Talk:John Bolton

message: Although Bolton served in the United States Military during the Vietnam War era, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he served overseas during the war. Accordingly, :Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War was removed from the article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam War service

message: You prefer left-wing sources over right-wing sources? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There are three problems with the article:
* (1) A lot of the content is self-sourced to op-eds, speeches and interviews by Bolton.
* (2) A lot of text is unnecessarily in-the-weeds and can be summarized more concisely. For example, the nomination process in the 'Ambassador to the United Nations' section is way too detailed. It could easily be summarized more concisely. For example, an entire sub-section is devoted to a false statement during his Ambassador to the UN nomination whereas a simple 1-2 sentences in the right place might do instead.
* (3) There is a sizable academic literature about Bolton, but it's not used in this article. We should use more of this literature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a common problem in articles that have been built using news reports. Every time someone is in the news, more information is added. In contrast, articles about historical figures are based on biographies. You are free to re-write the article using updated sources. TFD (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the article 

message: An IP number keeps adding "neo-fascist" without RS support. BLP vio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve reported this IP at BLP and Edit warring noticeboards and have requested semi-protection as well. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neo-fascist" vandalism 

message: * Version B. "Widely characterized as a war hawk" is better than "Bolton has been called a "war hawk". The latter sounds like it's some insult by a few critics when it is instead a fairly standard RS description of Bolton. The immediate results on Google:
:* BBC News: "war hawk" (Source struck for deceptive claim)
:* Politico: "war hawk" (Source struck for deceptive claim)
:* BBC News: "a hawkish conservative"
:* AP: "his hawkish approach"
:* Reuters: "Bolton’s hawkish focus"
:* NBC News: "John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser, and those in his hawkish camp"
:* NY Times: "Trump’s hawkish national security adviser, John R. Bolton"
:* FT: "Bolton's hawkish public positions"
:* The Guardian: "A hawk among hawks"
:* Foreign Policy: "the hawkish national security advisor"
:* CNN: "a hawkish neoconservative"
:* Bloomberg: "Trump is taking a sharply hawkish foreign-policy turn with the appointment of John Bolton as national security adviser."
:* CBC: "the hawkish former U.S. diplomat" 
: This is clearly a standard RS description of Bolton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would not mind using the term "hawk" (it means the same thing). So long as we can say "widely characterized as a hawk". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine and well supported by reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your proposal to making this article clearer is saying that he is "widely characterized as a bird" with no other indication about the meaning of the term? PraiseVivec (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Really? I haven't found any. Could you provide a link? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Supporting "war hawk" over "hawk" because they're synonymous according to the war hawk article, but "war hawk" makes it more clear that we're not just talking about his large, hook-shaped nose. Safrolic (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Switching to support for "foreign policy hawk", per R2. I still think the general sentence is appropriate, and the work "hawk" does need to be more specific, but "war hawk" isn't the best way to phrase it. Safrolic (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. What could go wrong? Slithytoad (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. But if, for the sake of argument, your point is accurate, then we should be fine using the term employed by all of the RS sources. Indeed, what is the reason for using a version of the term that is different from that used by every reliable source that I have checked, unless it is to make a political point?  -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: This doesn't make sense- original usage, two centuries ago, is not the same thing as primary usage. This term is widely used today to refer to modern politicians. Safrolic (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster says, "war hawk, a person who clamors for war especially : a jingoistic American favoring war with Britain around 1812." Every style book recommends that writers follow dictionaries rather than attempt to determine usage for themselves. Slithytoad (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster's definition page for war hawk actually uses Bolton for both its "recent examples". Just saying. Safrolic (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they were missing a picture of Henry Clay. (-: I notice that the page includes this disclaimer: "These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources." The quote you're referring to also calls Bolton a madman. This is NPOV? Slithytoad (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

text: * Ad Orientam says he supports "Widely described as a "hawk"". Do you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Upon further reflection, I'll agree that Bolton's positions have been described as "hawkish" and so I would agree with Ad Orientem there. This seems to be the growing consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that now.  I am not sure that really changes the fact that BBC called him a war hawk.  There is a difference between using the article to say "he is a war hawk" and using it to say "the BBC called him a war hawk".  Putting it in a headline still seems to be to be calling him a war hawk.  Other folks who have said it are Edward Markey , Deutsche Welle , Ali Velshi , and Ryan Bort writing for the Rolling Stone .  The reason I raised those sources was to say we should avoid WP:WEASEL by just saying who has called him that.  I am sure there are others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was concurred with here, I want to point out that I've since updated that !vote. I prefer "foreign policy hawk" over "war hawk". Safrolic (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks .  For what it is worth, I still think "war hawk" is the appropriate title.  I note that a discussion at the War Hawk article determined war hawk is the correct title.  I also note a recent CBC News segment called him a "war whisperer" and asked "Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world?".  If is any living person who can be called a "war hawk" here, it is John Bolton.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Assuming a change from "war hawk" to "hawk", I think Version B would be better. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

text: , is there an editing error in there? The "with war" in your !vote seems inconsistent with your argument. R2 (bleep) 18:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have corrected the error. , thank you for catching my error. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I think "hawk" is generally understood, but in case this is read by non-native speakers of English, a wikilink (hawk) to the war hawk article should be sufficient to explain it. NPguy (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: This article shows how up-to-date an encyclopedia Wikipedia is. It was announced on the news today (September 10 2019) that John Bolton had been fired from being National Security Advisor, and already the article gives the dates on which Bolton served this role. Vorbee (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Up-to-date

message: John R Bolton was married to one Christina Bolton for 10 years. Why no mention of this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:8760:BD02:DB64:6FF9:CED5 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christina Bolton, The First Wife 

message: Under Wikipedia:John_Bolton#Tenure, there appears to be a typo:
Trump claimed that his own views were "were far stronger" than Bolton's
Could an editor delete the repeated word were ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.115.17 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenure 

message: * White House delayed Ukraine trade decision in August, a signal that U.S. suspension of cooperation extended beyond security funds by David J. Lynch and Josh Dawsey Oct. 24, 2019
X1\ (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  add [[Robert Lighthizer]] item? 

message: Bolton encouraged Fiona Hill to report her concerns to the United States National Security Council's attorney ...
* https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/john-bolton-lawyers-impeachment-inquiry
* https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/john-boltons-lawyers-are-in-contact-with-trump-impeachment-panels.html
X1\ (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  add possible deposition with the House committees? 

message: The Vietnam War section reads like someone is trying to make an editorial point.  There are facts there that are not relevant to a biographical article on John Bolton, such as:
* As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' decisions to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War, although 42 Army Reserve units were called up with 35 of them deployed to Vietnam shortly after the Tet offensive in 1968–69, 5760 reservists dying in the conflict.
I would fix this myself but whenever I do that some owner of the article always reverts what I do, so guy who would revert everything because you are super important on this site, do what you will.  71.231.189.174 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody technically owns this article, its maintained through a community effort, you should never fear making a BOLD edit will get reverted it you support it with facts and reliable/verifiable sources, and if its a non factual article layout dispute, reference Wikipedia guidelines/policies to back up your edit. Worst case it gets reverted, the user who reverts should have left a edit summary as to why it was not a change conducive to the page as a whole and if you disagree you can start a conversation about it on the talk page.MaximusEditor (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not relevant facts in the Vietnam War section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: He has a book out and he makes certain claims in it. That should go in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: add content related to his new book 

message: Unfortunately the section in object must have been edited in a way that it is not neutral at all.
Following the section:
"This rather extraordinary accusation against Congress - a Congress that was unable to get Mr. Bolton's cooperation in testimony - rings hollow when one of the few persons aware of the misconduct hid behind legal machinations of requiring a Congressional subpoena and then vowing to fight it. Bolton had ample opportunity to speak up throughout the months long impeachment of President Trump over the Ukraine scandal. Throughout the process, Bolton remained entirely free to speak out publicly. But he decided to remain quiet — until he sought to boost sales of his book. As many have noted, John Bolton betrayed his country, and he will go down in the history books as a footnote to the misconduct of a President and be remembered for his self-interested betrayal of the United States".
Liuc2000 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to note that this edit has been reverted for violating Wikipedia's guideline against editorialization. In a way, it is as if a Trump supporter were upset to see Bolton "betray" the president, so they figure they must find a "liberal" source like CNN and then use it to shame him. Sad to see American politics not tolerating even itself. FreeMediaKid! 01:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No neutral point of view in the section "Trump-Ukraine scandal" 

message: To add to this article: in July 2022 Bolton admitted in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper that he has helped to organize coups d'état ("not here, you know, other places"). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: that's too vague regarding time, place, role --it 's casual boasting. Rjensen (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But it will likely blossom into an international scandal. We'll have to keep our eye on this one. Already this. YoPienso (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to article  

message: He's running for President 71.9.141.71 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Run 2024