This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Clarke (sheriff) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I have some concerns about using the campaign website as a source for quotations. It seems it could be a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, it is used as a source for quotations by Clarke, which may fall under the exception provided by WP:BLPSELFPUB. Any other editors care to weigh in? I intend to see if I can find alternate sources for the information. If not, I may remove it. However, I am also a bit uneasy that I would be looking for a secondary source to validate a quote that is coming straight from the source. In the case of quotations, doesn't it make more sense to use the direct, primary source? Is that why the exception on self-published sources exists? * Seen a Mike * 21:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Since this article was created about a year ago by a former editor, we've had problems with material from the subject's campaign websites, and other sites related to the subject directly or indirectly being used to "bulk up" the article. The majority of the sources currently used are routine news reports, including press releases and public announcements, which are explicity cited in Wikipedia's guidelines for notability WP:NOTE as being totally insufficient. I've tried to search for better sources, and haven't been able to find any. At this point, I seriously doubt that the article can be made to meet the guidelines of WP:NOTE. Badredpanda ( talk) 05:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Another article that yet again that is biased. This is an Encyclopedia. It must be unbiased.
Yes, this entire article seems to have been written by a leftist who aspires to label Clark a part of the Right Wing. Wikipedia seems always to be biased toward the Left, but it should not be biased at all in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 ( talk) 03:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Sites such as websites, and opinions cannot be used WP:BLPPRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:C001:8710:9CEE:CCBE:6A17:BC ( talk) 01:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The section about the Piers Morgan show is clearly biased against the Sheriff. Piers Morgan is a known anti-gunner as are most big city mayors. Also, Sheriff Clarke did not say, nor by my assessment, even imply that he wouldn't answer 911 calls. He was obviously being realistic about how long even a good response time is. I edited it out once and someone put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.166.236 ( talk) 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree and I am neutral on this. I will ask that an editor review it. Canlawtictoc ( talk) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The infobox should just say "Democratic", and his political views are better explained within the text. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 06:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There are several Reliable sources that make comments on Mr. Clarke's race. I am surprised we don't have any reference to them. It seems to be germane to this article. I don't have time to make any suggested changes right now, but I invite others to take a whack at it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous articles claiming that a newborn baby died under Clarke's supervision after the mother who was an inmate was repeatedly refused medical help. This story deserves a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.239.230 ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Created a sub-section to deal with the plagiarism controversy. I suspect it will need a new home in the near-future.
The thesis itself: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3727893/13Sep-Clarke-David.pdf
The CNN report: https://web.archive.org/web/20170521000653/http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/05/politics/sheriff-clarke-plagiarism/
PvOberstein ( talk) 00:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe it's relevant enough to mention in the present article. The section should be deleted. While Clarke's error, that he "did not properly place quotations around verbatim words of his sources," may technically be an act of plagiarism according to Naval Postgraduate School rules, people need to keep in mind the very high standards all military institutions have in the first place. This is a far cry from the far more serious act of plagiarism whereby someone lays claim to the thoughts and words of another by failing to cite the reference at all. Sheriff Clarke's error deserves a slap on the wrist, at worst, whereas a true act of plagiarism can result in degrees being revoked. Commensurate with these ubiquitous academic realities, it's mention is nothing more than a blatant smear campaign. I hereby move the section be deleted altogether. Clepsydrae ( talk) 22:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Thomas Paine1776: Re this edit (and other similar ones) that you've made:
First, please use edit summaries, especially when making an edit that might not be for an obvious reason.
Second, please don't introduced unsourced content ( WP:V) or highly slanted content ( WP:POV). Sneakily inserting "The accusation was overstated by CNN..." (as you did here) is simply not acceptable. Find a reliable source if you wish to pursue this content.
Third, also, please don't break formatting, introduce misspelled text, or randomly remove text in mid-sentence or citations. Also please don't randomly remove or rename the folders of sections: you've done this repeatedly, and in each case it's unconstructive. If you want to change a subheader, please bring it to the talk page, lay out your reasoning, and obtain consensus. Neutrality talk 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Reporting of Clark as a lieutenant for Oleg Deripaska in push back of BLM. Clark took quite aggressive role and section covering would be of note. Wikipietime ( talk) 01:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The article contained an accusation made by a mother over the treatment of her offspring by the Clarke. An exam of the source sited indicates that the accusation is likely hearsay. There is no evidence or probability in the source that this mother saw anything or witnessed anything or was on the scene when the alleged event took place. Thus an accusation probably based on hearsay is deleted. Then an investigation yielded no finding that Clarke did anything wrong. This story is defamatory. BLP Violation. Thus I deleted it. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC))
It's absurd that the lede does not cover the decrepit conditions of the jail where numerous individuals have died and where abuse of detainees is commonplace. The county settled a lawsuit $6.75 million over one inmate literally dying from thirst, which is one of the largest settlements related to the death of an inmate. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a very biased biography and an editor should examine it. Consider the parts that quote Twitter posts - in each case the subject responds to something another person stated, then the response of the first person is given, but not the subject's. This is a rhetorical tool that is commonly used to misrepresent someone. Canlawtictoc ( talk) 07:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's clear from sources that Clark never joined the Democratic Party. Apparently he ran in the Democratic primary - but is that enough to label him a "Democrat" if he never joined the party? Seems like joining the party is prerequisite for that label. JimKaatFan ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Three sources that say he's a Democrat.
Jauerback dude?/ dude. 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
No, he is not a registered Democrat. The best source you could find has a quote by Brandon Rosner, who said "He's a registered Democrat." A GOP rival of a GOP politican that had Clarke speak at a GOP fundraiser sought to slam him by saying "He's a registered Democrat." If that's the most reliable source you can find (and it appears it is), then that's just concrete proof that there's too much ambiguity around the issue to put "Democrat" under Clarke's picture. You're just straight-up misstating what the source has in it now. JimKaatFan ( talk) 00:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Wisconsin does not have registration by political party. The closest thing we have to being "a registered Democrat" would be "a paid member of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin"; which Clarke never was. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What political affiliation should be listed in David Clarke's infobox? Should it be "Democrat" or just left blank?
Jauerback
dude?/
dude.
00:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources:
Jauerback dude?/ dude. 01:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Option 1: By all accounts he is technically a Democrat, even if his beliefs align more with the Republican Party platform, so he should be listed as a Democrat. His very Republican leanings must be introduced in the lead section however. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 05:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the infobox sections of Wikipedia a little just now - specifically, the Template:Infobox officeholder that is used on this article. Clarke is not an officeholder. He hasn't been a sheriff since 2017. Therefore, it's the wrong infobox. Clarke was a law enforcement officer for 24 years, and then a sheriff, which is another law enforcement official. The infobox we should be using is Template:Infobox police officer. I plan to make this change once the article becomes unprotected again. JimKaatFan ( talk) 15:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Infobox officeholder is the proper template for anyone who has held an elected office. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
How and where should this be added? Clarke Soros allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
should be https://americassheriff.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VHSthetic ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Remarkably, this article makes no mention about Clarke's ethnicity. In order to be categorized, per WP:CATV and WP:EGRS, we need mentions in the article that Clark is Black, and they need to be cited to a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Jesus. Have you people even heard of an association fallacy? "He talked to a guy, who talked to a guy, therefore, he's a Russian agent." You know how many Democrats have talked DIRECTLY to Putin, but I don't see it under their Wikis. No wonder people laugh when someone quotes Wikipedia. 2603:9001:5016:7F64:97A7:D586:3CAE:85A6 ( talk) 15:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:David Clarke (Australian footballer, born 1980) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Another bleeding liberal hit piece 97.82.40.201 ( talk) 23:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Clarke (sheriff) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I have some concerns about using the campaign website as a source for quotations. It seems it could be a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, it is used as a source for quotations by Clarke, which may fall under the exception provided by WP:BLPSELFPUB. Any other editors care to weigh in? I intend to see if I can find alternate sources for the information. If not, I may remove it. However, I am also a bit uneasy that I would be looking for a secondary source to validate a quote that is coming straight from the source. In the case of quotations, doesn't it make more sense to use the direct, primary source? Is that why the exception on self-published sources exists? * Seen a Mike * 21:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Since this article was created about a year ago by a former editor, we've had problems with material from the subject's campaign websites, and other sites related to the subject directly or indirectly being used to "bulk up" the article. The majority of the sources currently used are routine news reports, including press releases and public announcements, which are explicity cited in Wikipedia's guidelines for notability WP:NOTE as being totally insufficient. I've tried to search for better sources, and haven't been able to find any. At this point, I seriously doubt that the article can be made to meet the guidelines of WP:NOTE. Badredpanda ( talk) 05:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Another article that yet again that is biased. This is an Encyclopedia. It must be unbiased.
Yes, this entire article seems to have been written by a leftist who aspires to label Clark a part of the Right Wing. Wikipedia seems always to be biased toward the Left, but it should not be biased at all in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 ( talk) 03:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Sites such as websites, and opinions cannot be used WP:BLPPRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:C001:8710:9CEE:CCBE:6A17:BC ( talk) 01:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The section about the Piers Morgan show is clearly biased against the Sheriff. Piers Morgan is a known anti-gunner as are most big city mayors. Also, Sheriff Clarke did not say, nor by my assessment, even imply that he wouldn't answer 911 calls. He was obviously being realistic about how long even a good response time is. I edited it out once and someone put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.166.236 ( talk) 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree and I am neutral on this. I will ask that an editor review it. Canlawtictoc ( talk) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The infobox should just say "Democratic", and his political views are better explained within the text. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 06:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There are several Reliable sources that make comments on Mr. Clarke's race. I am surprised we don't have any reference to them. It seems to be germane to this article. I don't have time to make any suggested changes right now, but I invite others to take a whack at it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous articles claiming that a newborn baby died under Clarke's supervision after the mother who was an inmate was repeatedly refused medical help. This story deserves a mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.239.230 ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Created a sub-section to deal with the plagiarism controversy. I suspect it will need a new home in the near-future.
The thesis itself: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3727893/13Sep-Clarke-David.pdf
The CNN report: https://web.archive.org/web/20170521000653/http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/05/politics/sheriff-clarke-plagiarism/
PvOberstein ( talk) 00:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe it's relevant enough to mention in the present article. The section should be deleted. While Clarke's error, that he "did not properly place quotations around verbatim words of his sources," may technically be an act of plagiarism according to Naval Postgraduate School rules, people need to keep in mind the very high standards all military institutions have in the first place. This is a far cry from the far more serious act of plagiarism whereby someone lays claim to the thoughts and words of another by failing to cite the reference at all. Sheriff Clarke's error deserves a slap on the wrist, at worst, whereas a true act of plagiarism can result in degrees being revoked. Commensurate with these ubiquitous academic realities, it's mention is nothing more than a blatant smear campaign. I hereby move the section be deleted altogether. Clepsydrae ( talk) 22:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Thomas Paine1776: Re this edit (and other similar ones) that you've made:
First, please use edit summaries, especially when making an edit that might not be for an obvious reason.
Second, please don't introduced unsourced content ( WP:V) or highly slanted content ( WP:POV). Sneakily inserting "The accusation was overstated by CNN..." (as you did here) is simply not acceptable. Find a reliable source if you wish to pursue this content.
Third, also, please don't break formatting, introduce misspelled text, or randomly remove text in mid-sentence or citations. Also please don't randomly remove or rename the folders of sections: you've done this repeatedly, and in each case it's unconstructive. If you want to change a subheader, please bring it to the talk page, lay out your reasoning, and obtain consensus. Neutrality talk 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Reporting of Clark as a lieutenant for Oleg Deripaska in push back of BLM. Clark took quite aggressive role and section covering would be of note. Wikipietime ( talk) 01:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The article contained an accusation made by a mother over the treatment of her offspring by the Clarke. An exam of the source sited indicates that the accusation is likely hearsay. There is no evidence or probability in the source that this mother saw anything or witnessed anything or was on the scene when the alleged event took place. Thus an accusation probably based on hearsay is deleted. Then an investigation yielded no finding that Clarke did anything wrong. This story is defamatory. BLP Violation. Thus I deleted it. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC))
It's absurd that the lede does not cover the decrepit conditions of the jail where numerous individuals have died and where abuse of detainees is commonplace. The county settled a lawsuit $6.75 million over one inmate literally dying from thirst, which is one of the largest settlements related to the death of an inmate. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a very biased biography and an editor should examine it. Consider the parts that quote Twitter posts - in each case the subject responds to something another person stated, then the response of the first person is given, but not the subject's. This is a rhetorical tool that is commonly used to misrepresent someone. Canlawtictoc ( talk) 07:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's clear from sources that Clark never joined the Democratic Party. Apparently he ran in the Democratic primary - but is that enough to label him a "Democrat" if he never joined the party? Seems like joining the party is prerequisite for that label. JimKaatFan ( talk) 21:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Three sources that say he's a Democrat.
Jauerback dude?/ dude. 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
No, he is not a registered Democrat. The best source you could find has a quote by Brandon Rosner, who said "He's a registered Democrat." A GOP rival of a GOP politican that had Clarke speak at a GOP fundraiser sought to slam him by saying "He's a registered Democrat." If that's the most reliable source you can find (and it appears it is), then that's just concrete proof that there's too much ambiguity around the issue to put "Democrat" under Clarke's picture. You're just straight-up misstating what the source has in it now. JimKaatFan ( talk) 00:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Wisconsin does not have registration by political party. The closest thing we have to being "a registered Democrat" would be "a paid member of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin"; which Clarke never was. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What political affiliation should be listed in David Clarke's infobox? Should it be "Democrat" or just left blank?
Jauerback
dude?/
dude.
00:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources:
Jauerback dude?/ dude. 01:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Option 1: By all accounts he is technically a Democrat, even if his beliefs align more with the Republican Party platform, so he should be listed as a Democrat. His very Republican leanings must be introduced in the lead section however. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 05:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the infobox sections of Wikipedia a little just now - specifically, the Template:Infobox officeholder that is used on this article. Clarke is not an officeholder. He hasn't been a sheriff since 2017. Therefore, it's the wrong infobox. Clarke was a law enforcement officer for 24 years, and then a sheriff, which is another law enforcement official. The infobox we should be using is Template:Infobox police officer. I plan to make this change once the article becomes unprotected again. JimKaatFan ( talk) 15:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Infobox officeholder is the proper template for anyone who has held an elected office. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
How and where should this be added? Clarke Soros allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
should be https://americassheriff.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VHSthetic ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Remarkably, this article makes no mention about Clarke's ethnicity. In order to be categorized, per WP:CATV and WP:EGRS, we need mentions in the article that Clark is Black, and they need to be cited to a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Jesus. Have you people even heard of an association fallacy? "He talked to a guy, who talked to a guy, therefore, he's a Russian agent." You know how many Democrats have talked DIRECTLY to Putin, but I don't see it under their Wikis. No wonder people laugh when someone quotes Wikipedia. 2603:9001:5016:7F64:97A7:D586:3CAE:85A6 ( talk) 15:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:David Clarke (Australian footballer, born 1980) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Another bleeding liberal hit piece 97.82.40.201 ( talk) 23:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)