This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on January 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
My reference books generally use the historical phrase "War Hawk" as two words, both capitalized. A google search of "War Hawk" and "War of 1812" gets about twice as many hits as "Warhawk" and "War of 1812". Plus, following the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), the singular should be used, rather than the current plural. --Kevin Myers 01:28, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the move to two words. Personally, I think the plural convention ought to be revised. Articles about a group of people should be in the plural, I think. But who am I to argue? johnk 01:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Move as proposed. --A D Monroe III 02:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Both of these men attended West Junior High in Lawrence and would become giants on the American political landscape for decades." This appeared in reference to Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. There is no state, which is initially why I decided to remove it. A quick Google search seems to suggest Lawrence, Kansas, but coincidentally the mascot of West Junior High is the Warhawk. Was this the mascot when they attended, thus the term? Or was the mascot named after these two graduates? The former seems more likely to me, but altogether I think this needs more research and a reference before it's put back in. beverson17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of my research for the reversion, I now think neither of these is likely, and instead possibly more vandalism. beverson17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke, a staunch opponent of entry into the war. There was therefore never any "official" roster of War Hawks; as historian Donald Hickey notes, "Scholars differ over who (if anyone) ought to be classified as a War Hawk." A few historians consider the reality of the War Hawks to be a myth—a product of the political rhetoric of the era.[1]" I don't know how to fix the first sentence, since I don't know what it was supposed to say. In the context of the rest of the (short) article, the rest of the paragraph seems confusing. I don't doubt there could be debate on who, if anyone, was considered a War Hawk, but I think more references are needed. Also, this single reference wasn't displaying correctly, and I couldn't figure out why. beverson17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some review of the revision history, the original actually looks really good. I will be restoring some of the copy from that version and also trying to fix the reference listing (sorry, I'm still new at some of this). Please raise any objections here, but seeing none, I'm just going for it. beverson17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Donald Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1989), p. 334n.8.
Not exactly sure what happened here, but a really decent original article, along with some good edits, were all removed and eventually replaced with the version I found today (see history, last edit before my first, dated 18 December). It appears that at least some of this was due to fighting vandalism. Anyway, I already activated the revert; please post objections here.
Note:
In reading this entry, it lists George Washington of Virginia as a WarHawk, along with Clay and Calhoun . . . since this term is used around the War of 1812, and Washington died in 1797, Washington should not be listed. At least in my opinion . . . signed a High School U.S. History Teacher. 65.42.21.21419:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
War hawk → Hawk (foreign policy) – Common modern and dictionary usage, per WP:COMMONNAME. Although the term first appeared as "war hawk" in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in 1798, as this source indicates, the terms "hawk" and "dove" (no "war") became common in foreign policy discourse in the 1960s. Cumulatively there are far more sources that use the term "hawk" in this context than those that use the term "war hawk." R2 (bleep) 17:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting.qedk (t桜c)19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reason is that "war hawk" appears to be a non-neutral pejorative term in modern usage. See the discussion below and sources below the flip. R2 (bleep) 17:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's plenty of evidence that's readily available. For instance, think of someone who's well known as a foreign policy hawk (or war hawk), put their name plus "hawk" into Google News, and look through the reliable sources you find. I did this for John R. Bolton. Of the 10 reliable sources I looked at that described Bolton as a hawk or a war hawk in their own voice (excluding quotes of others), 9 out 10 called him a "hawk" (no "war"). The 10th used the term "war hawk" in the headline, but not in the body. R2 (bleep) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same 9-1 split for John McCain. I excluded references describing him as a "deficit hawk" or a "climate hawk." (And of course the stories about hawks in the McCains' back yerd.) R2 (bleep) 21:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is a term which has shorted overtime. When we say someone is a "hawk" or "hawkish" it is simply understood that we are saying they are inclined to war, not that they have a hawkish nose or hawkish feather colouring. The way in which they are "hawkish" is in their war like posture. The fact that it is often shortened or said in reference to "foreign policy" does not change the fact that the term is about taking an aggressive, pro-conflict/war position.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't recall ever seeing "war hawk" in a headline or article text in various publications--just "hawk," when referring to someone's attitude about foreign or military policy. And, when I first saw this article, the title struck me as faintly quaint. I'll therefore !vote for plain (but parenthecized) "Hawk (foreign policy)". DonFB (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In this context, the evidence shows "hawk" to be the most common term, and the base of numerous derivatives like war hawk, policy hawk, Iran hawk, etc. One can certainly make a list of examples of any of these forms, but it's more useful to examine all the results for a search on a notable individual (I too picked John Bolton) to see how the term and all its variants are commonly applied — and scanning the list makes a pretty clear case for hawk. ╠╣uw[talk]11:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Referring to a person as a "foreign policy" hawk appears to be a bit of a WP:EUPHEMISM. When someone talks about someone being hawkish in a foreign policy context they are saying that person is favouring war, military intervention, or a war like posture. It seems the term started as war hawk. It is fine to note, aka foreign policy hawk in the lede, but I don't think we should be changing the article name. -- Also note there is also a somewhat similar discussion currently happening here about whether John R. Bolton in particular is a war hawk.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If for no other reason "hawkish" is a word, "war hawkish" I have never heard (and in fact the only times I have seen War Hawk was Romulan)>Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the shortform appears to be more common in recent history and the proposed disambiguator gives context more clearly. There is nothing natural about a disambiguator which isn't currently generally understood or used (I personally have never come across the long form in the UK, except iro specific conflicts eg Vietnam war hawk). Also endorse Slatersteven's point that the adjective is lost with the long form. The 'long form' can be covered as being the original and alternative form of the term. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Agreed. The current title is a good use of natural disambiguation, even if we agree "hawk" is the common name. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common name. Even if it is derogatory, it is the common name. And note they are hawks on war, not on foreign policy. There can be hawks on trade policy as well. TFD (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Seems to be a question of WP:COMMONNAMEvsWP:NATURAL. Both appear WP:RECOGNIZABLE, practically every RS appears to regularly use the term "hawk" on its own without qualification or explanation. However I'm dubious about the suggestion that this term refers solely to people supporting military actions, it is also commonly used to describe those backing sanctions and the like. That pushed me into a weak support; war hawk artificially limits the scope of the article. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Proposed rename would broaden the topic. If you want to address the more general usages, such as in international relations - diplomatic, economic - create a new article. Shenme (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Natural. Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. "War hawk" is the standard term. "Hawk" is ambiguous and is a shortening of of the unambiguous "war hawk'. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm a fan of natural disambiguation, but spelling this out as "war hawk" is rare. Hawks & Doves unadorned is the common usage, so Wikipedia should reflect that, even if it requires parenthetical disambiguation. SnowFire (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — this article should remain titled War Hawk because this is how the term was originally coined. It's true that today, the term "Hawk" is often used instead, but this is a shorthand reference to the original and full term. -Darouet (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This citation is particularly apt because the basis for the claim that Carnahan referred to Wayne as a "war hawk" is a Carnahan quote that uses just hawk: "The Duke dodged service during WWII but was still a huge hawk." This clearly demonstrates that "hawk" and "war hawk" are synonyms in common usage in reliable sources like the Mercury News.
Two unreliable sources and two headlines. But listen. No one is saying that the word "war hawk" is never used. Just that it's used much less often than "hawk." R2 (bleep) 23:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For determining how commonly used a given term is I think sources like these are generally very useful. Plus I just added usage from the NY Times and LA Times. On top of BBC and Mother Jones. What we're talking about is whether the usage of "war hawk" is sufficient to qualify as natural disambiguation of "hawk", which is generally preferable to parenthetic disambiguation. I think the links above clearly demonstrate it is. --В²C☎00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus B2C, you're not even reading what you post. The LA Times source is about something completely different. The NY Times source is a letter to the editor. Take a deep breath and calm down. R2 (bleep) 00:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A column headline and a borderline piece from the Miami New Times. Can you please stop? I get it. We agree that there are sources out there that use "war hawk." Again, not in dispute. R2 (bleep) 00:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sloppy. Sorry. My bad. Fixed. Added more too. This is not an "obscure made-up" name for this topic. "War hawk" is an alternative commonly used term for this topic, though not used as commonly as "hawk". This is quintessential WP:NATURALDIS. . --В²C☎00:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man? You mean, "obscure made-up name"? I'm not saying that's your argument. To the contrary. That's from relevant guidance in NATURALDIS: Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. So, yeah, you haven't argued that "war hawk" is obscure or made-up, and that's my point: you have not put forth any policy basis to prefer the proposed parenthetic disambiguation over the perfectly natural disambiguation of the current title. This whole section is about refuting the support claim that the current title is no longer commonly used to refer to this topic. So I think WP:TITLECHANGES applies here too: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Where's the good reason? --В²C☎16:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the current title is a non-neutral pejorative in modern usage. If you go through the secondary sources that B2C laid out, they are all from unreliable anti-war sources, such as the letter to the New York Times from Noam Chomsky; borderline reliable anti-war sources such as the Miami New Times piece; or headlines only, arguably clickbait. On the other hand, the much more modern common usage of "hawk" comes from across the pro- and anti-war spectrum and appears frequently in much more mainstream outlets such as CNN, Politico, etc. without any pejorative connotations. I'm sure eventually we could find a few reliable, non-anti-war modern sources that use "war hawk" in a non-pejorative manner, but they seem few and far between. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary references are pejorative? The dictionaries??? Dude, you're really reaching now. Out on a limb indeed. And it just snapped. --В²C☎18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionaries reflect common modern usage, and, when a term is chiefly used pejoratively, they usually note that accordingly. See the last reference and note I just added from the Mercury News. --В²C☎19:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some reliable sources expressly stating that "war hawk" is "pejorative," "derogatory," or an "epithet":
Okay, let's look at Berggren: “War Hawks” is a term used in the United States to identify those most eager for preparing the country for war and for the country to take more aggressive actions, including the use of force, in a foreign policy situation. The term may refer to members within a president’s administration, to members of Congress, or to segments of the American public. Since at least the early 1790s, it has been a political epithet used against those considered “too warlike.” So what? All of this applies to "hawk" equally, including that "it has been a political epithet used against those considered 'too warlike'." --В²C☎21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the sources don't say anything about "hawk" being similarly derogatory, and "hawk" frequently shows up in neutral sources, while "war hawk" doesn't. Frankly I'm not interested in arguing about this any further. R2 (bleep) 21:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahrtoodeetoo, can you explain why you posted a notification (which was properly formed) at every educational institution that uses the term "Warhawks" as there athletic team name? "Wahawk" isn't under discussion here and the outcome of this discussion will not effect the articles notified in any way. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. By that logic, every high school that calls itself the Thunderbirds should be notified of every RfC on Ford Thunderbird. I don't posses a college degree in logic or philosophy, but perhaps one of our more learned colleagues can tell you what particular kind of logic error that is. False equivalence, perhaps? IMO, you're WP:CANVASSING, and not particularly effectively. You're asking for this discussion to be mired down in garbage. IMO, you should remove those notifications. John from Idegon (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline and disagree with your assessment that I was canvassing. The Thunderbird analogy isn't appropriate. This discussion is about disambiguation, so the pages against which the page is being disambiguated may have very valid reasons to participate. Therefore, if there was a proposal to change Ford Thunderbird to, say, Thunderbird (car) then it would be perfectly appropriate to notify editors of the article about Ford High School if their mascot was the Ford Thunderbirds. Please try harder to assume good faith. R2 (bleep) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert you per WP:TPO. Even if this was inappropriiate canvassing, which it was not, you do not have the right to remove it. If you guys would like to take this further let's discuss it at my user talk. R2 (bleep) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahrtoodeetoo, John from Idegon, and BilCat: I agree with others here, when you start adding notifications to non-relevant talk pages such as amateur hockey teams and high schools] that just happen to use "War Hawk" as a team nickname, you are really reaching. This is a blatant WP:CANVAS violation per WP:APPNOTE's "The talk page of one or more directly related articles". Names of teams are not directly related to this move discussion and have no bearing on your proposal nor would they be affected by any outcome of said proposal. Yosemiter (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my notifications. Please take conduct disputes to my user talk or the appropriate conduct-related forum. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
