Talk:Wesley Clark/Archive 1

message: 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.  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.  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."
-Amulet of Yendor 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roads named after Wes Clark

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gun stuff

message: 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:  Oku 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Major Issue

message: 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)
thread_title: Abortion views

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Waco 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interview on BBC about Kosovo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hackworth and Clark and Kosovo 

message: 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)
thread_title: Title in Infobox

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

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  TNR kerfluffle 

message: Substituted at 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

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

message: 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 .  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 , addresses the Jackson affair.
*Interocitor.com  cites a ‘Drudge’ article “Former JCoS on Wes Clark”.
*Zpub.com has a library of articles relating to Clark , 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 , on which I found 4 articles from 1999.
*A Google search  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. 
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)
thread_title:  Sources relating to the controversies in Clark's career 

message: "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)
replies: text: *Rewording. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swim team 

message: *"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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: That's okay; it's a "nice to have". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: *I'll reword it then. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: *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)

text: "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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Clarifications needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Judaism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2nd Error in page 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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 , 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: *This is just somewhat sad, Hipocrite. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Fair Use Campaign Logo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: In a public interview by Amy Goodman, 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.  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)
thread_title:  False statement about French 'Decimation'? 

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

text: *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)

text: *Actually nevermind, setence flows better with Clark's age at the time anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...when Clark was four years old 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Civilian Career 

message: YouTube link which points to the transcript… see if it's worth mentioning, regards. Lovelight 08:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wesley Clark tells of Iraq and 7 countries being preplanned

message: 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.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
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)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Married? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2008 Presidential Run...NOT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Reckless Streak 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GBE? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yugoslav Civil War 

message: 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)
replies: text: Unacceptable as a Reliable Source.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  #1 Google Result 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pristina 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wesley Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060104175533/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/waco2.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051221235709/http://clark04.com:80/speeches/044/ to http://clark04.com/speeches/044/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060311073629/http://securingamerica.com:80/taxonomy/term/69 to http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/69
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070227231014/http://securingamerica.com:80/node/1927 to http://securingamerica.com/node/1927
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061104124756/http://securingamerica.com/node/1420 to http://securingamerica.com/node/1420
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928000028/http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10918 to http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10918
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wesley Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061104083705/http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/81 to http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/81
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060717030407/http://securingamerica.com:80/taxonomy/term/82 to http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/82
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060717030350/http://securingamerica.com:80/taxonomy/term/77 to http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/77
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wesley Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081026152910/http://www.clark04.com:80/about/ to http://www.clark04.com/about/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828141249/http://clark04.com/press/release/071/ to http://www.clark04.com/press/release/071/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516214023/http://securingamerica.com/node/1471 to http://securingamerica.com/node/1471
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060922201804/http://securingamerica.com/ to http://www.securingamerica.com/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024231403/http://www.gov.ro/press-statements-by-pm-victor-ponta-and-general-wesley-k-clark-appointed-as-special-adviser-to-prime-minister-on-security-and-economic-strategy__l2a117598.html to http://www.gov.ro/press-statements-by-pm-victor-ponta-and-general-wesley-k-clark-appointed-as-special-adviser-to-prime-minister-on-security-and-economic-strategy__l2a117598.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104175533/http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061119195332/http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/clark_waco_to_Yugoslavia.htm to http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/clark_waco_to_Yugoslavia.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080501210648/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/news/0339,mondo1,47252,6.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,mondo1,47252,6.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061004025533/https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/dci_speech_072299.html to https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/dci_speech_072299.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726234104/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/cohen09172003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen09172003.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110926220510/http://www.nato.int/shape/bios/saceur/ralston.htm to http://www.nato.int/shape/bios/saceur/ralston.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/23/154853.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080603051221/http://www.grassroots.com:80/casestudies/draftclark/ to http://www.grassroots.com/casestudies/draftclark/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081010233519/http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60629,00.html to http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60629,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070426124845/http://www.tvweek.com:80/news.cms?newsId=8010 to http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=8010
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151017164416/http://www.international.ucla.edu/burkle/about/clark.asp to http://www.international.ucla.edu/burkle/about/clark.asp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130814041925/http://www.chooseourpresident2008.com/res.html to http://www.chooseourpresident2008.com/res.html#F
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721185346/http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/06/clark-touts-sebelius-as-vp/ to http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/06/clark-touts-sebelius-as-vp/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728172632/http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/05/our_heros_welcome_in_kosovo.htm to http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/05/our_heros_welcome_in_kosovo.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=10103240
*Added  tag to http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P40002792
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716222056/http://www.thebayareaintellect.com/ to http://www.thebayareaintellect.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119225237/http://qumran.com/wesley_clark.htm to http://qumran.com/wesley_clark.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104175533/http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html to http://www.dojgov.net/Waco01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified