Jump to content

Talk:Wesley Clark/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Roads named after Wes Clark

There's a road in Alabama named "Wesley Clark Boulevard." A google search for the phrase "Wesley Clark Blvd" + Alabama turns up several real estate listings, so we know that it exists.[1] And to show that it's not original research, the Alabama road has been mentioned by Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC show Countdown. There's a transcript of the show where Olbermann mentions the Alabama road.[2] Also, there's a new road in Virginia to be named "General Clark Court." An architect and Clark supporter has announced she has finished negotiations with authorities that resulted in municipal approval for her newly designed road to be named "General Clark Court."[3] -Amulet of Yendor 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gun stuff

Removed gun stuff. There are a plethora of campaign issues. If we listed them all, this already lengthy article would become even more unwieldy. Although guns are important to saltforkgunman, since his history shows he focuses on it, is not notable or important in the context of this article. Clark did not make it a central or main theme of his campaign, nor is there evidence that this issue had any significant impact on him or his campaign. Further, he's recently said that issues on which the party can't reach significant concensus or that don't hold importance across the nation ought not be in the national democratic platform, such as guns. The wording presented by Saltforkgunman ("law abiding citizens") coupled with his post history indicates a slight bias on this issue. I appreciate his point of view, but it is not "notable" in the context of this article. Thus, I've removed it and will replace it with a link to the full issues page where guns (and a plethora of other issues, many more "notable" than guns) are listed.

Sign your talk.Saltforkgunman 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted article to include 'gun stuff'.I was hesitant to revert the article,thereby destroying all the efforts of editors in the last few days,but then I decided what the hell.I guess I just need to be a prick like so many of you people.I do not care about a plethora of campaign issues.We aren't listing them all, so the article isn't going to get too long.My history should not matter, and the issue of guns is important to about 80 million people in this country.Clarks comments ARE important in the context of this article.Right there in the section on Presidential Campaign.Agreed, Clark did not make guns a central issue in his campaign, but there is in fact serious evidence that his comments did have significant impact on his campaign.His remarks were brought to the attention of the 4 million members of the NRA, and many more on the Internet. A sizable voting block.The wording that I used,'law abiding citizens', is accurate and factual, and for you to say that I am biased as an excuse to delete my work is kind of crappy. You have attempted to trivialize this issue, bort here and at the bottom of this page where I have talked about the massacrfe at Waco.I hope you don't mind if I call it a massacre.Finally,I see by your user page that this is the first time you have edited wiki.I think it is a cheap political stunt for you to come in here and remove the facts that make Clark look bad.And make no mistake,the facts make the former general look bad.Here, I'll sign this rant.Saltforkgunman 19:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I only adopted a login for the purposes of this discussion. If you hv admin priviledges, you will see that after my last login, I logged out and continued to edit on other, non-political pages under the same IP I posted under my previous login as. And this is yet a new login, b/c I don't keep my old login (forgot password). It was not my intent to trivialize you, and I respectfully pointed out that I recognized your positions and their value in my previous posting. And yet, now you attempt to do what you accuse me of, by dismissing it as a political stunt b/c you have no record of my edit history. Also, please stop making new subsections on the talk page when you could very well have continued the discussion under a previous subsection. I'm glad we can reach agreement that the gun issue was not a central campaign theme, nor noteworthy as such. If you examine the campaign history of Clark's 2004 primary, the NRA or gun positions had little effect for several reasons. One is that Clark was running in the DEMOCRATIC primary, where the NRA and its issues hold less sway than in the Republican primary. Had Clark been running as a republican (or in a General election), I may have agreed with you that this topic is noteworthy, but that is not the case here. If we want to find "noteworthy" campaign issues, we would do better to focus on the ones around which he released major speeches and policy plans or that generated far greater publicity. Many of those issues of greater noteworth than guns are not listed here, why should guns be?Sugarknifeswordguyagain 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine.I'm not gonna argue about it.Saltforkgunman 22:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If any of you think 'gun stuff' isn't relevent to a presidential campaign taking place in the south, you are out of your minds.

Languages

Minor quibble here, but the article says he's fluent in four languages "including Spanish and Russian", given that there only is one other plus English why not just list the four languages?

I was wondering too, because I hoped it is German ;-). And, turns out to be indeed German: [4] Oku 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Anyone have a non-military photo of Clark? He's been out of the military for quite awhile and his photo should reflect that. Furthermore, I did put up a non-military photo of Clark with complete permission from the photographer. It was removed.

Major Issue

There is a major issue in this document. It says before AND after his service in Vietnam that he completed Ranger school and AOBC (Armor officer basic course). He would not be in charge of an Armor PLT if he had not already completed it. Did he go through it twice, or is the document incorrect?

The Pristina incident would be better if General Clark's take on the incident were included by someone with access to his book. Both his take and the current version should be NPOV.--Ark30inf 13:46, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Clark published his thoughts about this, and I believe others have also given their points of view. The current version is drawn only from secondary sources and probably omits information that might be usefully included. Any reported opinions of those involved should be expressed impartially and attributed to the people who held them. I'd do it but I don't have any of their books...--[User:EdH|EdH]] 20:39, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found an NPR interview where Clark gave his views of the incident and a BBC profile that relates what was already in the article. I've included those. Hopefully that will resolve the controversy for the moment. Clark may have had more to say (Hopefully not contradictory :-) In his book so someone with that may have more to add.

Somebody says 'Removed segment about "most decorations of any soldier since Ike" since it is patently wrong. Replaced with a reference to his "distinguished, if sometimes controversial, service".' What is so patently wrong about this? Don't forget that beside the US Decorations listed Clark also received numerous non-US military honours. Almost all of his military service was also completely without controversy, one moment of controversy is discussed at length further down the article. Therefore I plan to change this to something slightly less POV.--EdH 20:21, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The idea of "most decorated" is open to interpretation (See here for a discussion). A quick search reveals several assertions that (E.g.) "Clark retired as one of the nation’s most highly decorated military officers since General Dwight D. Eisenhower": [5], [6], and [7].

Colonel David H. Hackworth is often described as "America's most decorated soldier", with 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars, four Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross and a remarkable eight Purple Hearts - meaning that he was wounded, on average, in each of the (Almost) eight years that he was in combat. That is a total of 25 medals. Clark has "only" the 18 US awards listed, but also received numerous foreign decorations (Legion of Honour, etc.)--EdH 20:52, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Abortion views

Some unregistered person went into this article and changed 'pro-choice' to 'pro-abortion'. To do so is to practice propaganda. Being willing to let other people make their own choice on something is not the same as asserting that they should make one choice or the other choice.

There is a wide range of anti-choice-movements in the world today, many of which claiming to speak for God in order to put power in their own hands. It is interesting how many of them are also willing to use illegitimate, immoral means to promote their goals.--:Patrick0Moran 14:15, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why not use a phrase such as "in favor of abortion rights". "Pro-choice", while far less loaded than "pro-abortion", still is slightly less than neutral.

Pro-choice and Pro-abortion are both used as propaganda phrases. I would suggest stating that the General is in favor of keeping abortion legal. That states the fact while avoiding the loaded terms that the two sides use.--Ark30inf 06:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Go for it!--Patrick0Moran 10:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pro-Choice is the name of the movement as it calls itself. Pro-Abortion is the name that "Pro-lifers", a self-described term as well, calls the pro-choice movement. Obviously, nomenclatures named by one's opposition are not without baggage.

Nice to see everyone continuing Wikipedia's leftist bias. The movement was labelled pro-Choice as a propaganda move to make the position sound less horrible. Much like liberals calling themselves progressives now, or global warming turning into 'climate change'. Hey keep it up though, it just makes wikipedia more of a shithole joke.

  • First, please sign your talk page additions. Second, please don't get so hateful on talk pages and then try to hide it with reversions. Third, being called a "progressive" is nothing new and nothing liberal, conservatives do it too. It merely means someone who is actively engaged in trying to find new solutions to problems which, by the lines the parties have drawn, tends to be more liberal and Democratic folk (with conservatives and Republicans believing more government shouldn't be solving said problems in the first place and preferring the status quo). Fourth, global warming is the "new" and "improper" name, not climate change. Climate change is what's actually happening, the climate changing. It's not just about average temperature rise because thanks to things like thermohaline circulation a small rise in temperature can actually trigger a catastrophic cooling of the climate. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Random quote

Why was this seeminly random quote in here? By user:207.179.108.132. --Stargoat 17:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I could not be prouder of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces for capturing this horrible despot. This is a testament to their courage and determination. I’d also like to congratulate Lieutenant General Sanchez and the intelligence community for the crucial role they played. We’ve been due good news from Iraq, and the world is a safer and better place now that he is in custody.

I've removed the quote as no one claimed ownership for it. It was partisan, NPOV, and topical for the recent campaign. If it needs to be replaced, I suggest someone find a different quote, but I do not believe that this is possible to do and maintain a NPOV.--Stargoat 08:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no particular logic to its inclusion; the poster didn't even use square brackets to let us know that he is talking about Saddam. If a military quote had to go in, it would logically refer to the Baltics, not IraQ, a campaign Clark didn't participate in.--Cecropia 16:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reference to the School of the Americas (SOA/WHISC)

The reference to the School of the Americas deserves at least some elaboration. Instead of going deeply into that here, I would like to invite people interested in this sub topic to read my referenced piece on that issue, and decide whether or not to include at least sources for further study. After all, we're looking at an aspect of "US Foreign Policy" that had its worst acts carried out during the Reagan administration.

Otherwise, it would appear as an implicit "fait accompli" that Wes Clark was somehow involved in the horrible human rights abuses by about 500 (Former) graduates of the SOA, which is utterly untrue. What is true is that Wes Clark was and still supports the mission statement of SOA/WHISC - while obviously rejecting and denouncing the atrocities committed by some of its former students.

About one sentence:

In mid-2003, he began preparations for a Democratic presidential candidacy in 2002, ...

Erm...? It aughta be 2005, not 2002.--OleMurder 18:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy is a nutcase. He wanted to start the Third World War! XD.--HolyRomanEmperor 19:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nutcase"? Oh, that's right -- Karl Rove's attack against John McCain. During the 2000 primary race between Bush and McCain, Bush who never went to Vietnam was up against POW McCain. So Rove started smearing McCain as a crazy nutcase who was destabilized and psychotic from his torture in POW camp. Turn the clock forward 4 years. This time, Bush was potentially up against a 4star general, so Rove recycled the anti-McCain attack memes ... putting Bush up against a "Crazy General" Clark instead of a "Crazy POW" McCain. The recycling was so transparent that only people easily swayed by Rove propaganda would believe the attack memes.

Waco

Can anyone speak as to the details of Clarks involvement in the Waco Incident?

He was not involved. The operation was done by Federal agents, not troops under Clark's command.

Yes,I certainly can speak to the involvement of Clark at Waco, thank you for asking.The feds got the military equipment and advisors on how to use it from Ft.Hood, where Clark was the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division.A lot of Americans believe that Clark violated the Posse Comitatus Act when he let his divisions equipment be used for law enforcement purposes at the 'compound' outside Waco.Saltforkgunman 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the action was by federal agents and not troops under Clark's command. Further, Clark was the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, which is based out of Ft. Hood. But Clark was NOT the base commander of Ft.Hood, to whom the letter of requisition from the local state governor was sent. Thus Clark had no role in the requisition of the equipment. His role was limited to the capacity where the local base commander asked Clark's technicians, who serviced the equipment, to provide some equipment operating instructions. Further, I believe Clark consulted his legal advisors before complying with the local base commander's request. I think it would be more accurate to say that very few Americans, mostly fringe partisan extremists, believe charges that Clark violated the Posse Comitatus Act, since Clark had very little to do with the operation and consulted his legal advisors every step of the way.

Citation that Clark was not the post commander?Saltforkgunman 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a letter from a Judge Advocate General officer about the recent push to smear Clark by political partisan extremists. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the sentence "The 1st Cavalry Division received orders from its higher headquarters - III Armored Corps and Fort Hood - to provide certain equipment to the FBI for its use at Waco" mean that Clark was ordered to comply by the commander of the 3rd Armor and the commander of Ft. Hood? If he was orderd by the base commander of Ft. Hood, then Clark couldn't possible be the base commander of Ft. Hood. Further, there was a congressional investigation that didn't find Clark to have any wrongdoing in the affair and only minimal involvement in it. Thanks, Saltforkgunman.SugarKnifeSwordGuy 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Congressional Investigation is concerned, they also found out the FBI lied about the type of Tear Gas used, and nothing was done. The rest sounds like a legal loophole, but technically he was covered.

Interview on BBC about Kosovo

The paragraph inserted on 13 August 2005 beginning "However..." is problematic. First, it pushes Clark's dispute with Jackson concerning the Russians at Pristina into a secondary position. Clark's own published account and verifiable secondary sources from the time of his presidential campaign attest the importance of this controversy. Second, the import of the quote is unclear, since no context concerning the rest of Clark's comments at the time, or the more general question of the purpose and justification of the campaign, are given. It would be helpful if some specific source or reference for the interview were given. Third, the paragraph is logically poorly written/structured. It begins with the word "However", but there is no contrast to the content of the preceding paragraph. More troubling, the sentence beginning "Thus..." is a non sequitur; that sentence's claim (that the campaign was "unlawful") does not clearly follow from the quote. The legality of the campaign would be better considered in the article on the Kosovo War. My inclination would be to delete the whole paragraph, but perhaps a source or context can be provided. But even so, in an article on Clark, this would be of secondary importance compared to the issues of command of NATO forces involved in his dispute with Jackson.24.209.173.129 06:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Dismissal" from the Army

Shouldn't this document include at least something saying that he was withdrawn from his NATO post early and that that was effectively his final US Army posting ? (i.e. career over after the spat about the Russians on the runway). This is something key about the man, and to leave any mention out is wrong. There was also something in this article earlier (but which is now removed) about another US senior army officer saying that Clark had "integrity issues" - any there was a citation. Is this mans article one of those being doctored for favourable presentation by those in Washington DC ?--jrleighton 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole "integrity" slander was propaganda created by Clark's primary opponents during his '04 run. The guy who issued it was the Republican Hugh Shelton who worked for Edwards's primary campaign at the time against Clark. Milosevic's lawyer from the Hague called Shelton and wanted to know if there was any truth to the "integrity" issue. Shelton backpedalled, basically saying there's no truth to it, and called it "just politics."

This article reads like a campaign web page. General Clark was "relieved early" from his European command. Any who has ever served in the military knows this means FIRED. Why is this discussion point left out? Let's include all the facts. If I missed this point then mea culpa.

Hardly. If this were a campaign page, it would have all his issue positions and present them all in positive light. But instead of listing his positions, we've only left links and references to his issues page for the readers to evaluate the info for themselves. And when issue positions are noted, they are only done so if noteworthy and in as NPOV and factual terms as possible. Some of the factual and relevant NPOV stuff, like Knighthoods and having streets named after him, are impresssive by nature and not design. Further, there are controversial issues like the Kosovo airfield section in this article that would surely be scrubbed if this were a campaign page, as you accuse. If anything, judging by what happened to Kerry in the last eleciton cycle, wikipedians should be on guard for swiftboating from rightwing operatives trying to smear Clark. Further, Clark was going to retire in 3 months anyway, but it was moved up 3 months due to administrative obligations. Rahlston's tour was up and the only way the brass could convince him to stay on was to give him the European Command/SACEUR which is the most coveted of all the regional commands. If Clark didn't retire 3 months early, then Rahlston would have been dismissed. The alternative was to demote Rahlston for 3 months because there was no other position of that rank to hold Rahlston over. Clark certainly wasn't "fired" in disgrace as political swiftboaters would have us believe. The logic doesn't hold up.

Your use of the phrase "Swiftboating" betrays the politcal bias and thus the relevance of this article. Funny how the subject of the Kosovo Airfield was brought up. I spent 26 in the service. I know how officers get fired. This is how they get fired. SECDEF and The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs got tired of the General end running them and bypassing the chain of command and went directly to the president. General Shelton's remarks about General Clark should also be considered and included to provide a 360 degree picture. From the New Yorker; http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact.

Like it or not, "swiftboating" is now part of the American lexicon, and a verb that doesn't necessarily betray any political bias. For instance, what was done to McCain(conservative, not liberal candidate) during the 2000 has been referred to as "swiftboating" retroactively in some interview with him. I believe the talk show host joked that he was swiftboated by Karl Rove before there was a swiftboat term or something like that. Also, if Clark was fired in disgrace, why did Cohen/Shelton/Clinton then proceed to give him medals like the Distinquished Service Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and heap tons of praise on him? Cohen/Shelton(both Republicans) had praise for Clark until the possibility of Clark running for president as a Democrat arose. The sudden about face seems more partisanly motivated than based on fact. When challenged, Shelton even backed down, refusing to specify details of why he didn't like Clark, and saying his attacks on Clark were "just politics." Other generals like McCaffrey and Shali came to Clark's defense and swatted down Shelton's political partisan attacks. I'm not saying there's no friction between a Regional Commander in the field and the guys back home, there always is. But the accusations that something more nefarious is in the works responsible beyond the very real Ralston tenure limits are plain untrue. From the New York Review of Books is an analysis of media coverage during the 2004 primaries. Note: "Particularly unfortunate was the widespread journalistic failure to investigate the smear campaign against Clark by a group of former military officers, not just Shelton, who dislike him intensely, partly out of jealousy, partly because of policy differences in the Balkan wars, and partly because of his brash and seemingly confident personality. They were supported by former Defense Secretary William Cohen, an experienced knife-wielder against those who get in his way. Some journalists passed on, without identifying the source, Cohen's attacks on Clark's character." So you see, it was a politically motivated campaign by two republicans (both involved in politics at this point) to stop Clark from getting the Democratic nomination.

I added a section that talks about his early relief and tried to avoid all the politically controversial stuff that was thrown about by both sides at the time. I hope it is neutral enough to let stand. Master shepherd 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But the section completely sidesteps the character of his dismissal. That he was fired isn't disputed, even by Clark himself. What's controversial is why he was fired. Gen. Shelton said it was for "integrity and character issues" but he's never clarified what exactly that means, and Clark and other generals disagree. This paragraph really needs a rewrite. Nathanm mn 13:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


War Criminal bit

I'm not questioning that "Weasley" (ha...no) Clark is a "WAR CRIMINAL," but that obviously biased article (Mitchel Cohen = Greens/Green_Party_USA newspaper editor) certainly doesn't belong in the introduction to the article and maybe not even in the article at all.

Hackworth and Clark and Kosovo

In Hackworth's own words:

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong -- the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2003/09/what_hackworth_really_said.php

Also, the McCain quote is blurbed on the cover of Clark's book Waging Modern War. I hope this clears things up for you, Badgerpatrol.

I don't have any problem with it at all- it is perfectly reasonable to rm the cite tag if it is no longer required. It doesn't necessarily have to be the original editor who takes it off, anyone can do it as per their opinion. You might want to: a) Sign your posts; and b) Get an account (which is quite quick and easy). Note however that the latter is not necessary if you feel otherwise (although signing one's posts pretty much is essential), but it is usually convenient. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 13:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, as I suspected, the last time I checked, the cite tag wasn't there anyway, and it seems to have been you that took it off and then put it back on again ([8])! ?? Badgerpatrol 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I originally took it off after putting the references in Talk wrt the last paragraph. Then I noticed that you used the word "mainly", so thought you might have issues with stuff other than the last paragraph. So I went back and added the tag, out of respect for your orginal reason for placing it there. Wanted to give you the chance to chime in on the other stuff you objected to, also wanted to defer the decision to remove the tag to you, since you placed it there (and since I'm anon and you're registered, wanted to give you the choice over the decision to remove tag). I haven't bothered to register since my wiki activity comes in cycles. I might edit for days, get bored with an article, disappear for months, find some free time, and pop up in different article. Not really worth the hassle of registering and remembering passwords and whatnot. Really just a lark for me, not attached to the wiki community, nor familiar with all the intricacies. Thanks for clearing it up that anyone can remove that tag, and glad we could resolve this issue.141.149.50.63 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is still a good idea to register. I notice that all of your contribs (~50 edits) have been over the past few days, and all on or about the same page (Wesley Clark). I assume then that you have recently changed your IP? Registering means that previous edits to other articles would still be included in your account record, and also tends to impart greater weight to your opinion (and encourage good faith) when making and discussing edits. If you have a home machine that you always or regularly use, then there is no need to remember your password and login, the system will do it for you (this is not a good idea for a shared IP). As for the hassle- it will take, literally, 30 seconds. Anyway, something to think about. Badgerpatrol 14:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer my edits to be judged on intrinsic value and not whether I have a lengthy edit history. I realize the "building good faith with an account" bit means Wikipedia doesn't exactly function that way, and your point is well taken, but something about the anonymous egalitarianism just strikes me. I usually prefer to concentrate on one or two articles at a time. I think I'm nearly done with the Wes Clark article...not much else I can add. Maybe you'll see me do another ~50 edits in a span of days on another article some weeks or months from now, probably still as an unregistered anon with a different IP :) Staying anon means I don't have to get involved in the petty disputes, grudges (as well as friendships, to be fair), cliquish flamefests, and elitist bickerings that some registered wikipedians seem to engage in. But what do I know, I'm just on the outside looking in :) Cheers141.149.50.63 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Class of 1966 casualties

Clark's class of 1966 would go on to distinguish themselves for bravery and sacrifice, holding the record for most combat casualties at the frontlines of Vietnam.

I rephrased this, as heavy casualties need not have anything to do with distinguishing oneselves for bravery and sacrifice, and indeed stating so seems just euphemistic heroism. Now, perhaps they did distinguish themselves, but for that there need to be proper sources; high casuality numbers do not suffice. 82.181.61.48 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Casaulties are a measure of sacrifice. The ephemism "the ultimate sacrifice" means combat death. Awards like purple hearts (which can only be earned through combat injuries) are generally considered a measure of valor. The famous military journalist David Hackworth wrote that by the time Clark entered Vietnam, his class had come close to breaking the Academy record for most Purple Hearts in any single war. That's saying a lot, since the Academy record stretches back quite a bit and many wars. Further, the Class of 1966 had a book written about them due to their unique position of holding the record for most casaulties (losing about a third of their class, I think, off the top of my head), and nearly breaking the Academy record for most Purple Hearts in the history of American wars. The book The Long Gray Line by Rick Atkinson is listed amongst the sources for the article at the bottom of the page, so feel free to check it out for more in depth analysis of the the Class of 1966.
Fair enough. I cannot get my hands on The Long Gray Line, but I'll take your word for it, for now. I suggest rephrasing this then as "by the time Clark entered Vietnam, his class had come close to breaking the Academy record for most Purple Hearts in any single war", or something to that effect. I understand that a record of casualities and Purple Hearts is saying a lot considering the long history of the Academy (of which I know little). I however contest your view that casualities in themselves are a measure of sacrifice; I frankly don't understand what that means. Casualities are a measure of dead people; whether or not they sacrificed something in dying is, I feel, a highly subjective and debatable issue. And perhaps even more debatable, I think, is what meaning does "sacrifice" actually have in this context, if any. As you yourself state, "the ultimate sacrifice" is an euphemism for combat death; why use euphemistic language in an encyclopaedic article? If, as you state, awards such as Purple Hearts are generally considered a measure of valor, it then should be enough to state the high number of casualities and Purple Hearts of the Class of 1966 in order to convey a sense of valor; any need to give boost with rhetoric would be indicative of their actually not being a generally accepted measure of valor, would you not agree? I therefore suggest not talking in vague terms such as bravery or sacrifice, but numbers, which should in themselves be enough to do justice to the Class of 1966; rhetoric is always less persuasive than facts.
I would like your comment before any editing. 82.181.61.48 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be right that we can avoid the euphemisms if we stick to facts. But I'm not sure if your phrasing captures all the relevant details. There are really three facts here. One is that the Class of 1966 hold the record for highest casualty rates in Vietnam, losing about a third of their class, I think. The second is that they came close to breaking the record for most purple hearts in a single war when Clark entered Vietnam . . . not sure if they went on to break that record -- certainly possible since the class enrollment was greater than in previous wars, and as evidenced by Wes Clark's medals, they continued to accrue purple hearts after the point noted by Hackworth. Does anyone know or have the numbers? Did they break that record too? The third noteworthy fact is that there is a book written about the class of 1966 by pulitzer-prize winner Atkinson and their unique role. Also, here is reference from the official West Point website, "The West Point Class of 1966 had the most casualties of any class, he added." 151.204.153.26 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If you come up with a suitable phrasing, please feel free to edit; I'll try to come up with one as well. I appreciate your points. I think the paragraph should probably include a {{Fact}} tag and not explicitly claim a record of Purple Hearts until their number can be confirmed.
One other thing, I was thinking that perhaps any lengthier discussion of the Class of 1966 merits it's own article? After all, this is an article on Wesley Clark, although the paragraph under discussion is definitely not out of place. 82.181.61.48 14:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How about "Clark's class of 1966 would go on to hold the record for most combat casualties at the frontlines of Vietnam, challenge the Academy's record for most Purple Hearts in a single war, and have a book written about them by Pulitzer-prize winner Rick Atkinson." The phrase "challenge the record" would be true whether they broke the Purple Heart record or not. A {{Fact}} tag would not be necessary because the reference book about the Class of 1966's Casualties is already listed as an article source at the bottom of the page. And since we've revised the wording regarding the purple heart record so that it's true whether they broke that second record or not, the reference tag can be dispensed with because it would be ambiguous as to whether it refered to the Purple Heart record (we know they were on track to breaking it according to Hackworth's article, not sure if they did) or the Casualty numbers (which we have several sources, from the book to the official West Point site and other places, saying they hold this record, so it is not in doubt and is well sourced).
I like that, and I took the liberty of doing the edit. You're right about the {{Fact}} tag. 82.181.61.48 09:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-Write!

First, let me start off by saying I am a Clark fan all the way, I have the draft Clark 04 stickers on my car still and a 2008 one ready to place soon... This article stinks. This is supposed to be encyclopedic. This read like I'm reading a book. He is truly a great man but every single detail does not need to be listed here! I think too much info here will actually hurt potential people from learning about him because there is just a massive chunk of info. I started on part 1 and took out a large part of the Balkans section because it was all he said/she said argumentatives that really isn't noteworthy... and plus the reference was just to some guys blog.

There are overlapping entries and inconsistent dates on when he became 1 star to 4 star general. Plus this is a one sided article. It's like I'm reading a fan fiction site. This article needs a professional to come in and sort it out. I have part 1 done, who will do part 2? BTW - I have a picture of Wesley Clark at a radio shack here that I took on my camera phone but it's not good enough quality to put on the wikipedia page ^_^ Binarypower 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I got permission from someone who took a great picture of Clark, to put on this site. I had trouble figuring out how to do the attributions properly. I tried to do it as "Fair Use - For this sight only" to protect her rights. Anyway, someone took it down and replaced it with a military shot. He's been out of the military for some time now, so, it stands to reason that his bio shot should be one in a suit and a tie. ~roseba

Title in Infobox

Sorry Jiang, that was a very rude revert. I merely did so because I was following the infobox of Peter Pace. This looks just fine, actually, looking at other high-command general's infoboxes. Apologies. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is too long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.20 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

TNR kerfluffle

User:Staxringold deleted mention of the TNR kerfluffle with the following summary: Please. A single entry on a blog then responded to by other blogs does not a notable event make. If it hits the MSM, then yes. Here is the Google news search on it. The story could get bigger or it could go away, so I'm actually ambivalant about the text staying in the article. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • My point is this. I, for example, post on DailyKos. Could I, right now, write a long-winded story, using nasty buzz-words like "anti-semitic" in reference to major Republican presidential candidates and (who cares about the level of truth) use it as source material to stick those candidates with a note about anti-semitism in their articles? If an outside, notable source (IE, the mainstream media) deems the story interesting enough to report on then Wikipedia would merely be citing that story, but until then it's just a couple guys duking it out in cyberspace. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I trust that you followed my link to Google news which led to mentions of the story in newspapers. As far as your comments go...are you talking about what I contributed to the article? Because my text mentioned Matthew Yglesias and Jonathan Chait, both of whom are well-known pundits. What that has to do with DailyKos I'm not sure. — goethean ॐ 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't mentioning you specifically in any way, my point is that pundits on some blogs are one thing, but they are still guys on the internet writing what they want. And again, the newspapers I saw on your Google News link are generally not put up their in the upper echelons of the media. If it becomes a big story, ok, but basically every national figure has these 'stories' put up about them, Wikipedia cannot cover every last minor one (but if CNN/NBC/ABC/FOX/you-get-the-picture picks it up it's bigger than that). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wesley Clark/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Thorough, organized, detailed, large amount of images, fair use rationale and liscencing for images. Good! Try a peer review and/or a GA nom. Cbrown1023 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" theories

I don't see anyhing in the article alluring to whether this is true: [9] - Quite significant, more info needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.140.209 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources relating to the controversies in Clark's career

I promised Staxringold in the FA review for this article that I would try to find some links to sites dealing with the controversial events in Clark’s career. I mostly selected links from mainstream media or liberal sources. I also found a lot of conservative sources in my Google searching, but didn’t include them given that their natural bias made them less credible given Clark’s political orientation.

  • However, given that WND is Staxringold’s favorite right-wing read, ... ;-) ... here’s an interesting conservative link that that ironically points out a liberal publication that has information critical of Clark: General Wesley Clark for President? [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816912/posts]. (Kind of eerie when a conservative source and a liberal source hold the same POV!) It specifically addresses Waco, as well as Clark’s connections with the Stephens Group.
  • Here is another source that is neither pro-Clark nor pro-conservative: Oilempire.us [10]. It has links to other articles in Counterpunch, Antiwar.com, Brasscheck, Progressive Review, FAIR, and others. It also addresses Clark’s sitting on George Soros’ International Crisis Group think-tank, Clark’s CNN military commentator job, his NATO sobriquet of “The Perfumed Prince”, Waco, criticism from Michael Moore, the war crimes in Yugoslavia lawsuit, his appointment as a distinguished senior adviser at CSIS.
  • A New York Times article, Clark's Military Record Offers Campaign Clues [11], addresses the Jackson affair.
  • Interocitor.com [12] cites a ‘Drudge’ article “Former JCoS on Wes Clark”.
  • Zpub.com has a library of articles relating to Clark [13], most critical, but also at least one to a pro-Clark site I haven’t looked at.
  • A good non-UK English-language source is the International Herald Tribune [14], on which I found 4 articles from 1999.
  • A Google search [15] on the Jackson issue turns up many hits, including from liberal sites like Antiwar.com, Dissidentvoice.org, Counterpunch, Militarycorruption.com, Truthout.org; major news source such as the NYT and the BBC; and many others.
  • In fact, the NYT has published a lot of articles on the Jackson issue. [16]

Hopefully, this material will provide a good starting point for the editors here for further addressing these issues, many of which are not currently treated by this article. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Swim team

"He graduated from Hall High School with a National Merit Scholarship, and led their swim team to the state championship, filling in for a sick teammate by swimming two legs of a relay." Did he actually lead the team (a fill-in usually doesn't)? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you'll find he was team captain. That means he "led" the team. Probably sourced from American Son and the Felix bio. Hf jai 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

  • "Clark completed his Armor Officer Advanced Course while at Ft. Knox, taking additional elective courses and writing an article that won the Armor Association Writing Award." If you have the title/subject of the article, consider adding it as a footnote. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That's okay; it's a "nice to have". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Clark was approached during his fellowship to help push for a memorial to the Vietnam War. He worked with the movement that ultimately helped lead to the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.." This is a bit weak. Was his role in it a notable one? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove if you think it's nn, but the source says "Clark played a major role in helping raise the $10 million for the national monument. 'He lent his considerable prestige and put his shoulder to the wheel... I could not have walked to that road [to get the monument made] without him.'" Staxringold talkcontribs 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Clark took two commands with the 1st Armored Division ..., first over the 3rd Battalion 35th Armor and then the entire 3rd Brigade.[1] The battalion commander called Clark the "most brilliant and gifted officer [he'd] ever known" and the brigade commander said Clark was "singularly outstanding, notably superb." The parallelism of these two sentences makes the anonymous quotes sound like they're from Clark himself. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Your parallelism matches the Bn. Cdr. quote with Clark's serving as Bn. Cdr., and the Bde. Cdr. quote with Clark's serving as Bde. Cdr. I'll fix it. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved the citation at the end of the para. (following the MSM award sentence) to the end of the two quotes. I am presuming that citation (on the indicated pages) actually covers same; if not, please move it back and add a citation for the quotes. Per WP:CITE all quotes should be cited; it would also be better if the officers in question were identified by name. Also, before removing "cn" tags, please note that citations should follow the relevant issue itself, not be "collected" at the end of the para. The latter makes it unclear what is really being supported with the citation. For the above example, the award of the MSM is not contentious, so it need not itself be cited, but the quotes should be — which is why I made the "assumption" I did. Not having the reference source, I can't check. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "The commander at Fort Carson had a reputation of disliking West Point graduates and fast-rising officers such as Clark." Felix, pg 105. "The commander at Fort Carson, Gen. John Hudacheck, had a well-known aversion to West Point cadets and fast risers like Clark. eve though Clark made quick and outstanding progress with the armor unit, Hudacheck expressed his attitude towards Clark by omitting him from a list of battalion commanders selected to greet a congressional delegation visiting the base." — Okay, since this is a negative assertion against Hudachek, it needs to be treated carefully. Who does Felix quote — Clark himself, someone else, (most preferably) multiple 'someone elses', or is it simply an assertion by Felix? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"After two years of not making the list to rise from battalion commander to brigade commander, Clark was accepted and attended the National War College." If Hudachek was blocking him, how did this come about? It's sort of a non-sequitur. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Halberstam obviously was demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of how the Army centrally selected battalion and brigade commanders at the time. It was not up to MG Hudachek to select Clark for brigade command, that would have been done by the Combat Arms Brigade Command Selection Board and Clark would not have even been eligible for consideration until after he had been selected for promotion to Colonel/06. Selection to attend the National War College was also done by a Department of the Army level selection board which did select him immediately upon him becoming eligible at the end of his battalion command. While at the War College Clark was selected for Colonel and he was promoted in September 1983 while he was the Chief, Plans and Integration Office, ODCSOPS, in the Pentagon. What is true is that he was not selected for brigade command immediately upon selection for promotion to Colonel which would have sent him to command rather than to the Pentagon assignment. Halberstam attributes far too much power to MG Hudachek. The-Expose-inator (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Clark took two commands with the 1st Armored Division based in Germany from August 1976 to February 1978, first over the 3rd Battalion 35th Armor and then the entire 3rd Brigade.[23] Clark's brigade commander while in the former position said Clark was "singularly outstanding, notably superb." Regarding his term as brigade commander, one of his battalion commanders called Clark the "most brilliant and gifted officer [he'd] ever known."[27] He was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for his work with the division.

The brigade commander had also said that "word of Major Clark's exceptional talent spread", and in one case reached the desk of then Supreme Allied Commander Alexander Haig. Haig personally selected Clark to serve as a special assistant on his staff, a post he held from February 1978 to June 1979. While on staff at SHAPE, Clark wrote policy reports and coordinated two multinational military exercises. As a result of his work on Haig's staff, Clark was promoted to lieutenant colonel

Sequence of events needs clarification, you need to be a lieutenant colonel to command a battalion and a full colonel to command a brigade. This sequence show him commanding a battalion then brigade then working for Haig and as a result being promoted to LTC. This would have him commanding a brigade as a major and this is not possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.238.131 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this “After two years of not making the list to rise from battalion commander to brigade commander, Clark decided to attend the National War College.” Obviously is completely ignorant of how the Army works. You don’t “decide” to attend the National War College (NWC), you are one of the few that are honored to have been “selected” by a selection board to attend. Also, Brigade Commanders are also selected by a Selection Board and NOT appointed by any single Major General and it does not happen until AFTER you have attended a War College.

I worked for Clark in the Pentagon AFTER he graduated from NWC and he was still a Lieutenant Colonel although he had just been selected for Colonel so while he was at Fort Carson pre-NWC, he was never eligible or even considered for Brigade Command by a command selection board! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

The article confuses me a bit. It appears that he was told of his Jewish parentage when he was at Oxford. Technically, he isn't Jewish, given that his mother was not, but I'm unclear in reading this article if he has "converted" to Judaism, recognized his Jewish background, or rarely mentions it. Only in the US do we care about a politicians (or notable government official's) faith, but he is categorized as a Jewish American in the Military, and since he isn't technically Jewish (unless he made a change), then I'd suggest removing that categorization. Orangemarlin 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But back to my original question? Is there any evidence that he speaks much to his Jewish Background? I haven't read anything, but then again, he isn't a personage in whom I've shown much interest. Orangemarlin 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've read that he converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Is that true?Millbanks 20:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert of my edits

Everything I put it is not only true, but well documented, and also restores the factual neutrality of the article. Anyway, what gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schuyler s. (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

  • If it's true, cite it. If it isn't, please don't insert it into an article trying to get featured. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I could not find a source for the "just politics line" that was from a site not directly related to the campaign, and while I do not doubt the validity of those comments, I understand that it probably would not be prudent to use a campaign site as a source for rebutting negative comments. So, anyway, how is the language now? -Schuyler s. 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I rolled it back again as it's text like that that is the reason this article isn't featured right now. The original, infamous quote is that Clark left due to character issues. Random quotes of people praising his work is A. Just a cheap attempt to "balance" the text with heavy POV in both directions and B. Those statements don't even contradict (so words like although are silly) that statement. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, he *was* an employee of the Edwards campaign, and it is important that, when his comments were brought up, both Clark's superiors (Cohen and Clinton) were quoted as saying the exact opposite of Shelton. Clinton's comments were a direct response to Milosivic's use of Shelton's remarks. Just leaving Shelton's comments hanging there as if they are a great mystery lends them a lot more weight than they deserve, especially to someone who is not familiar with Clark's history(as you would assume someone reading this entry would be).
Even if they do not directly rebut Shelton’s comments (and I think the use of the word “professionalism” was intended...), I think we should mention that the court essentially found that the comments were false And we should defiantly add that Shelton was an employee of the Edwards Campaign. -Schuyler s. 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Error in page

The line that says, "Clark ordered bombings codenamed Operation Allied Force" is incorrect. Clark did not order the bombings. They would have come from the U.S. President at the time. He was merely the executor of those orders. U.S. Generals do not start wars. They fight them when they are ordered too.--Looper5920 11:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd Error in page

The line that says, "The bombing was noted for its high degree of accuracy," Bombs were dropped from high altitude, to avoid attack from the ground, but many were dropped into cumulus nimbus clouds, you can drop an Abrams Tank into a cu-nimb, and it will bob up and down in the anvil vortex like a ping-pong ball, for hundreds of miles! Many of the bombs dropped on Yugaslavia, missed the country, yet alone the intended target. To say "The bombing was noted for it's high degree of 'inaccuracy'", would be more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Times of London January 17 2001

Bombs that turn our leaders into butchers by Simon Jenkins


Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: Cluster Munitions: Toward a Global Solution By Steve Goose

In Yugoslavia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands dropped 1,765 cluster bombs, containing about 295,000 bomblets, from March to June 1999. 69 Human Rights Watch documented that cluster strikes killed ninety to 150 civilians and injured many more. This constituted 18 to 30 percent of the total civilian deaths in the conflict, even though cluster bombs amounted to just 7 percent of the total number of bombs dropped. The most notable case of civilian deaths occurred in Nis on May 7, 1999, when bomblets mistakenly fell on an urban area, killing fourteen and wounding twenty-eight civilians. The incident led President Clinton to suspend temporarily U.S. use of cluster bombs in the campaign.

The U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center estimated that a dud rate between 7 percent and 11 percent, depending on bomb model, left more than 20,000 unexploded bomblets threatening civilians. Some bomblets penetrated up to twenty inches deep, making clearance slow and difficult. In the year after the war’s end, bomblets killed at least fifty civilians and injured 101, with children being frequent victims. Bomblets also interfered with the return of refugees and slowed agricultural and economic recovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen many reverts over the fair use campaign logo despite no discussion what-so-ever on the talk page. Those of you who are involved in this debate should reach a clear consensus first before making any further decisions whether or not to include it rather than having a mini edit war over it. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Supporters of including the image are required to demonstrate compliance with our Fair Use Rules. Those rules state, in part

"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

The logo itself is not discussed in the text at all.

Finally, supporters of including the logo should be aware that it will be removed almost immediately, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement. Finally, supporters of including the image must stop demanding that I go WP:FISHING. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Logos used in articles are not discussed in the text of almost anything, barring an article like Swoosh. They are used to display the event or organization (in this case) at hand, which is exactly what this image is doing. It is no more decorative than any of the hundreds upon hundreds of images in Category:Logos. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I will not go WP:FISHING, and stop telling me to do such. Do not tell me that before I fix your broken use of fair use images, I fix everyone elses. Also, note that the logos to which you refer are used as identifiers of the companies to which they link. There is no company here, and if there were, it would be better identified by a free image of a campaign appearance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the innacurately tagged and innapropriate image from the Ford article, and as you may or may not be aware I expect we will have consensus from the editors of the Obama article that as soon as we find a good free-use image of the 04 senate campaign, we will remove that also. You may be aware that the 08 campaign logo was recently replaced on the Obama article with a free-use campaign appearance sign. If only editors who didn't care about having a free encyclopedia had not disrupted my attempts to fix the Obama article, much in the way you are doing here, it would not have this other image also. Again, please don't point at errors in other articles to demand that I go WP:FISHING. Stop mentioning other articles alltogether. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why, exactly? That is the only way to present evidence to back up one's opinion rather than just you saying what you think, me saying what I think, and we reach the impasse we were at before this all started. And the image that replaced the Obama 08 sign has about 3700 copies of the Obama 08 sign in it, displaying the logo. There is no such image yet in the Clark article. Yes, when such an image arises the image can be replaced. And please don't keep tagging your edits "stop it" while not-so-subtly repeatedly suggesting that I somehow want to ruin Wikipedia just because I don't agree with you. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So you agree, then, that if we find a fair use image of a Clark 04 rally with 3700 copies of the 04 sign we can remove the image here, and as such, the image is, one might say "replacable fair use?" With respect to why looking at random articles and finding fair use violations does not make your fair use violations ok? If your opinions were backed up by policy, or discussions about images, as opposed to other articles where images had not been examined well, that would be one thing. It's not. You are, literally, finding crappy articles that somehow were ignored all this time they had fair use violations, and then saying "look, they such so I can suck too." You are, in fact, ruining wikipedia because you don't agree with me. I doubt you want to - I just suggest you don't care about creating a free encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest you take a bit of your own advice from the FAC and try to keep a level head. It takes quite a bit of ego to assume that your opinion trumps dozens of community approved uses. Yes, if a free image can be found the image can be replaced. This is true for essentially all fair use images not tagged by {{HistoricPhoto}}, that doesn't mean they violate fair use criteria which requires "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Certainly no new image could be created, as it would require holding a fake rally for Clark with old signs, and I am actively pursuing a freely liscensed image of exactly that sort both by posting requests on DailyKos and emailing WesPAC. However, until such an image is released, no free image that I can reasonably find (through a search of Flickr and quite a bit of surfing around for images of him) exists that displays his campaign sign. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The same displayed by any other fair use logo. It is the summation of the entire section into an image, the logo of that campaign, in the same way a television show/movie's article is summed up by the title screen in the infobox (even though it adds no more information than just the line of text "Cheers" or "The West Wing")). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You're not interested in a discussion, your interested in a brow-beating, where you repeat "Other articles did it! Other articles did it!" untill you are horse. Good riddance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm actually interested in a discussion, which would require you to recognize that your singular opinion and view of policy does not override anyone else's, let alone the legion of community members who clearly agree that such a use of a logo is acceptable at every level of Wikipedia. Regardless, it's too bad you left on that foot. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I gather at the moment, seems mostly like edit warring in spirals rather than discussing. I do not believe that only two people should be able to decide whether or not this image is to be of use in this article. Hipocrite's point is important that fair use images are not meant to be used carelessly or decoratively despite certain articles including them or not including them. However, being hot-headed about the matter is not exactly going to enforce the point Hipocrite.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But that's the point, Hipocrite, and why I still don't understand how you can insist we ignore other articles that have been given a community thumbs up. Your opinion is that "any and all opposition". Staxringold talkcontribs 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The next article you point me at will go on WP:FAR to see what the community thinks about using fair use images decoratively. If you can't cite policy, you don't have a grasp of our fair use policy. Period. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you both drop this debate for now if this is going to continue to ensue between two individuals. Obviously you both disagree and continuing is highly unproductive. Allow some other individuals to contribute what they think rather than just trying to inflame each other.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hipocrite - I read your opinions. I think you are being inordinately obstinate and ridiculous in your objections. It's as if being contrarian is your modus operandi for no good purpose. --Roseba 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

I marked the knighthood passage as such because it doesn't specify what knighthood he has- there's no link to "KDE" or "CDE". 130.101.100.125 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

False statement about French 'Decimation'?

In a public interview by Amy Goodman[17], Clark stated: "in World War I in France, [...] the French took incredible losses. And these were conscript armies. And after one of these failures, a group of thousands of soldiers simply said, “We're not doing this again. It's wrong.” You know what the French did? They did what they call decimation. They lined up the troops. They took every tenth soldier, and they shot them." Nice story, but is it fact? I've done a little research and can find no record of this. In fact, the word 'decimation' stems from Roman Legion days, and even THEN this was incredibly rare practice. "There are only a few known cases" from all Roman history.[18] Can anyone confirm this story? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.217.75.191 (talk • contribs).

Hmm, there is mention here, but only in passing, and hardly from a reputable source. I am rather surprised, as I would have thought this would be better recorded if true, and if false would have led to a backlash against Clark's remark. Even fr:Décimation has no mention of this practice in the French Army: it begins "decimation was a publishment used in Ancient Rome..."
In any case, this discussion belongs at Talk:Decimation (Roman Army). --Saforrest 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When people talk about decimnation they think about large units. It actually was used by the French Army but in isolated cases.

With the support of Petain, officers punished mutinous troops by court-martialing the leaders. When they often couldn't determine the leaders, they sometimes chose known troublemakers, men with civilian criminal records or those who complained a lot. Or they followed Taufflieb's example and selected every 10th or 20th man standing in the ranks. (This method even had precedent in history. When the ancient Roman army put down mass mutinies, they killed every 10th soldier who mutinied. This is the origin of the word "decimate.")

By the end of June, Petain's army reforms and policy of severe punishment for mutiny began to have an effect. The mutinies decreased and eventually ended.

[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.41.3 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

...when Clark was four years old

The article says Benjamin Kanne died in 1948, when Wesley Clark was four years old. Do we know the exact date of Benjamin's death? Because Wes Clark's birthday is December 23, he was actually three years old for all except the last week of 1948. —Angr 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, do we even know it was 1948? Maybe it was 1949. —Angr 14:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilian Career

I was in the middle of editing this section when my work disappeared. Any good reason behind this? Thanks. Zaczaca 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If the community thinks civilian career information belongs in the middle of the politics stream, instead of in the civilian career section, I guess that's where it stays. I won't waste any more time on this. Thanks for the response. Zaczaca 20:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark tells of Iraq and 7 countries being preplanned

YouTube link which points to the transcript… see if it's worth mentioning, regards. Lovelight 08:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Married?

I'm currently updating the Norwegian version of this page. Is he married? Couldn't find anything here or anywhere.. Does anyone know? Ectoras 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Run...NOT

I removed the 2008 Presidential Run again. Although well-documented, this is pointless, and adds very little to an already voluminous entry. What is staxringold's logic to keep this in? If you were the one to initially document all this stuff, sorry that it's no longer relevant and should be removed. Unless you're buddies with him, and/or are still trying to persuade him to run, this is clearly dated. I agree it was relevant when he was considering it. Now that he's no longer going to be a candidate, why is this still important?Asc85 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A Reckless Streak

The article does not address Clark's reckless streak directly. He was taking extraordinary risks in Kosovo when he attempted to prevent the Russian landing. He had to be told very directly to adopt a lower profile. And, he had the gall to suggest that he "contained the Russians at the airport" at a speech at Old Dominion University in the 1990s. I a happy to have turned my back to him.--Jackkalpakian 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Still find it funny that this amateur was ignored by James Blunt. The wonderful American military.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.189.243 (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that war between NATO and Russian/Soviet forces were closer than ever before or after during this incident - Clark had ordered that the Russians be attacked and overpowered - yet there is little reporting or analysis of the incident. Clark and his superiors criticised Jackson and British forces for not attacking the Russians, despite war with Russia having been a distinct consequence of them obeying such orders. It reminds me of the American generals in Doctor Strangelove. Are there any academic articles on this event?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

GBE?

The GBE shown after his name needs explaining in the article? Is it a reference to an honourary Order of the British Empire, or is there some other meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.233.8 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos?

A more up-to-date photo, in addition to the official looking one, would be a nice addition to the article. --Hordaland (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't anticipate him changing much anymore, he's 64. Hekerui (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav Civil War

On the side tab, why is the only mention of this situation 'Kosovo War'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.132.100 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

#1 Google Result

Interesting, but don't know how to cite it. Wesley Clark is now the #1 Google result for "venal backstabbing ass." He's apparently immensely unpopular with both former peers and former subordinates. His reputation for self-promotion sticks with him.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable as a Reliable Source.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pristina

I suggest a re-wording of the sentence "The refusal was criticized by some senior U.S. military personnel". What does "the refusal" refer to? The British reluctance to follow Clark's reckless order to effectively start WW3? Was there any criticism of Clark's troubling order? It seems odd that American politicians should endorse such a dangerous order. Certainly the decision of the British leadership was essentially mutiny, but surely it was the right decision in the circumstances. Risking WW3 over an airport in Kosovo seems illogical.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Jewish

Why must nearly every biography give undue relevance to someone's Jewish ancestry? It's always there slapped within the first couple sentences of someone's early life. It's like saying Liza Minelli's grandmother was Christian.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Wesley Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wesley Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wesley Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Wesley Clark. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wesley Clark, Jr.

Is there a Wikipedia article about Clark's son, Wesley Clark, Jr.? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • No, there isn't. It's true that he's attracted a fair amount of attention from the news media regarding the veterans' Forgiveness Ceremony at Standing Rock -- primarily owing to his being the namesake of his famous father. However, he probably doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY for his own article, unless he's done other noteworthy things that aren't widely known.
More to the point, though: Why on earth is there no mention of Wesley Sr's wife, children, or siblings anywhere in the article? Surely there should be a (short) section about his family members in this very lengthy and otherwise rather comprehensive article. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wesley Clark. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Look,I don't know how to contact General Wesley K. Clark, but I do know for a fact that his picture and all info on him is being used to scam women out of money and used to move money around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.97.177 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference confirmbio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wesley_Clark/Archive_1&oldid=1047321741"