Talk:Hawkish

I hold the proposal of a merge of this article with that on Militarism for unlucky.

First of all, Hawkishness is a stance specifically of Foreign politics/Security politics, and only figuratively useable outside of that sphere
Militarism is, or can be, a way to organize a society.
And militarist Doves are not at all unthinkable.

/Tuomas 12:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the assumption that "unlucky" is a malapropism for, say "ill-favored" or "ill-starred" i echo that, for reasons given on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles#H. The current text is terrible, and makes the merge sound more reasonable than it is. Mostly what is need here is a serious rewrite. --Jerzy (t) 04:53, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

I made some changes to remove what I felt was the worst aspects of this text. I hope someone else would fancy to continue. --Ruhrjung 19:41, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Origins

I have just finished reading the article on the 1812 war. This makes several mentions of "War Hawks" so I would suggest that the term originates from way before Vietnam.

Merger?

The article on Warhawks concerns a specific political faction in the U.S. in 1812. This article concerns the more general use of the term. The two articles should cross-link but I think there's enough difference in the concepts that there should be two separate articles. JamesMLane 12:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this article (Hawkish) is a definition of a term — and we all know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so it falls in the category of Things to be moved to Wiktionary. The article Warhawks, which should properly be remaned War Hawks, should have a couple sentences about the modern usage of the term. So put me down for a move, a merge, and a rename. --Kevin Myers 15:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The article goes beyond dictionary definition. It explains a concept, and is apparently thought useful for that purpose, judging from the number of links to it. Most of those links would make no sense if redirected to Warhawks (or War Hawks). JamesMLane 15:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)