Use of Primary Sources[edit]

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)[reply]

I found a secondary source for one quote (Party Affiliation section) and deleted the other (Opposition to Collection of Race Data) because the only source I could find was Clarke's blog (primary source). *Seen a Mike* 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also try to stray away from campaign websites as a source, but in some cases it can be okay , at least that's what I think, its case by case. If say you wanted to cite a campaign website for verifying an edit where you state a certain viewpoint or claim made by the person in question, and there is no other WP:RS available. However some people might argue that if its a notable enough claim, there would be more significant coverage of it available from other sources. But above all else, just be BOLD in your edits, if other people have a problem with it, they can revert it, as long as they leave a revert summary of why. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

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)[reply]

He quite clearly meets the notability standards of WP:GNG, and I'm going to remove the notability tag. However, the sourcing in this article should and can be improved. Significant coverage of Clark includes: Washington Times, New York Times, Washington Post. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political biased overtones[edit]

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)[reply]

The bias is all yours. -- Jibal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Calling this entry politically biased is an understatement akin to claiming Keith Richards "occasionally" dabbled in narcotics. The entire entry is nothing but one long piece describing how his opponents think his politics are far-right. For good measure we are treated to repeated implications that Clarke is a shill or puppet for conservative media outlets. We even get the obligatory quote from the partisan hacks at the SPLC describing how Clarke's policies are "radical right wing".74.215.219.209 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can make changes in the article, with the proper sources, or simply tell why you are making them in the Edit summary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about the subject of the article, and looked here. I agree that the article is biased and unreliable. Among other things, it uses an opinion columnist, Daniel Bice, as a factual source. Its sourcing for some of the information is simply incorrect. To me, this is one more example of Wikipedia being unreliable on any controversial subject. 2601:1C0:4F00:FC64:50F1:C70:1D09:D160 (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is all yours. -- Jibal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is all yours. -- Jibal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The bias is all yours. -- Jibal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I am neutral on this. I will ask that an editor review it. Canlawtictoc (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree. Infobox is for technical political party, ideological nuance can be detailed within article. In the lead, I also noted he's not just registered as a Democrat, but elected as one too. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. This must be set very clear once and for all: he is a Democrat, not a Republican, despite his views. I say this in light of the recent changing of this page once again to list him as a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEfficientMan (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racial identification[edit]

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)[reply]

Responsibility for the death of a newborn baby[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree, there are important updates to the story of four deaths in six months at that jail. Fishlandia (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism Controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

There must be some reason why nobody has discussed why our subject attended the Naval Postgraduate School, whose usual students are navy officers. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim.henderson: Students from other military branches, federal agencies, and certain state and local officials are eligible to attend some of the military's institutions of higher education. For example, I know federal civilian employees who have attended the Army War College and Naval War College. This article is about applications for the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies; it indicates that certain federal civilian employees are eligible to apply. This FAQ page for the Naval Postgraduate School includes tabs for federal civilian employees, as well as select state, county, and local government employees.
I hope this information is useful.
Billmckern (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was a question of idle curiosity; I shan't assert that it's relevant enough to mention in the present article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree. The plagiarism topic was widely covered during Clarke's tenure as sheriff, as was his subsequent work to make the corrections necessary for keeping his degree. In addition, his complaints about having to do the work were also covered, as were his deadline extensions. At least one faculty member at the NPS said if Clarke spent as much time making the corrections as he did complaining about having to make them, he wouldn't have needed the deadline extensions. He's probably lucky he was treated as generously as he was.
In my opinion, this topic is newsworthy.
Billmckern (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thomas Paine1776[edit]

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. Neutralitytalk 20:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Deripaska connection?[edit]

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)[reply]

Evident Hearsay Accusation Deleted; BLP[edit]

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))[reply]

Wikipedia's standard for evidence is not "hearsay" - a reliable source reported the claim, thus it is suitable for inclusion here. I have additionally reverted the removal of the material with a false and misleading edit summary; the material is amply supported in the cited reliable source, available here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should cover the death and misery at his jail[edit]

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)[reply]

"His jail" would assume that you have some evidence whereby a single person can be held responsible for the conditions that cause "misery" at a county jail. Provided such misery is real, against which standard would you be comparing it, and would it be illegal? Taxpayers f Canlawtictoc (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarke ran the jails. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very biased biography[edit]

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)[reply]

Be specific. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Political Views," "Comments on race," they tell you what Clark RESPONDED, but NOT what Hill said to elicit the response. Read as-is, the implication is Clark was in the wrong when, in fact, it was Hill who initially hurled insults. 2603:9001:5016:7F64:97A7:D586:3CAE:85A6 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clark never joined the Democratic Party[edit]

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)[reply]

Find a source that says he left the party or joined another one. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Find a source that says he joined the party! There isn't one, I've looked. And I've found 3 that said he publicly refused to join. Under BLP rules, that means the erroneous info has to be left out. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He ran and was elected as sheriff as a Democrat. Do you have a source that says he left it? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He ran in the Democratic primary while "publicly refusing to join the Democratic party". Again, he never joined the party, so how would he leave a party he never joined? You have no source that he ever joined the party, and there are several that confirm he didn't. This is clear-cut. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He ran as a Democrat, but he refused to join the party, so he's not a Democrat? Really? That's your argument? Your logic makes no sense. You don't have to join any political party to consider yourself aligning with one. I would submit to you that the vast majority of Americans have not joined either of the two major parties in the US, yet of those who have any political opinion consider themselves to be one or the other. The very fact that he ran as a Democrat kinda seals the deal. Until he specifically says otherwise, he's a Democrat. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the discussion right above here: #Party affiliation. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't run "as a Democrat". He ran in the Democratic primary. And the vast majority of notable Americans who have not joined either party don't have a party listed under their picture in their Wikipedia article. So because of this ambiguity in a BLP, neither should Clarke. It should be left blank. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/sendmixsignals/status/1303827455376068610
how is a “Democrat” giving a rousing speech at the Republican National Convention. Kinda seems like you guys are just ignoring the fact that this sheriff is not a democrat. I mean he voted for Donald Trump, he is clearly not on the left. Rieze1 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources that say he's a Democrat.

Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More sources:
Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those sources comes with a caveat built-in. Some of them right in the text you quoted! "Technically a Democrat"... "though the sheriff has run for office as a Democrat".... "declared himself a Democrat".... The JSOnline article does not ID him as a Democrat, it only says that ONE GUY ripped his GOP rival for featuring Clarke as a fundraiser with the supposed slur of "He's a registered Democrat". Every single source you've quoted introduces ambiguity into the equation.
Let me be clear on this: I'm not looking to add "Republican" or "conservative" or anything else like that under his picture. I think that field should be left blank, because there's a massive amount of ambiguity around the issue. Ambiguity that is adequately explained in the article text. What you can't do is just slap "Democrat" under his picture and expect that that's okay. It's not. Perhaps there's some OCD editors out there who feel that every politician or former politician needs to have that field filled in, but that's not a good enough reason to mislabel someone in a BLP. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're changing your argument and moving the goalposts. You said, "He didn't run 'as a Democrat'". Clearly, from these sources, he ran as a Democrat four times. He is a registered Democrat. It doesn't matter what other people think he is or is not. I knowingly included those sources, because I don't care what the sourced "opinions" are. If you want to add verbiage on that people don't consider him to be a Democrat, then fine. I don't care. But... from every source, HE considers himself a Democrat, regardless of what anyone thinks or what he thinks about fellow Democrats or how conservative his views may or may not be. And he may very well have changed to the Republican Party, but there is no source that says that. So, unless you find a source stating he that he no longer considers himself one, I will be changing it back to the long established consensus (since 2015) on this page soon. The onus on you is prove otherwise. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as I just had to fix your last edit, you obviously didn't read the sources I put on this page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would also remind you that this is a BLP, so your argument about "since 2015" is meaningless. "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." JimKaatFan (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done reverting, because it's pointless. You're just going to keep reverting back and that's not going to solve anything. Anyway, that's not the intent of the BLP policy. You could argue that anything is "contentious", because you don't agree with it (and this is sourced). Word of advice, if you continue this behavior of reverting and making that claim across other articles on Wikipedia, you're probably going to get blocked. You seemingly have good intentions, but you're acting like a bull through a china shop and trying to ram them in claiming "BLP violation" along the way. That's now how it works. I'll be starting an RFC soon, so we can get some other opinions on this. In the mean time, slow down with your editing... everywhere, especially if someone disagrees with you. Seriously. You're still fairly new. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't comment on this section anymore. Make your arguments in the RFC below, because that's the one that others will be reading and paying attention to. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC on political party[edit]

OPTION 1
There is a consensus to have Clarke's political party in the infobox be included as "Democrat". Although no consensus was reached on the topic, it seems likely that a majority of commenters would support having an explanatory note of some sort. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: List "Democrat" in the infobox
Option 2: Leave the infobox blank.

Comments[edit]

Sources:

Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another source from the county of Milwaukee with the election results: "SHERIFF - DEMOCRATIC PARTY - David A. Clarke, Jr." Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"technically a Democrat."
A GOP rival (Brandon Rosner), seeking to discredit Clarke because he spoke at a rival's GOP fundraiser, said "He's a registered Democrat." That's not a reliable source.
"ran as a Democrat but refused to join the state Democratic party". He never joined the Democratic party, so how can we list him as a Democrat?
Additionally, he hasn't been in office since 2017, and having never joined the Democratic party, how can he be considered a Democrat now? I'm not saying he's a Republican (although he's definitely a conservative and that's well-sourced). I'm saying there's so much ambiguity around this issue that it's not accurate to just slap "Democrat" in the infobox without explanation. There is a well-written explanation in the text of the article explaining Clarke's unique situation, and that is sufficient. A single word in the infobox is misleading and not helpful to readers that are not familiar with Clarke. It should be left blank so as to not mislead readers. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JimKaatFan, Exactly. It's far too complex for a single word in the infobox, and the only word people are offering violates the principle of least astonishment. Guy (help!) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now leaving a ping for the other users who left comments based on the original RfC wording: User:JzG, User:Bait30, User:JimKaatFan. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia DOES report reliable facts, which is why our article text in this case describes in detail that Clarke never joined the Democratic party and only ran as a Democrat because he wanted to be sheriff in a heavily Democratic county - this was by his own statements! He even said he's not a Democrat or Republican, but ran as a Democrat to get elected. He also hasn't been in office since 2017, so he isn't a Democrat anymore. This is all in the article text, which is why it's inappropriate to label him simply as "Democrat" in the infobox. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See loyal opposition and critical friend, two concepts not much known among Republicans these days. Guy (help!) 18:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For precedent, there's Zell Miller (also on the Democratic side) and Joe Lieberman (before his change to independent). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's regarded officially as any such thing. Sheriff is not a political position, and as Clarke himself said, "When I hear people say we need to reach across the aisle and work with the Democrats, you know what I say? The only reason I’ll be reaching across the aisle is to grab one of them by the throat." You don't "reach across the aisle" to your own party. Guy (help!) 17:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He said this after he left office in 2016. Interestingly, Business Insider says he’s a registered Democrat, which some here have insisted he is not. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toa Nidhiki05, and other sources don't,. which all comes back to the obvious solution here which is to omit it from the infobox as being far too complex to render in a single word, especially given that this is a nonpolitical office so party should be irrelevant anyway. Guy (help!) 21:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it isn't the obvious solution as a majority seem to think the normal approach is fine. It's a partisan office and he held it for over a decade as as Democrat. Toa Nidhiki05 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Infobox problem - Clarke is not an officeholder[edit]

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)[reply]

The Milwaukee County Sheriff is determined through a partisan election. You might be confusing a sheriff for a sheriff's deputy, which is what the "regular" officers who work under the sheriff are called.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm really not. Clarke was a law enforcement officer for far longer than he was sheriff. And even sheriff, besides being an elected position, is still a law enforcement officer. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if you're planning on changing the infobox, you're gonna have to gain consensus first per MOS:INFOBOXUSE.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Any other type of law enforcement officer, I'd agree, but Sheriff is different. As strange as it is, it's a political office. And, ex-officeholders retain that infobox. See any former president. I would imagine if there are any notable coroners, they have one, too. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox officeholder is the proper template for anyone who has held an elected office. --Enos733 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soros coronavirus conspiracy allegations[edit]

How and where should this be added? Clarke Soros allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear worth mentioning in the article, at least for right now. It's a side comment that hasn't received that much coverage and hasn't appeared to matter much in the grand scheme of his life. I'll revise my opinion if/when Clarke begins to promote more conspiracy theories about the pandemic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

official website url is incorrect[edit]

should be https://americassheriff.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VHSthetic (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black or not?[edit]

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)[reply]

Gun Control[edit]

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)[reply]

Are you proposing a specific change to the article? If not, please see WP:NOTFORUM. General Ization Talk 15:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Another bleeding liberal hit piece[edit]

Another bleeding liberal hit piece 97.82.40.201 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories