Talk:Mark W. Clark

message: Actually the book I got the quote from was Hometown Heros: Dubuque Remembers WW II.  I got it mixed up with a similar book the Dubuque Telegraph Herald published that had Our Country Called in its title that delt with Korean and Vietnam Veterans.
:I removed this quote, as the personal opinions of a single person who served under Clark, while colorful, are not terribly relevant and are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  They might be re-inserted if given some context and support with additional material about the attitudes of the men who Clark commanded, but as presented they stuck out like a sore thumb. unfutz 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, even with the citation it could be misleading. I am no fan of Clark's but surely the article needs to recognize that promotions were quite rare in the inter-war period, when the Army was tiny. When growth happened, it was fast, and everyone got promoted rapidly. Eisenhower was a LTC in 1939 if I'm not mistaken. 
DMorpheus (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Nope. Marshall's mother was Laura Bradford Marshall. Refer George C. Marshall. Wallie (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cousin of George C. Marshall 

message: The 5th sentence in the opening in this article seems incomplete to me:
*"One legacy of the "Clark task force", which he headed from 1953-55 to recommend on all Federal intelligence activities, is coining the term Intelligence Community."
Can somebody fix this to what it was they intended to say? 143.120.99.10 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is complete and says what it intends to say.  I cant fix it, if you dont say what part of the sentence is unclear to you. I added a ref, although this is not needed in the lede.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening: 5th Sentence 

message: Please review and respond here:
:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_WWII_--_ww2today.com_.3F
--David Tornheim (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice -- post on reliability of ww2today 

message: 1) The footnote supporting this title is a dead link.
2) In the article Battle_of_Monte_Cassino, in the section [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#Clark_captures_Rome_but_fails_to_trap_German_Tenth_Army ],
contains the following passage regarding "Lieutenant General Clark, commanding the American Fifth Army":
"However, General Alexander, C-in-C of the AAI, had clearly laid down the Army boundaries before the battle and Rome was allocated to the Fifth Army."
3) I am just a neophyte to WWII history, but unless I am mistaken, a superficial reading of my point (2) would indicate Clark was following Alexander's orders.
4) So why does the third paragraph of Mark Clark's article state the opposite (see below), that Clark ignored Alexanders orders?
"Clark has been heavily criticized for ignoring the orders of his superior officer, British General Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander, and allowing the German 10th Army to slip away, in his drive to take Rome, the capital of Italy, a strategically unimportant city." SalineBrain (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: he caused deaths of GIs by his inaction/stupidty and this is not discussed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clark... criticized for ignoring the orders of ... Alexander, allowing the German 10th Army to slip away, in his drive to take Rome... 

message: The "External links" section is bloated and needs trimming. Some content may be able to be integrated into the article but 10 links is not necessary.  --  Otr500 (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Regarding the table, I am wondering if it is missing additional promotions for the Regular Army. Clark served as Commanding General, US Forces Austria and as Commander in Chief of United Nations Command (both requiring a promotion to four star I believe) after post-war demobilization in 1946. From what I understand reviewing the Army of the United States page, Clark should have reverted back to his last Regular Army rank of Brigadier General and then been promoted from within the Regular Army to assume those roles. Correct me if I am wrong; I don't have the greatest grasp on how AUS ranks worked after the war. 
FrostyMuppets (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also curious how Clark was demoted on September 14, 1943? It says he went from a 3 star general to a 1 star general, and then from there to a 4 star general? Singdeep (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Army of the United States was a separate component of the Army, so officers generally had two separate ranks - their normal rank and their wartime rank. Clark was not demoted; had the United States not been at war, he would have been a Brigadier General (one star), but he was promoted from Lieutenant General to General concurrently in the AUS component. The table can be confusing because it isn't showing a linear path; there are promotions going on from two separate areas of the Army. His four stars should have gone away after the end of the war and then he should have been promoted again in the Regular Army to assume the roles he took post-war. I don't think the table reflects that.   FrostyMuppets (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Rank Correction