Talk:Wesley Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Wesley Clark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 24, 2007.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Staxringold (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
* Arcive 1


Contents

[edit] 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 [1]. 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 [2], addresses the Jackson affair.
  • Interocitor.com [3] cites a ‘Drudge’ article “Former JCoS on Wes Clark”.
  • Zpub.com has a library of articles relating to Clark [4], 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 [5], on which I found 4 articles from 1999.
  • A Google search [6] 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. [7]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Clarifications needed

  • "He worked as an assistant, collecting data and helping in operations planning, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work with the staff." Assistant what? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Exact text is "His position, called the Assisstant G3, was to support the deputies who ran the operations and planning of the staff." Staxringold talkcontribs 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "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)
  • Don't, unfortunately, and it's far too old to be archived online anywhere I can find. And the source doesn't say. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:05, 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)
  • Wait, what's unclear? Command of battalion, then brigade followed by evaluations by the battalion commander then the brigade... Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 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)
  • Yep yep. I know one isn't supposed to group citations at the end, but when those citations cite the entire 'graph what am I supposed to do? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:51, 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)
  • He quotes David Halberstam repeatedly who himself quotes people who also told Clark "there would be life after John Hudacheck." If far-leaning conspiracy theories are notable enough to include Halberstam and his research is. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:16, 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)
  • Hudachek was Clark's commander at the base, in control of those particular commands. He didn't have admissions power at the NWC as well. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • An excellent point, I'll remove the category now. He is not Jewish, he merely has some Jewish ancestry. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:48, 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)

  • He spoke on it very occasionally from what I saw during the 2004 campaign season. But no, he's very Christian in his personal religion. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:52, 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)

[edit] 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).
  • Clinton and Cohen's remarks are in no way a counterexample to Shelton's quote. He says Clark left due to character issues, Clinton and Cohen say Clark did a good job. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • Shelton was not a member of the Edwards campaign when he made that statement, and again those statements do not show this to be "false". You can still do a good job but get taken out for character issues. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • I'll go reword it to make it clearer, but at some point he did order them. Just because he was ordered to doesn't mean he wasn't also delivering orders when he enacted them. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Campaign Logo

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)

  • The use of the image is identical to the use in Barack Obama, an article that has already attained featured status on an identical subject. The image falls under both the "event" and "organization" sections of {{logo}}. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:06, 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 am not saying you are singularly responsible for fixing those images. I am saying that those hundreds of images at use in dozens of featured articles display that including a logo to display the subject, even where that logo is not the focus of actual discussion in the article, is a widely accepted use. As for that category being only company logos, what about my example of Barack Obama? Or Gerald Ford and Image:H51-2b.jpg? Or the several candidate signs listed at Category:Political logos? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:23, 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)
  • What "information" is in the logo? What is its substantial contribution to the article that could not be conveyed by "He ran in 2004" Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:52, 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)
    • Do you believe intransiently demanding that a tiny irrelevent logo remain in the text regardless of any and all opposition is going to enforce the point? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 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)
  • What's sad is that you don't believe in our mission here, and would far rather have a tiny little logo than a free encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:23, 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Because it's not just British knighthoods. In addition, you rarely cite things in the lead. The citation is in the awards section. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False statement about French 'Decimation'?

In a public interview by Amy Goodman[8], 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.[9] 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)

[edit] ...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)

  • I do not know that day. AFAIK Clark has always just described it as when he was 4. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:06, 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)
  • Aha! Looking at the source it does in fact give a date. "But that night, on December 6, 1948, his heart failed and he died in his sleep." I'll add the date fully but question. Clark was 3 years and 348 days old, can we just leave that as rounded to 4? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually nevermind, setence flows better with Clark's age at the time anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • You moved a large block of post-2004 information out of the post-2004 section, and generally reorganized already community approved organized prose into a completely different setup. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:56, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)