Talk:Wesley Clark/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

  • I think it's a pretty well-written section. Once I get to that point in the article with the Felix bio I'll source the statements a bit more. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:06, 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
  • I've already started and am going to continue giving it a full rewrite. He's coming to UConn on Friday, so hopefully I can get a good shot of him in civvy clothes. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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)