Talk:Chickenhawk (politics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chickenhawk (politics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Contemporary attestation[edit]

Until recently there was a statement on contemporary attestation/usage of this term with several reliable sources. Given that the remaining material is four or more decades old, I feel that the contemporary material should be restored (or arguments should be provided for why contemporary attestation of the lexeme is not relevant). Doremo (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doremo: I agree that the material can be restored, but not in a section called "Origin of the term", but rather in a separate section about "Contemporary attestation/usage" or whatever deems apt. And Bolton should be mentioned too, who obviously is the more prototypical example. It might be also useful to add who else has been called 'chickenhawk' in the past years; the currently (i.e. in the stable version) cited individual soon will sink into insignificance and oblivion. As for Tdarn17's comment "Personal beliefs are not factual information": nobody says so. Attestation of usage however is factual information (these texts clearly exist, no?), and since it occurs in widely circulated media, also relevant factual information. –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; these are good suggestions. Doremo (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that deleted the material has not replied here or elsewhere, or raised any other objections, so I have followed Austronesier's suggestions above. I did a search for the term at newspapers.com covering the last five years and was not able to identify any additional consistent examples of contemporary usage. There was one isolated reference to Ted Cruz, and the names of some more obscure individuals (Andy Barr, Jim Bognet) also appeared in isolated instances in the newspapers. Doremo (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is Trump a Chickenhawk?[edit]

If he is one, then so is Obama.

None of the articles provide evidence that his policy or actions as president were those of a chickenhawk.

Why isn't such a standard used to also categorize Obama or Bush?

That is unfair to say the least. 69.120.128.146 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"or Bush"? Which one? The Bush family includes several politicians. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Presidents Bush have honorable discharges, it would be pretty illogical to reform to them as chickenhawk. Obama wasn't of service age during the draft. One could argue he avoided service simply by not volunteering, but he didn't have to actively avoid it the way Trump had to. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]