Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wesley Clark

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Staxringold (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 18 February 2007 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wesley Clark

Very, very old previous FAC

I have worked this article up quite a bit, turning this near sourceless, referenceless, list happy article into what you see today. Heavily sourced (as I think a modern political figure requires) and including notable controversies involving him (Mladic, Chinese embassy, Iraq in 2004, FTL travel) so it is not a "GO GO CLARK!" biased article. It went almost untouched through a PR, is newly minted as a good article, and I feel is up to FA quality. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In the "Early life and education", there is a mention of a Ku Klux Klan member, Sam Bower, who was of particular importance to Clark's ancestry shielding ("especially from members such as Sam Bower"), but it is a red link. If he was so special, than can you please add that article or, at least, elaborate on why he was so important? Slof 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the verge of supporting, few things:
  • Could you consistently use "though" or "although" please (I think the latter is better).
  • The first two paragraphs after the lead could perhaps be ordered better. The second paragraph seems to treat his mother and father's name as new information, yet we got that (in at least implied form) from the first paragraph. Just struck me as odd.
  • He was promoted to captain and took his first... - took his first what? Or is this a phrase which I'm unfamiliar with?
  • Wikilink the accessdates for date preferences to work.
  • Do a search through the article for the word "also" and remove where redundant.

My nitpicking aside, this is a quality article. Trebor 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets the criteria in my eyes: well-written, comprehensive (boy is it) and referenced. Trebor 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A tremendous improvement — great job, Staxringold! The only reservation I have is that it still comes across as making it seem Clark "walked on water". Contentious issues such as problems with his command of the NTC are not mentioned (and may be difficult to find). In particular, the reasons why he was passed over for further advancement after Kosovo — a most unusual occurrence — were based on certain aspects of his performance there, yet no reason for it was given in the article. I know this was addressed in online sources at the time, so you might want to do some more research on this. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue was not addressed however. Individual small issues with his earlier commands are far too buried and far too non-notable to be worth inclusion, IMO, and the reason he was passed over after Kosovo is pure speculation. What is included is the predominant speculation, that his percieved connections to Clinton that let him somehow "cut out the middle man" made him no friends there (the Pentagon, DoD, etc), but there is no sourceable reason he was passed over. The best analogy I can think of would be to say this is like holding up an FAC of God because there is no sourced statement showing his proof. The evidence/sources simply don't exist because the statements have never been made outright. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, the reason he was passed over had nothing to do with his relationship with Clinton. I'll try to find some time this weekend to see if I can find anything sourceable. In any case, I'm not holding up a FAC, just making a comment. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose — Although a most creditable job, I don't believe the article is quite yet ready for FA in its current state with regard to two FA criteria:
  • 1. (b) The article does not address at least four major controversies in the subject’s career:
A) his role in the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas;
B) his purported insubordination while serving as the NATO commander during ‘Operation Allied Force’;
C) his adversarial relations with allied civilian government and military leaders; and
D) the refusal of British Lt. Gen. Sir Michael Jackson to follow a direct order from him on the grounds “I'm not going to start the third world war for you.”
A quick search on the internet readily turns up material on these subjects. It’s quite surprising that such notable issues are absent from this otherwise well-researched article. (Curiously, the Waco siege article doesn’t mention Clark either.)
  • 1. (d) The article relies fairly heavily on a small range of partisan sources, including autobiographical material and political action group sites (e.g., WesPAC, Securing America, Choose Our President 2008, Grassroots Enterprises, etc.). Much of the material they are used to support can be cited from independent, non-partisan sources, which — along with more reliance on critical and academic sources — would help the article appear less POV and more independently corroborated. As WP:RS notes:

    "Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination."

    With respect to the controversies identified above, item ‘A’ received extensive, worldwide coverage, and the other three were better covered in the European press than domestically, although the issues were more addressed domestically in more specialized defense, political, and international affairs publications. Naturally, both the claimants’ assertions and Clark’s response to same should be presented (with the former drawn from sources not partisan to Clark).
  • On a minor note, the first footnote (#3) sourced to Felix should contain full citation information. (It would also help if sources other than Clark's and Felix's were added to the "Sources" section, and "External links" held more than political campaign links.)

—Askari Mark (Talk) 04:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I'll go through these:
  • 1bA. Are you joking? You mention 1 (d) about reliable sources then bring up the crap WorldNetDaily spews about Clark being a mass murderer? You talk about 'partisan' sources, then launch into this conspiracy theory? I'm more than happy to include serious controversies against Clark, find me one source that isn't a "every evil in the world can be found in WACO" site, a "Clark is a war criminal because we held a mock court and said so", or just a virulent conservative rumor mill like WorldNetDaily and we'll talk. Until then this is just a silly claim to be included.
  • 1bB. Already in there, mentions repeatedly his bad relationships with command.
  • 1bC. Again, already in there.
  • 1bD. This is true, this is a famous quote and I'll stick it in.
  • 1d. Just because the sources are used doesn't mean they are evil. The WesPAC/Securing America sources are used almost exclusively for information on his positions or linked to files hosted on the site. The autobiography is used for biographical information, again I don't see how this is biased. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1bA. Who said anything about WND? How about the Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram or national papers? Having lived in the Metroplex during that time, I can assure you that the issue was all over the news then. He did have a formal role — in an advisorial capacity — which remains unremarked on in this article. That is not contentious. What is contentious is whether he overstepped his authority and ordered the controversial assault on the compound. If he had, one would have expected his career to have ended then and there. Obviously it didn't, so I'm sure a little searching will turn up documentation of that finding.
  • 1bB. While the article makes several mentions of his "bad relationships with command", it skirts around explaining reasons for this other than Cohen's allusion to his purported ability to "circumvent the Pentagon in promoting his strategic ideas". However, this does not amount to "insubordination", and yet there were reports in the media that he had been cautioned at least once that he was on the verge of this. Note that I am not saying it's true, but that it was one of the controversies that arose during his conduct of the campaign against Yugolsavia.
  • 1bC/D. No, the article totally ignores his relationship problems with allied officers who were his subordinates, as well as allied diplomats, during the execution of the war. The article currently only addresses a major altercation with a US ambassador over negotiating with Milosevic pre-hostilities. In fact, the incident with Jackson was serious enough that his own government notified Clinton that it was standing behind Sir Jackson's position. The fallout over this incident may very well have been the final nail in the coffin for his prospects for promotion to Vice Chief, according to what I read about it afterwards.
  • 1d. Who said they were evil? The problem I have with it is they are so heavily relied on — with minimal use of neutral (or right-wing) sources — that they expose the article to accusations of POV. I would say the same thing if they mostly relied on a few sources like WND and GOP campaign material. While websites supporting his campaign may certainly be good starting places for culling a lot of basic material from, much of the material is of widespread availability and other sources can easily be found (e.g., his DoD bio).
Please don't take these as anything other than constructive criticisms. I think you have done an excellent job with developing this article and I applaud your efforts to minimize your partisanship, and I hope to see you achieve FA status with it. However, given that you are the major editorial dynamic behind this article and you make clear on your User page that you are a Clark activist, better inclusion of the controversies Clark has faced in his career and more neutral sourcing will go far toward countering any accusations by those who are partisan opponents of a conflict of interest.
Do not think that giving fair space to these controversies demean the man. No one rises to the level of his accomplishments without either generating or becoming embroiled in controversies. The fact that he has survived them proves his mettle, and it goes far more toward demonstrating whether he has been "tried and tested" as a leader than all of his polished pieces of metal. His political wounds should be honored just as much as his combat wounds.
  • Oppose. The article is polished and has a lot of information but it reads largely like a puff piece. The lead is especially unbalanced - overemphasizing Clark's honours and education while giving no room at all to criticism of him. Yet, criticism of the general is fairly easy to find - the fourth Google hit for his name yields a collection of critical articles which links to another collection of critical articles Haukur 12:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will add a "Criticism" section to the article, to include the variety of criticism he faced in the 2004 campaign. Would this, assuming it was comprehensive enough, be a satisfactory solution for you guys? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this has definitely helped, and I appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. I'm not sure what the right approach to the criticism is, though, perhaps it would be better to have interspersed in other sections. I still think the lead should be expanded and rewritten a bit, it should tell me why I should care about this guy. Take the lead at Rudolf Vrba which I think does this fairly well. I'll give the article another read over the weekend and potentially withdraw my opposition. Haukur 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I see with interspersing it is the article would be rather an odd read to go from the one to the other. As for the lead, I'm happy to rewrite/expand as per the Vrba article, I just don't want the lead to be too crazy long. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unbalanced. And Jimbo himself said that "criticism" should be woven throughout the article. My own opinion is that one person's criticism is another person's fact, so relegating "criticism" to one section is POV - weave positive and negative commentary throughout, to form a balanced whole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New set of comments Hi everyone! I put in the above line to make it clear where I tried to rework the article. I've melded the criticism into the article, as requested by SandyGeorgia, and included a variety of allegations against Clark throughout (such as going into more depth on the Pristina incident, expanding theories on his retirement, including Waco allegations). Could I get some new comments from you three (and obviously any new voters) if you think the article is now up to snuff and if not what needs to be done? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets all four main categories established, namely: being well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable; is formatted properly; has appropriate illustration; and has a fitting length. Moreover: it has ample and reputable references, and is overall quite easy on the eye (i.e., well-written). --Nv1962 09:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC) User's first, and to this point only, edit. Trebor 09:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for a second look, still a strong oppose on 1a, 1b, 1d, and 2; glad you decided to meld "criticism" (oft-misused term, depending on one's POV).

  • I changed your appendices to agree with WP:GTL and updated your referencing mechanism.
  • I'm not clear on the formatting of your references; which style is that? It seems very inconsistent - sometimes author first, sometimes not, not a style I recognize. See WP:CITE. Also many of the websources aren't expanded to include full biblio info in a consistent style - example: Daily Kos 2008 straw poll. Retrieved January 26, 2007. Another example - Clark's Announcement speech in Little Rock on September 17, 2003. Publisher, date, author available on that? Is Sept 17 the pub date or the retrieval date?
  • The refs are in the style approved in multiple FAs I've written before of [stuff], by [author] for [source] on [date written if available]. Retrieved [retrieval date]. I'll fix the ones you noted, LMK if you see others and I'll touch them up. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - He had a distinguished career in the Army - starting through the article, considering some of the controversy, wondering if "distinguished" is POV or supported by reliable sources?
  • redundant prose (over the course of is usually redundant - you might want to comb through your text with redundancy in mind, see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a - I am only giving some examples: receiving many military decorations over the course of his career along with several honorary knighthoods and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
  • receiving military decorations, knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
  • Is a military Master's degree different than a regular Master's? sounds redundant ... with a military Masters degree in military science.
  • WP:WTA ... however both he and the Department of Defense have said otherwise.
  • Finding prose problems - copyedit by fresh eyes needed: Clark's father, Benjamin J. Kanne, had graduated from the Chicago-Kent College of Law and served in the US Naval Reserve as an ensign during World War I although was never assigned to a combat mission. (Potential lack of closeness?) ... and a potential lack of closeness with the Kanne family as an outsider to their religion
  • "He" refers back to ??? "and" connection not working here, similar throughout ... He was raised assuming Viktor had always been his father and Viktor's adoption of Wesley became official when Wesley was 16, which led him to take his new father's name and become Wesley Kanne Clark. Try something like: Viktor's adoption of Wesley—and Wesley's name change to Wesley Kanne Clark—became official when Wesley was 16; he was raised as if Viktor had always been his father. (How could he "assume" Viktor was his father, if he knew he was adopted?) I'm having a hard time with this prose throughout.
  • The speech graduated? Clark has said an important influence on his view of the military came from Douglas MacArthur's famous "Duty, honor, country" speech to the class of 1962, which graduated months before Clark entered West Point.
  • Problems with and connections throughout article: As valedictorian Clark was first to choose which career field of the Army he would serve in and he selected armor.
  • What is this "unexpectedly"? After two years of unexpectedly not making the list to rise from battalion commander to brigade commander,
  • POV section heading: Fort Hood and allegations of connections to the Waco Siege could be changed to Fort Hood and Waco Siege
  • Weasly sentence: Although Clark was awarded for his command at Fort Hood some have made allegations that Clark was, to some degree, involved in the Waco Siege.
  • More weasles - who are these groups? Some groups note that Clark's second-in-command at the time, future General Peter Schoomaker, met with Texas governor Anne Richards and then-Attorney General, which may establish a connection between Clark's command and those known to be involved with the planning of the siege.
  • WP:LENGTH - 45KB of prose is too much, noticed much that could be cut, for example, from Kosovo War.
  • Such as what though? I realize it's long, but what can you cut from the Kosovo War section (to use your example)? You've got an intro paragraph on the war's origins and Clark's involvement, then the opening of the bombing campaign and Clark getting snubbed by command, his missteps in briefings, bombing the Chinese embassy, ending the campaign, then Milosovic forced from power and Clark at the trial. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange sentence: Clark actually had a conversation with Condoleezza Rice, Bush's campaign manager and future National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
  • Redundancy: Clark found such an administration unsettling, as he had been selected for the SACEUR position to begin with because he believed more in the interventionist policies of the Clinton Administration.

From bouncing around in the text, these are only examples - the prose does not yet attain 1a. I suggest a thorough workover by a fresh set of eyes to attain a professional, brilliant level of prose. I stopped reading, so haven't yet determined if the unbalance has been corrected. Presumably you will have at minimum covered the issues raised in numerous reliable sources like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well thank you for bouncing around! This is the kind of FAC I love, when people make specific comments I can fix. The more general statement that "someone" with fresh eyes should look over it is saddening though. Look at the FAC. It was sitting there for weeks and got basically no comments (outside of Tony1's auto-generated comments that help basically nothing). Please give specific comments and I'll fix em. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still objecting. Back for a third look; printed the article for a thorough read of all changes. Prose size of 46KB and 20 printed pages is too long; pls try to work some text into daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly second that! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on excessive fair use images:
  1. Image:Wesley Clark prez medal of freedom.jpg, fair use not justified, we know from the references listed that he got a medal, we don't need the pic to understand that.
  2. Image:Wesley clark 2004 rtv.jpg, who actually owns the copyright to this image? Once again it doesn't add to the text in a meaningful way.
  3. Image:Clark Official NATO Portrait.jpg, fair use not justified, there are heaps of free images showing what he looks like - and that is about all this image is doing in the article; we know from the text and its refs that he was in NATO, we don't need the pic for proof.
  4. Image:951121 dayton.jpg, he's not in the picture, this one is just for decoration; there is no way you can justify it's inclusion here.
  5. Image:Mladic Wesley Clark.jpg who owns the copyright?
  6. Image:5oktobar slika2.JPG tagged for copyright issues on the Serbian WP; regardless it doesn't add anything here that we don't already get from the text.
--Peta 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the image micromanagment begins...
1. I'll add a justification, but I don't see how you can suggest that a low-res, widely distributed image of Clark getting the medal to generally display the awards section isn't fair use.
2. How can you have a campaign setion without an image of him on the campaign trail? And it does say, it's from his campaign.
Clearly fails FUC 8; also the owner of the copyright is not clear from the statement that it :comes from his campaign"; why not ask them for a royalty free image?--Peta 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Now this image has already been through the crucible. It's directly said by NATO itself to be an ok use, and directly approved by a Wikipedia admin through the accepted process.
I disagree, the image adds nothing that the text doesn't already convey; FUC 8 again. --Peta 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: The only reason that image was not deleted is because I chose to recuse myself from doing so (since I posted the rfu notice) and because another anti-copyright admin didn't happen to drop in. I thought the rationale to keep was rather weak, and the approval of one admin doesn't have the authority to end a debate. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then tell me this. What is a fair use image. Seriously, what is it? This is a non-reproducible (Clark has retired from the military) publically released photo that the copyright holder has specifically stated is fair use that exemplifies his SACEUR command, which dominates roughly a third of the article. How can an image be more fair use than that? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Removed
5. Removed as I couldn't find the photographer in LexisNexis archives.
6. Removed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extraneous Fair use images mean that the article fails to meet FUC 3.--Peta 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the "fair use" issue, I have to disagree with some of Peta's rationales. First, there is no requirement that images "add something" to the text not already present in it; it is entirely proper to use images for illustrative and documentary purposes. Second, it is not necessary that the subject be included in every image. A better image in the case of Image:951121 dayton.jpg, though, might be one that shows him addressing the audience there or greeting supporters. Third, the NATO photo is a public-release photo and not a "fair use" image at all. As for the "fair use" photos themselves, I see no problem in leaving them in the article pending finding more suitable replacements. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really should read WP:FUC; and this there is a Foundatin directive that will lead to the reduction of all unnecessary fair use images. FAs should lead this process. Your argument that a publicity photo is not fair use displays a lack of copyright understanding.--Peta 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Peta, I have read and am familiar with WP:FUC. I am certain that you are equally familiar with its assertion that fair use images "of acceptable quality" may be used to "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". I fully concur with the policy that one should "Always use a more free alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." Where we differ in interpretation is that I believe the burden of proof that there actually is "[a] free equivalent [that] is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" belongs to the person making that assertion, not the editor who has yet to find one. (Of course, if the asserter finds one, they're obliged to go right ahead and replace the fair use one.)
As for the notice to administrators of the impending policy change, no, I had not seen it, so I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Since it has not yet been officially promulgated — the letter only communicates (to administrators, of which I am not one) the rationale for impending policy change — and incorporated into WP:FUC, and the fact that the discussion on the Admin Noticeboard shows a lot of confusion over how it is to be implemented, I don't believe it is fair to impose it upon any article, FA candidate or not, at this time. In short, it is fair to publish your comments as a "heads up", but not to issue an "oppose" (at this time) based upon it. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted a couple of the images mentioned above. They were from AP, a commercial content provider whose business includes licensing photographs to websites to illustrate news events. With the few exceptions where we need to discuss the photograph itself, images from commercial content providers cannot be published here. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information about this. Image:Wesley clark 2004 rtv.jpg does not have copyright holder information. For all we know this is another news agency photograph that Clark licensed. I've tagged it as lacking proper sourcing information. The claim that the NATO photograph isn't replaceable seems to be based on a misunderstanding of when we claim Wikipedia:Fair use. The point is not to claim "We will never get a photograph of him in this uniform, so therefore it is fair use" -- the image is serving as decoration for the statement we're making "He served in NATO" -- the reader wouldn't come away from this article with less understanding without it. It can be replaced by text, not by an near-identicle hypothetical free photo. As an aside, this person is a United States military and political figure. It's hard to imagine an article about a living person that is more easy to illustrate using free content. Jkelly 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but the debate over the NATO image is silly. They sent a specific email about that specific photo that SPECIFICALLY STATED we should feel free to use it. The suggestion that that use is not fair use means no image can ever be fair use as you cannot possibly be given more justification than that without the image just being free. As for the others, I've removed the one you tagged but left in and am happy to get the article up to snuff with image requirements. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None taken. Maybe you can help us out here. If you were to finish the sentence "It is vitally important that we make an exception to our free content principles in order to have this image in the article because..." how would you finish it? Keep in mind that we speedy delete "permission for Wikipedia-only"/"noncommercial only" images on sight, and only use them if they meet Wikipedia:Fair use criteria regardless. Jkelly 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because no other image displays him officially in command of NATO. The lead image is him as a 4-star general, sure, but a clearly American portrait. And there are numerous images of him speaking to forces during his SACEUR term, sure, but again they are not identifiably Clark-in-NATO. The image exemplifies his command and the image is the epitomy of fair use as the copyright holder has specifically said the use is fair. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wesley_Clark&oldid=109088326"