Talk:War hawk

message: 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? john k 01:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Title Needed

message: *"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. beverson 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions raised during copy edit 

message: *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.
**Copy Edit complete, awaiting proofread.  beverson 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: * Oppose. No evidence that plain hawk is more common, and, even if it is, current title is sufficiently common to be preferred per WP:NATURALDIS. --В²C ☎ 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No one is proposing moving the article to Foreign policy hawk. "Foreign policy" would be a "subject or context" disambiguation.  R2 (bleep) 23:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey