going to indulge it any further. Thanks for responding. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Llll5032... the felony conviction is not tangential but relevant Andre🚐 20:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's relevant. Is your position that the phrase "convicted felon" belongs in the first sentence, or simply that the conviction is notable and should be mentioned in the lead and discussed at length in the body? Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated I believe it belongs in the first paragraph of the lead, but I don't necessarily think it strictly must be the first sentence. Andre🚐 20:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. It seems like there's essentially unanimous agreement that either 1) it's inappropriate in the first sentence or 2) it may or may not be appropriate, but isn't necessary. There is less consensus on whether reference to the conviction belongs in the opening paragraph, or just somewhere in the lead generally. But that's a completely different issue. Do we think that at this point, it's reasonable to bring the RFC regarding the opening sentence to a close, and, if need be, open a new RFC to discuss the first paragraph/lead issue? That seems like the cleanest way to handle this, since that's the focal point of the debate now, since the question of the opening sentence is basically settled. Personally, I don't see the need for another RFC on that issue, because I think the article is decently well-written outside of the first sentence, but if other editors think the first paragraph/lead issue is worth a separate debate, let's make a separate RFC. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can request a neutral uninvolved closer to close the RFC at WP:CR Andre🚐 22:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've familiarized myself with the RFC rules, I was just curious if the people still involved in this discussion feel that we're ready to move on from the first sentence debate or not, and if it's worthwhile or not to have a separate debate about the way Duke's felony conviction is covered elsewhere in the article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just let it ride. It's a general policy to go 30 days. I can request a close once the 30 days is up. More comments could be useful to help educate some of the editors. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the phrase is longstanding content and a number of editors want to keep some description even if it is not the exact phrase, per WP:PRESERVE we may want to get some WP:CONSENSUS for what would replace it. In my opinion those edits would be easier in article space than through a RFC. Llll5032 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The outcome for this WP:BLP RfC will either be Yes or No. The move somewhere else responses should be a part of a separate discussion. As Herostratus pointed out the sentence already violates guidelines. The only reason it's still included is because there's RfC. I would have removed it without a second thought had I stumbled into this article. Nemov (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There were more nuanced views of how this relates to BLP guidelines in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Llll5032 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The feedback there is unanimous and in line with what I've discussed here. Nemov (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear: Are you asserting that the feedback from the BLP noticeboard was unanimous that the phrase violated guidelines, or something else? Llll5032 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the feedback on the BLP noticeboard is very clear and speaks for itself. I have to push back against your point, Llll5032, I don't see any reason whatsoever to consider "replacing" the phrase with anything. It doesn't belong, and I was baffled that I encountered any resistance when I removed it. In terms of WP:PRESERVE, it clearly says that content should be retained *if* it follows the three core content policies, including Neutral POV. This does not, so it should not be retained and does not need to be replaced. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors have expressed a range of views. The phrase has been in the article since 2017 (with BLP questions considered), and before that, the conviction was described in the fourth sentence. Also it was discussed before in 2017 and 2019 on this talk page. If we change the text, we should use the best solutions offered here, in the article's history, and at the BLP board discussion (which I encourage editors to read closely). Of course the wording and position must follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE, nobody would disagree with that. Llll5032 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357 Just let this play out. it's clear attempting to reason with the editors who have been blocking this change is futile. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how the comments of Aquillion, Nomoskedasticity and probably most of the other editors at the BLP noticeboard could be construed as supporting your maximalist position. Llll5032 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I'm dropping the stick. I've said more than enough on this topic. Nemov (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Message received, Nemov, I won't wind down the RfC. I think you make a good point that a continued discussion could be educational to editors. In that spirit, I will reply to the argument "the phrase has been in the article since 2017", since some editors might find that argument compelling at first glance. This is in no way a justification for its inclusion. Picture this: if someone vandalized a page, and nobody noticed or cared enough to change it for 5 years, would that justify preserving the vandalism? Of course not. Content should only be preserved if it's up to standard. The content under question here is not. The fact that the offending phrase ("convicted felon") has been in the article for the better part of a decade isn't a testament to its merit, it's an indictment of every editor who's been on this page for the last 5 years yet failed to remove it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)