The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
David Duke is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Floyd Parker was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 November 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into David Duke. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Expand : /* Public appearances */ section, with information about earlier activities in the '70s and '80s. /* Guilty plea and incarceration */ David Duke's position as Grand Wizard needs more depth.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Ku Klux Klan#Knights of the Ku Klux Klan|Knights of the Ku Klux Klan]] The anchor (#Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Nonpartisan blanket primary#Louisiana open primary|open primary]] The anchor (#Louisiana open primary) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Without the inclusion, it was not mentioned until the seventeenth sentence. Is that proportionate? Llll5032 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Llll5032: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any objection to removing that bit sourced to the smoking gun that got reverted as well? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Russ Woodroofe'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We do not link to websites that that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. A current headline on his website is The Giant Jewish Vampire Squid Criminal Bank With Its Blood Funnel Stuck Into the Face of Humanity! We should not link to a blatantly antisemitic disinformation site. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal; Category:Antisemitism in the United States[edit]
Forgive my unfamiliarity with certain process regarding Cat-Removal, I'm just curious as to why StAnselm 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Timrollpickering, as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]