Talk:John Bolton

Bolton at Gatestone
this edit of mine states:

Which is from an NBC News report that states in its lede:

and continues:

removed the edit, stating on my talk page: "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John R. Bolton."

My edit did nothing of the kind. It accurately described what was reported by a reliable source. Consequently the edit should remain. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if a reliable source said it, it's partisan and your edit fails WP:NPOV. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for your edit speaks volumes about your true motives: "fake news NBC". See: "NBC FAKE NEWS...I have long criticized NBC and their journalistic standards-worse than even CNN. Look at their license?" soibangla (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not against NPOV to cite the criticism of Gatestone, as long as it is labeled criticism rather than fact. I have edited to that effect. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not criticism, it is straight-up reportage by a reliable source. soibangla (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The reporting does not assert that information from Gatestone is "false," "anti-immigrant," or "anti-muslim." It quotes people making those statements. NPguy (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, the lede states:




 * followed by:




 * and they link to Gatestone articles for “jihadist takeover” and "Great White Death," which I also link to in my edit. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read the article. It's very interesting that the source in the article claiming that the Gatestone Institute is anti-Muslim are themselves a designated terrorist organization. 67.60.231.114 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to "the Council on American–Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy group"? Read what we have on that here: Council_on_American–Islamic_Relations. If you side with the UAE, then of course you might believe that. There are also those who claim that anyone who defends the rights of Palestinians and opposes their oppression by Israel must be an antisemite. It is entirely possible to be a defender of Jews and the rights of the state of Israel to exist while also condemning both anti-Jewish antisemitism and oppression of Palestinians by the state of Israel. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Simplistic thinking will be the death of us all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Vietnam War service
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)

I want to note that the first Vietnam War lottery happened in the Spring of 1970, not 1969. I was there. Syrup1970 (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to note that the first Vietnam War lottery happened in the Spring of 1970, not 1969. I was there. Syrup1970 (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The other salient point regarding getting into a reserve component in Maryland in order to avoid being drafted is that you had to know something to do that because the line of boys wantiing to do that was so long Most of us who tried this in Maryland couldn't get into the Reserves. I was drafted out of law school, where I was a 4.0 student, so the desire for draftees was very strong.

Widely characterized as a war hawk
"Bolton has been 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A few sources found on the immediate search results on Google:
 * 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" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The latter is true, as we can verify what others said. The former violates WP:NPOV and you would have to establish consensus for it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how using a description found in abundance in RS is a violation of NPOV? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What about moving it to the end of the paragraph and included with other things Bolton's been called? I think it reads better to explain his views on war before saying he has been called or is widely characterized as a war hawk. TFD (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the article
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)
 * 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)



According to President Trump, John Bolton was fired by Pres. G. W. Bush. Did he really resign because of the newly elected Democratic Senate ? It's true that G. W. Bush accepted his resignation, he could have tried to resist and bring Bolton to a vote in front of the new senators. So, in a certain view of politics this amounts to firing. 2A01:CB1D:4F5:6300:203E:EEBD:C45D:6316 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Neo-fascist" vandalism
An IP number keeps adding "neo-fascist" without RS support. BLP vio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

RfC: Bolton being a "war hawk"
Which language should we use regarding Bolton being a "war hawk"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Version A:

"Bolton has been called a 'war hawk' and is an advocate for regime change in Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and North Korea and repeatedly called for the termination of the Iran nuclear deal."

Version B: 

"Widely described as a 'war hawk', Bolton was an architect of the Iraq War, has advocated for regime change in Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and North Korea, and repeatedly called for the termination of the Iran nuclear deal."

Please indicate which of these versions you support, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * 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)


 * Neither unless we can find a large body of reliable sources that include the word "war" we have no business adding that to any description of him. I am fine with the words "hawk" or "hawkish" as a descriptor for his foreign policy views. But the word "war" cannot be included based on current sourcing w/o violating BLP, NPOV, SYNTH & etc. as it implies support for war which is not a given meaning of "hawk." Being a hawk typically means support for a more assertive foreign policy and a willingness to use force in some situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's fine and well supported by reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Version B. I think we have a large body of RS calling him a Warhawk.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? I haven't found any. Could you provide a link? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Version B Unlike A, it says that this view is widely held. TFD (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B per Snooganss' excellent list of sources- it is clear the view is widely held. came from NPOV noticeboard Safrolic (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. What could go wrong? Slithytoad (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment : For this to fly you'd have to show a distinction between the two terms. There isn't one. This is implied in your own definition: an "assertive foreign policy and willingness to use force" entail making war. François Robere (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Version B, with the preferred wording being "Widely characterized as a war hawk". I think that the sources seem to support that wording quite well, and the alternative ways of wording it seem to make the content less clear rather than more clear. --Drevolt (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither - In light of information about the content of sources being misrepresented in the initial RfC, I’m changing my view to Neither, he should simply be characterized as a hawk. That is to say, I agree with the growing consensus that we should use the Version B wording but that the word “war” is not supported by the sources and therefore does not merit inclusion. —Drevolt (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In its primary meaning, the term War Hawk refers to a group of U.S. congressmen at the time of the War of 1812. In the context of this article, it is editorializing or at best a confused historical analogy. Elizabeth Warren's article doesn't say "widely called Pocahontas" or anything like that. News articles can misuse a word in order to push an author's agenda. We can determine best practices by consulting an appropriate dictionary. Why say "war hawk" when "hawk" and "hawkish" are far more common and don't drag misleading historical analogies into the equation? Slithytoad (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I take it that this edit references me. "Hawk" is an improvement on "war hawk" in that the War of 1812 is no longer referenced. IMO, the phrase "widely described" is an unfortunate one. The sources this claim is based on are all hostile to Bolton -- and the reader should be told this. I'd prefer something along the lines of, "Bolton has been accused of holding hawkish views on a variety of issues." Slithytoad (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B but with "war hawk" reduced to "hawk" as the majority of sources above just refer to him as a "hawk" or being "hawkish". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B without war Agree with Peacemaker, Hawk/Hawkish seems the more common formulation instead of the full "war hawk". Rest of the proposed sentence makes the context perfectly clear. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither per Ad Orientem. This editing violates NPOV. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientam says he supports "Widely described as a "hawk"". Do you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Version B without "war." "War hawk" is not a common term (though it surely has meaning beyond the War of 1812), and is at best a pejorative amplification of the simpler term "hawk."  It seems to imply someone who supports war for the sake of war, rather than someone who supports war as an instrument of power. NPguy (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B - "war hawk" specifically. Describing him as only "a hawk" will not in any way make the article clearer or more helpful. For people not familiar with the expression using, the term "war hawk" could prove self-explanatory, while using just the word "hawk" necessitates visiting another page to understand what it refers to. BBC and Politico refer to him specifically as a "war hawk", while the other use the variant "hawk" or "hawkish" presumably because it assumes readers are familiar with this turn of phrase common in the foreign policy section. The same presumption shouldn't be made about the average Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraiseVivec (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just noticed that unlike Option B, Option A doesn't include the phrase "Bolton was an architect of the Iraq War". Since it's already in the lead I guess it's just rearranging the paragraph a little, but is there any particular reason you wanted to move it up? --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither. Same reasoning as Ad Orientem. I support saying Bolton is widely described as a hawk, with "hawk" linking to War hawk. Saying that Bolton is widely described as a "war hawk" is a BLP violation. R2 (bleep) 20:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version A. We should be writing conservatively. "Version A" is more conservative than "Version B". In saying that someone is "Widely described as" we are putting our own spin on what they are being widely described as. Whereas when we simply say that someone "has been called" we are expressing skepticism of that characterization, as we should be in keeping with conservative wording. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm following up on my vote with an objection that Snooganssnoogans (with whom I usually agree) has actually misrepresented the sources. The two sources they claim describe Bolton as a "war hawk" do not in fact describe him as a "war hawk," distorting the RfC. The Politico source describes him as an "Iraq War hawk," not as a "war hawk." The BBC source uses "war hawk" in the (unreliable) headline but in the body it calls him a "foreign policy hawk." Literally not a single source has been offered showing Bolton being described as a "war hawk," aside from one BBC headline. "Widely described" is a clear BLP vio. R2 (bleep) 17:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither Following NPOV and Ad Orientem's comment. Barca (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither Per R2. The deceptively cited sources sources should be struck as well. Saying “hawk” might okay, but war hawk is an obvious BLP violation. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither per Ad Orientem and R2. DoubleCross (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Either - He is a war hawk. Lots of people have called him that.  Calling him a hawk in the context of war, conflict or foreign policy means he is a war hawk as  points out, unless we are talking about the shape of his nose or the colouring of his feathers.  Still, it is generally better, if possible to note "who" called him that.  It is easy for us to include some names who have applied that label to him (like the BBC ).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article you cited has been mentioned before here and struck because the article itself doesn't say that - only the lead does. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Neither I think the more common term is "hawk" or "hawkish", and that is borne out by basically all of the sources listed above. "War" is not an appropriate modifier. I guess "foreign policy hawk" is acceptable as well, but I think "hawk" is fine on its own. It matches what the sources say, and it's obvious what is meant in context. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Version B without war (via FRS) I have rarely heard the term expanded to war hawk and I think that Version B is more reflective of the coverage. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)(edited: 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC))
 * , 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)
 * Yes, I have corrected the error., thank you for catching my error. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a related move request at Talk:War hawk. R2 (bleep) 18:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B without war the sources simply do not use the word 'war', incidentally, the term 'hawk' on its own is generally understood to mean "support for a more assertive foreign policy and a willingness to use force" which includes a tendency to communicate that "willingness to use force". Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B or some similar I don't see an WP:NPOV issue here: "hawk" arguably has a positive connotation in many circles (when is the last time you heard a national politician call themselves a "dove"?), and even Trump describes Bolton as a "hawk". That said: I am concerned that global readers might be unfamiliar with the "hawk" vs "dove" terminology, and so I think it might be better to describe his views explicitly first, and then use the jargon: "he generally supports a more aggressive stance in international affairs, and is widely described as a foreign policy 'hawk'" or something similar would work. The BBC uses the term "foreign policy hawk".  Nblund talk 01:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Cynistrategus (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B., but "Widely characterized as a war hawk" would be more neutral wording. And this claim must be supported by mainstream, reliable sources either making the same claim and/or a cocktail of major mainstream reliable sources using the same term. Cheers. T P   ✎ ✓ 05:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Version A: "widely characterized as..." reads like WP:WEASEL wording and possibly violates the policy. Who, exactly, describes Bolton specifically as a "war hawk", rather than another term like "interventionist," "conservative hawk," or something else? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just say, in Wikipedia's voice, that he is "hawkish", or a "hawk." The word "war" is editorializing, or close, and we should stay away from it. There isn't much, if any, disagreement that he is a hawk.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither. As per WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Why do we need to use such adjectives? We do not edit a newspaper. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither. Would strike war and call him hawkish - do we actually know he means to trigger a war?

Up-to-date
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)

Requested move 10 September 2019

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: moved. The fact that John R. Bolton is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is undisputed, even if it has any amount of WP:RECENTISM behind it, that is not a suitable justification to override policy, a |John_M._Bolton|John_Bolton_(actor)|John_Bolton_(illustrator)|John_Bolton_(ambassador)|John_Bolton_(Manx_politician)|John_Bolton_(Canadian_politician) pageviews analysis shows that John R. Bolton has consistently remained more of a primary topic (since July 2015) than the other subjects listed on the disambiguation page, which seems to point out to me that the WP:RECENTISM arguments as being fallible. Per the two principles listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even if the requirement of "long-term significance" cannot be answered with certainty, John R. Bolton clearly meets the first requirement of "usage". (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

– Just like the previous move at Michael Flynn, most sources omit the initial. And he's more notable than all the others combined.|John_R._Bolton|John_M._Bolton|John_Bolton_(by_1524_%E2%80%93_1556_or_later)|John_Bolton_(ambassador)|John_Bolton_(illustrator)|John_Gatenby_Bolton|John_Bolton_(Manx_politician)|John_Bolton_(weightlifter)|John_Bolton_(Canadian_politician) Unreal7 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * John R. Bolton → John Bolton
 * John Bolton → John Bolton (disambiguation)


 * Support: Per Unreal7. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose He might be more notable than the others, when compared individually, but "more notable than all the others combined" is dubious and hardly measurable by WP pageviews. For instance, Gold Medal of the RAS winner John Gatenby Bolton is quite notable scientifically. Of course, current news shifts attention to John R. Bolton now but I don't think he is so much more notable that "John Bolton" should redirect to him. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The vast majority of searches for John Bolton are for this guy. It is sufficient to put a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the article as per common practice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I may be misreading what the nominee is proposing. For clarification, I am fine with moving this to John Bolton. I oppose John Bolton being a redirect to a disambiguation page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I understand it, supporting this proposal means supporting the article about the diplomat John R. Bolton being at John Bolton, and the disambiguation page being at John Bolton (disambiguation). The only redirect would be from John R. Bolton to John Bolton. – Levivich 04:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the former comment, couldn't hold my anger. But please show your respect with better arguements. (Civility) —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – without a doubt, the WP:PRIMARYNAME John Bolton is this John Bolton. I'm a little confused because the above oppose vote seems to be supporting... if John Bolton is more notable than other John Boltons, and if the vast majority of searches for John Bolton are for this guy, then John Bolton is primary. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Per the nomination, especially the note on how sources omit Mr. Bolton's middle initial. Indeed, in immediate prominence, there is no room for doubt: Mr. Bolton (the one here) is the John Bolton whom others seek on this site. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly, he is the best-known of the people out there. I didn't expect "John Bolton" to lead me to a disambiguation page. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 23:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good argument to put the disambiguation page at John Bolton (disambiguation), in repudiation of the bad old WP:MALPLACED. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No primary topic, except for Recentism.  He's in the news, although not so much after today.  "John R. Bolton" is a perfectly good COMMONNAME, especially if you consider more strongly introductory sources, such as Reference #1, over running news stories that assume continuing familiarity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the recentism argument. The guy was very high profile in the W. years as Under Sec of State and Ambassador to the UN (his nominations were a big fight). He was an Asst Sec of State under Bush, an Asst AG under Reagan ...during which he was involved in Iran-Contra. He's been the primary "John Bolton" for decades. Some examples: The Nation 2006 Other Iran/contra figures are leading players today. Here’s a partial list from the National Security Archive:... John Bolton – the controversial U.N. ambassador..., NPR 2005  quoting speeches he's given going back to 1994, BBC News 2003  discussing Project for the New American Century, a stock photo of him from 1996  John Bolton, President of the National Policy Forum... I had to go back to this 1990 CSPAN video to find an instance of him being called "John R. Bolton". – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  04:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Immediately found a few articles from the last few days that call him "John R. Bolton" without any effort: New York Times Sept 10, New York Times Sept 8, New York Times Sept 7, Washington Times Sept 7. Those probably aren't the only ones since 1990. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair, but more often than not even NYT uses "John Bolton" in the headline, even when they use John R. Bolton in the body, as does WSJ and CNBC. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but articles will also just call him "Bolton" or "a man with glasses" in headlines. Also, I noticed that the New York Times almost exclusively refers to him as "John R. Bolton" on first mention in their articles (non-opinion / non-magazine / non-recap). Almost none of them use just "John Bolton" in the article text. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose John R. Bolton → John Bolton. Support John Bolton → John Bolton (disambiguation). There’s too damn many of them (like Adam Smith) and the R. sets him apart. Maybe parentheses in the title would help for people who still “care” to read about him when the palace intrigue blows over. Trillfendi (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per |John_Bolton_(ambassador)|John_Bolton_(by_1524_%E2%80%93_1556_or_later)|John_Bolton_(Manx_politician)|John_Bolton_(Canadian_politician)|John_M._Bolton|John_Bolton_(illustrator)|John_Bolton_(weightlifter)|John_Bolton|John_Gatenby_Bolton pageviews John R. Bolton has average daily pageviews 2154, the closest other is John Bolton (illustrator) with 23. Tholme (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, it is the commonly used name. I haven't heard someone saying John R. Bolton.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM would advise us against being hasty that this particular John Bolton has more lasting significance than the others. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose primarily on grounds of WP:RECENTISM. We should however do what others have recommended and do 'John Bolton → John Bolton (disambiguation)'. This topic should be revisited in a year or so, once the RECENTISM timeline has passed and we can reevaluate how truly notable he is with respect to other John Bolton's.Spilia4 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The criterion is which article readers are looking for when they search for "John Bolton." Since most are looking for this article, it is more convenient for them to reach this article, rather than having to look through a list of other John Boltons first. TFD (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for a primary redirect, John Bolton --> John R. Bolton, not an argument for retitling the article. I support this,  John Bolton --> John R. Bolton and the DAB page at John Bolton (disambiguation), given the good argument that no one should be expecting to find another John Bolton using John Bolton, but it remains true that sources introducing him, as opposed to rolling conversation sources like daily newspapers, name him, introductorily, as "John R. Bolton".  Not "John Bolton".  Not "John Robert Bolton".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What convenience do you find that people will type in John Bolton and be re-directed to John R. Bolton? If it is the main topic, then we should use the common name. TFD (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "John R. Bolton" is the commonname, if you weight reputable sources and introductions over running commentary. Weighting reputable sources and introductions higher tends to produce more formal styles, which I think it good, and is zero inconvenience to anyone IF the primaryredirect is right (which it is not, currently).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not care. Why is anyone wasting their time on this stupid, pointless argument? NPguy (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And why are you here replying?


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.

Christina Bolton, The First Wife
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)

Tenure
Under John_Bolton, 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)

add Robert Lighthizer item?
X1\ (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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

add possible deposition with the House committees?
Bolton encouraged Fiona Hill to report her concerns to the United States National Security Council's attorney ... X1\ (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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

Not relevant facts in the Vietnam War section
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)


 * 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * D791-002 (41092028931).jpg

Request: add content related to his new book
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)

Mr. Bolton’s book hasn’t been officially released yet. Therefore, I would tend to believe that anything that has been circulating about said book is purely speculation and doesn’t meet the standards for reliable sources. Also, would you mind elaborating on what claims you think are relevant for inclusion into the article and if they have encyclopedic nature? His book is scheduled to release on June 23 so until then I would hold off on including the content in the article for those reasons. Thank you so much I appreciate your question. Grahamevan05178 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No neutral point of view in the section "Trump-Ukraine scandal"
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)

I would have an admin look at this because I agree, this section is definitely not written from a neutral point of view. This edit should be reverted. Grahamevan05178 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.  Free Media  Kid ! 01:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
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)
 * that's too vague regarding time, place, role --it 's casual boasting. Rjensen (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

Citing opinion pieces
You have repeatedly deleted text and citations that are expressions of opinion. One is a New York Times editorial, which expresses the opinion of the NYTimes editorial board and is not "sketchy." Others are opinion pieces by Bolton supporting statements of Bolton's views. Those all seem legitimate. Others may be excessive, but let's discuss first. That's what this page is for. NPguy (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @NPguy: What makes any of these opinions worthy of inclusion? Where is the secondary coverage? How do you know the NYT represents the views of the entire editorial board? An editor's letter is often the chief editor, but this is usually made clear. Anonymous editorials are odd (though the NYT clearly has past form on the peculiarity). Why is this needed to double up two non-opinions? Ditto . And what makes you think Fox News opinions, presented standalone as primary sources, are qualified to establish Bolton's positions. For one thing, he is a politicians lie all the time, and change their positions at a whim, so at best, these would be a fleeting snapshot of his expressed opinion at a very certain point in time. It has not been established in reliable, independent, secondary sources that these are his positions from a long-term analytical perspective. And the usage is also WP:SYNTH, take this source for instance, which is used to state he criticized 'liberal' policies, when the opinion piece does not even use the word 'liberal'. So you're restoring WP:SYNTH based on primary Fox news opinions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between editorials and opinion columns. Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board.  And the Fox News opinion pieces were written by John Bolton, so they clearly do represent his opinion.  Beyond that, I don't understand your objections to text that has stood for years without change.  There may be some that are inappropriate, but you haven't articulated a cogent argument for dropping a single one.  If you want to pursue this, I suggest that you discuss them one at a time. NPguy (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've raised several issues, including one of WP:SYNTH, and you have addressed none. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You seem to be objecting to using Bolton's own words as a source for the statement "He has also criticized the EU for advancing what he considers liberal policies." And how does the WP policy apply in this case, where that statement is simply an example of a more general statement ("Bolton is a critic of the European Union.")?
 * And by the way, I didn't write any of this. It's just an article I follow. NPguy (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of where opinion is needless/useless. If Bolton is a prominent critic of the EU, there will be plentiful secondary sources stating as much in no uncertain terms. No need to defer to primary opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem with using editorials and opinion pieces is that you first need to establish the weight of the opinions expressed in them. For example, if Bolton expresses and opinion about the EU and no one reports it, then it isn't weighty enough for inconclusion.
 * Bolton's biographers will scour through all these sources, determine what is significant and include them in their accounts. That's their job, not ours.
 * TFD (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)