Talk:Liberal hawk

	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 (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Lieberman?

Joe might be a hawk, but he's no liberal. 71.203.209.0 07:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed most of these names are people who might support war, are not liberal.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the article isn't to make our own decisions, but to report outside-of-Wikipedia usage of the term "liberal hawk". And whether these people are "liberal" or not of course depends on your definition of "liberalism", itself a contentious matter. --Delirium 10:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great many of the people on this list hold few liberal positions, and would be more accurately included in the Democrat In Name Only article. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, many are self-described liberals, and are coming from the school of liberal internationalism (Wilsonian). Among those who are in Congress include those with ultra-high scores, in the ADA (and other liberal-ranking) ratings systems, with very-low scores in the ACU (and other conservative-ranking) ratings systems. Pacificus (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal hawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509134106/http://www.socialdemocrats.org/IraqLetter3.html to http://www.socialdemocrats.org/IraqLetter3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal hawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

War hawk

You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk#Requested move 21 May 2019 about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy). The discussion could be closed as early as today. Sorry for the late notice. R2 (bleep) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the reference list be revised?

I am looking over the references, especially for the proof of certain individuals' affiliations. I believe some of the references should be removed as they are heavily opinion based, or otherwise unfit for a Wikipedia reference. --Emulate-atg (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak sourcing / WP:RS / WP:BLP

I have removed a large volume of unacceptable sourcing in the list ("Notable people associated") section. These sources were reliable sources for a variety of reasons. Many were opinion pieces, op-eds, commentaries, blog posts, or the like. Some were from activist websites or fringe websites. We need to be especially careful when sourcing content such as this, which involves sometimes contentious or pejorative labels, and often living persons or recently deceased persons.

I should add that I'm not convinced that we need this section in the article at all, since it seems like an indiscriminate list. --Neutrality^talk 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxymoron

"The term liberal hawk refers to a politically liberal person (in the American sense of the term) who supports a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagme (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]