Talk:Yvette Clarke

Degree Controversy

 * Just added some information pertaining to the newest revelations, as well as a few additional links that are more recent.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Passage

 * Might I ask why you thought it important to delete the paragraph related to her campaign tactic of using her gender for political advantage?


 * In the passage above that it's noted that she allegedly championed women's issues while on the New York City Council, so why is the fact that her opponent is the one who has been endorsed by the Brooklyn-Queens chapter of NOW insignificant?


 * Care to explain?

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also have problems with the beginning of this sentence,


 * "As a vocal advocate for the empowerment of women and people of color..."


 * Which seems to be, at the very least, treading on POV territory.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying what someone advocates isn't POV territory. Saying someone uses her gender for political advantage is. 76.174.24.153 (talk)

Trimming
I didn't want to do any of this without asking for input first, but can't some of the long details about her time on the City Council be trimmed? They seem like filler. --JamesB3 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The final two paragraphs in that section also seem to be puffery, IMO.


 * They should either be pruned and/or rewritten in an NPOV-consistent manner.


 * Her mother's career-and race against Major Owens-should be included, but I'm not sure it fits under the heading of her daughter's "work on the City Council." Ruthfulbarbarity 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Advert tag...
is because it's direct quoted from her website in part.--70.108.123.73 07:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL slavery in 1898! 76.109.71.129 (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Colbert Report appearance
It seems her embarrassing interview with Stephen Colbert (Sep. 4, 2012) merits mentioning. She apparently thought Dutch colonists had slaves in 1898 in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.24.153 (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree as a 2012 entry, if it get's the attention it well may and is deserved, not a simple mistake, tired whatever. a link 72.228.189.184 (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, just watched this. It's a well known comedy skit, which the congresswoman gamely played along with. Looks like she had a temporary brain fart, which she chose then to use for her comedic representin' in the faux interview by expanding it with the Dutch thing. Probably will not be anything unless it gets blown into a MSM thing somehow. Wikipedia has to give the benefit of the doubt. If there's a pattern here, dunno if other threads above amount to same, then this will have a place in that, otherwise not I think or at least not yet. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Washington Post covered it, basically with similar interpretation. The problem is Colbert chops up the tape so much it looks like he's putting words in her mouth, that's sort of the premis of the comedy, which, were it done more dryly and deliberately might show what everbody's assuming is probably the case. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Her saying "the Dutch" was NOT an attempt to sound absurd and play along with the comedy. The colonists who owned slaves in New York were in fact Dutch. It's just that it was in the early 1600's and not anywhere near the turn of the 20th Century as she seemed to believe. Ignorance of history seems the only explanation. 76.174.24.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Dutch lost control in North America to the British in the 1660s, there weren't significant numbers of slaves in NY then or FTM later, many of the blacks in colonial NYC were free. I'm not arguing against inclusion, but you'll have to be careful, this isn't somebody's blog or opinion column. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is or what you mean by the condescending statement "this isn't somebody's blog." What we are talking about including is Clarke's appearance on a show and her bizarre remarks on that show. Both the appearance and the remarks are easily verifiable and have been reported in WSJ and other publications. No one disagrees with you that the Dutch lost control of NY -- except Yvette Clarke apparently. 76.174.24.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's nearly a year later and I just came across this discussion. Stephen Colbert's "Better Know a District" segments, excepting the actions host of the show himself, is pure documentary. A congressman might play along with the host as Clarke does in welcoming rappers into the district rap song style as Colbert insists but part of the entertainment value in the segment has always been the show's ability to catch politicians in factual errors. Colbert has interviewed MANY Republican congressmen and gotten them to sound stupid to East and West Coast audience,s and he and his producers would never protect a politician from doing the same thing even if she were a Democrat and African American: I think all of his viewers (and we trust Wikipedia readers) are intelligent enough to take it: This bit of information doesn't prove her ineffectiveness to her constituents, it's just that Clarke wouldn't qualify for college-level American history teaching were she given such an opportunity all of a sudden, that's all.--69.2.120.11 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Some very questionable edits
All references to her degree scandal have been removed, and her questionable statements on Colbert are now characterized defintively as "joking." There seems to be no consenus on the talk page as to those changes. Assuming good faith, what was the rationale for both of those edits?24.90.198.168 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed- Please re-include both sides of the degree controversy and remove opinion (i.e. benefit of doubt) from Colbert story. Wikipedia should only list what happened... For example "An interview aired on the Comedian Stephen Colbert's television program in which the congresswoman stated that the Dutch owned slaves in NY in 1898, The congresswoman has since stated she was joking/tired, etc..." That would be unbiased. That is what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ on degree controversy and Colbert story.--69.2.120.11 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

District info prior to 2007
Why does this article include information in the intro about the district from 2002, BEFORE she came into office to represent it in city council? Can someone look into what the the 9th district encompassed from 2002 to 2007 geographically so we can take those neighbohoods out in the mention? thanks--69.2.120.11 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Scholarship to Oberlin
Would like to take to task the information that she obtained a scholarship from Oberlin. None of the newssites that investigated her 2006 campaign claim to have graduated from Oberlin could confirm this, and it's from campaign literature, proven to contain false material, that has since been taken down. If it's not referenced in the next few months, I'd like to delete it altogther.--74.108.220.125 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Yvette Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140104235120/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2006/08/yvettes-education.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2006/08/yvettes-education.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yvette Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4962/text
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171022024104/https://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71 to https://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)