Talk:Wanda Sykes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humor[edit]

An ignorant fool who thinks she's funny. She should leave politics to the professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.232.59 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC) The article states: Much of her humor comes from her delivery and timing[reply]

I think this is is an unusual statment. Comedians would argue the essence of stand-up humor is delivery and timing. Dubkiller 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majored in English?[edit]

Question: When she went to college, what did she major in? Did she switch majors before she graduated?

Answer: She majored in Marketing at Hampton University. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree.

Possible racial profiling issue[edit]

Why is it that all American actors when they are of black ancestry are usually referred as "African American"?

Why is that when actors are Jewish, Italian, French or any other ascendance (always of Caucasian race) are labelled only as just "American"?

Is that a subtle way to say that U.S.A. is composed of "Americans" (any white, of course) and some "African American" (same as "beware: is American BUT a black american")?

- Are you claiming that being black has no effect on a person's identity? Also, last time I checked, Jon Stewart is a "Jewish American" on Wikipedia. I've seen plenty of notes like that about white people.

Wow, talk about having a chip on your shoulder. The talk page for an article about Wanda Sykes is not the place to sling accusations of racial profiling. You could try Category:African Americans, but then i guess you'd see Category:Filipino Americans, Category:Jewish Americans, Category:Scots-Irish Americans, Category:Bulgarian Americans, and hundreds of others, and realize you were talking out of your ass. Moe Aboulkheir 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, probably because they generally self-select into the category of 'African American'?
Umm, "African American" is considered the politically correct way of referring to Americans of African descent. Blame Jesse Jackson. He's the person primarily responsible for promoting use of the phrase "African American" instead of "black" back in the 1980s. Rather than posting your racist question on the Wanda Sykes page, which is inappropriate, you could have tried looking it up in a dictionary. Dictionary.com has your answer in a usage note: "Though by no means a modern coinage, African American achieved sudden prominence at the end of the 1980s when several Black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, championed it as an alternative ethnonym for Americans of African descent."[1] --JHP (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Most black people I know prefer to be referred to as 'black'. I suppose 'African American'sounds more respectful and ,,,maybe like almost an apology ,,,,considering the horrors of american history. Im Irish and Native American but I refer to myself as I am.....Im WHITE. Kind of ticks me off when white people try to label themselves...."Irish-American"..etc etc. Its bull.WeAreOurOwnDevils (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSA[edit]

Didn't she work at the National Security Agency? That's probably worth adding if someone can verify.


Either way Wanda is FAWKEN funny01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)hope.

Answer: Yes - she confirms in many written interviews - as well as in the Q & A section of her Seattle DVD that she did work at the National Security Agency. She was a procurement officer. The information has been added to her biography.

Brenda Sykes[edit]

Is Wanda related to Brenda Sykes (who appeared in the film Mandingo)? -Grammaticus Repairo 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is officially gay[edit]

Yes, she is officially gay, it's true, there is no need to remove it from the article or ask about it one hundred times over. JayKeaton (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I can question how it is phrased! "Officially homosexual"? What? Did she have it notarized by the Secretary of Sexuality? SterlingNorth (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, somebody already rephrased that bit from the article before I got to this... SterlingNorth (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just say there has been strong speculation of it for a while now, but now speculation is over because it is fact. It is officially true, instead of just rumors. 219.90.163.163 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key point related to the insertions and removals I've been seeing is that hasn't suddenly become one of the primary features responsible for her notability. It isn't any more appropriate to mention it in introductory sentences than it is to identify Noah Wyle as a Jewish actor or Benjamin Bratt as a Peruvian-American actor. If it's worth mentioning later on in the article, fine. In this case, it probably is because Sykes came out in a newsworthy way. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was still a poorly chosen word. A better way to have phrased it would have been to say "she has confirmed that she is gay". Phrased as "she is now officially a homosexual", it sounded like she was sworn in as gay after passing a gayness test and getting a certificate. SterlingNorth (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles say things like "English actor" in the lead. And no she hasn't only just now received her gayness certificate, don't be so silly. She would have received that years ago at her first secret gay agenda meeting. JayKeaton (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is that the vast majority of article introductions note the subject's nationality no matter where the person is from. Since we would never open an article by calling someone a 'straight actor,' we should also refrain from using 'gay actor' in the intro. -Ddawn23 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea she's gay until tonight. (Im watching her right now on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson) I guess Im not very hip with celebrities and their private lives and I dont want to be but....this is very cool. I assumed she was straight because I watched some of her stand up a few years ago and she was making TRUE statements about men and how they sometimes use their cars to impress women on dates. Gawd she was so right. SO true. But anyway,,,,more power to her. Shes great. WeAreOurOwnDevils (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is her wife's name?[edit]

It seems odd to me that the name of her partner is not mentioned in this article. Sykes had a legal marriage ceremony, then she came out to the press and to the people about her marriage and yet her wife is not mentioned by name in this article? Any straight celebrity on Wikipedia would have their partner's name in their bio. Is this omission on behalf by Ms. Sykes or her partner's request or is it a media oversight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmc 07 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unknown who her wife is, or why she never mentions her by name. --Phildog (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were known to the media, Wikipedia might not print it unless the wife were independently notable, per WP:BLPNAME. Skomorokh 00:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name is Alex. ≡ CUSH ≡ 07:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondents Dinner[edit]

Lets get the ball rolling on what is sure to be many reverts about this event. To start off with I rolled back due to vandalism [2] the addition "'s socialist policies" because no where in the cited material does it say "socialist policies" and it is clearly vandalism to make stuff up without citing to proper sources. As it stands now is completely unaccaptable, per the origional comments by Mr Limbaugh in Jan. From rushlimbaugh.com "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it." [3]. No "socialism" in there. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxwon has resolved this to my satisfaction. Your definition of vandalism, however, is not in line with Wikipedia's. Please review WP:VAND. Cheers, Tomertalk 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that TharsHammer brought up a good point, that she herself was responding to that particular statement (I hope he fails), rather than the point of hoping Obama's policies fail. However, unless she comes out and says that's what she meant, there's no way to prove it. Soxwon (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sykes clearly either didn't hear what Limbaugh said or couldn't be bothered to relate her remarks to it, since she incorrectly (and somewhat controversially, although I think the President's visible glee at her remarks will ultimately be more controversial) asserted, as part of her "joke", that Mr. Limbaugh's statement, which was quite clear to anyone who has listened to the piece and/or has read or heard his clarifying remarks since then (it's been 4 months now...), said "I hope America fails", says that his hopes are the same as Osama bin Ladin's, etc. Tomertalk 17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's odd that the two "sources" cited for this entry are not neutral sources, but editorials, and neither contains what sykes actually said or a reference to a newsworthy reaction. the washington post has a couple of articles on the event (such as http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051000056.html), but there does not appear to be a transcript or any reference to a controversy.ctj (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that too, but I think it's more explaining the reasoning rather than saying it was controversial. Still, with a lack of MSM sources, I for one wouldn't be against removal. Soxwon (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone hasn't seen Sykes' performance at the Correspondents' Dinner, the part where she's talking about Rush Limbaugh is available at http://www.breitbart.tv/html/336173.html as well as a plethora of other sites, I'm sure. Tomertalk 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in criticism [4] [5] and removing the context [6] should not fly. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, guys, but this Controversy section is complete crap. The sources are both editorials. Wikipedia is not a place for you to put people's opinions about someone, especially a living person. I'm going to remove this Controversy section unless people can come up with *actual* sources of reporting on this rather than editorials. Thanks. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's perfect now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.14.13 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what amounted to way to much detail. What was notable about the event has been left, we don't need an explanation for why she said something or her opinions running for a paragraph. Soxwon (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a controversy, as you say (despite the fact that the President distanced himself from her remarks), then all that is notable is her appearance as the headliner. AyaK (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really that notable? The president distances himself from a lot of things. Soxwon (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs did the distancing, not the President. And Soxwon is right, that occurs all the time. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the White House Press Secretary was the official spokesman for the President, so your comment makes no sense. Also, look at this discussion for an example of whether such speeches generate notable controversy. But I'm not interested enough in this article to continue with this debate; others can pick it up, if they care to do so. AyaK (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR on the laugh v smile[edit]

To start off with, can we at least pretend to use the talk page when people delete information using well reasoned edit summaries? I undid this twice today [7] and [8], to avoid 3RR I won't do it a 3rd time, but it must go from the article. Simply put WP:OR says we cannot interpret what is on a video and use it in the article. Also there is the additional reasoning that it is not true. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any political axe to grind here, either for or against Obama. I was trying to neutralize the rhetoric in this section, which is why I got involved in it in the first place. I saw all of the articles that said that Obama did or did not laugh, as if the act of laughing conveyed some political meaning. In watching the video, I thought it was obvious that Obama did laugh at the jokes, and I thought that dwelling on the controversy as to whether he laughed or not was counterproductive. No one will even care a week from now. If you think that is controversial, I'm happy to remove it and say something more neutral such as "Obama appeared to be amused by the routine", because I don't think it really matters whether he technically "laughed" or not. Would you prefer that? AyaK (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if we stick to what Reliable Sources have to say about it. Its a clear violation of original research to add descriptions based on what we view in a video. I don't think the suggestion "Obama appeared to be amused by the routine" is reasonable, since he could have been smiling at a whole host of things, maybe even smiling because he was thinking "Oh god, the right wing echo chamber is going to eat this up." But it doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what reliable sources have reported about the matter. I suggest we remove all mention about Obama's physical response until a proper reference can be found. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've left the language the way that I suggested above, and cited to the Canadian Press article which said this: "Obama laughed at the joke, took a sip of water and continued to chuckle." That's exactly what's on the tape, but it also satisfies your objections regarding WP:RS. Or do you think we should add a discussion about possible partisan perspectives as to how media members interpreted Obama's reaction -- which doesn't really seem to belong in an article about Wanda Sykes? Really, this is a tempest in a teapot. AyaK (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the New York Daily News says "That brought groans and guffaws from the crowd while Obama smiled nervously and took a sip from his glass." [9]. Why don't we delete all mention of Obamas reaction from the article. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since a debate over Obama's reaction is irrelevant to an article on Wanda Sykes (although it might be relevant to an article on Obama), I don't want this to continue to be a distraction. My intent was to take out the partisan debates. I failed to realize that whether he laughed was an active part of the partisan debate. OK, I'll delete the Obama passage entirely. AyaK (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That's So Gay" commercial[edit]

I think I recall that she was in one of the "That's So Gay" commercials, if that's worth mentioning. 151.203.213.209 (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Berlin quote[edit]

Ira Berlin may not know of any other free black families that are traceable from the 17th century to the present, but other people do know of any such families. I propose that this sentence be removed.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Berlin is a reliable source in my book -- especially as he is being used as a source for what he said. You may know of cases where it is possible to trace a black family rooted in freedom from the late 17th century to the present. Berlin states he does not. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wanda Sykes. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wanda Sykes. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

her racism[edit]

Wanda Sykes is problematic as she quit the TV show Rosanne because of Rosanne Barrs racist tweet, but Ms Sykes has been racist on twitter too!

this should be acknowledged in her article, as the racist behaviour of other celebs is on their pages!

https://twitter.com/iamwandasykes/status/930999556606640128?lang=en

the tweet from her official twitter account reads "White people don't steal wallets" they steal countries.

i will add this information to her article in a day or so if there is no debate on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.94.243 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wanda_Sykes&oldid=1194735252"