Talk:John Bolton/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President of Red Eye

Should we mention this in the article? He's the current president of Red Eye, it's a pretty big honor 74.108.217.11 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious concerns about WP:UNDUE

The amount of spacing given to his prior career versus more recent events suggests a serious lack of perspective in this article. RayTalk 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, Bolton is known to the general public mostly from his tenure as Ambassador to the UN and the abrasive exchanges he had with the UN and many people in that arena. Those years and his previous association with the Bush cabinet, not the AEI, is going to be his ticket to the history books, and the justification for such a long article. /Strausszek (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The neocon thing *again*

The national guard discussion in this article was actually very good for a Wikipedia article, but somebody does need to add how difficult it was to slip into a guard unit. I tried that in 1968, failed, and was drafted. As to Bolton's comment that he had no great desire to die in a rice paddy, who did? I can assure him none of us wanted to die young there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a poorly defined "movement," and is commonly used as an epithet. Traditionally, it was a term used for people who used to be liberals. In the 1970s, it became identified with those former liberals who were centered around Scoop Jackson, and later moved to the Republican Party out of discontent with Carteresque policies. However, in the Bush years, it was used as an epithet for "everybody favoring a muscular foreign policy" and that's just BS. However, short of personal self-identification, or well-sourced data that lumps him in with the Scoop Jackson crowd in the 1970s, you cannot conclude there's anything "neo" about Bolton's conservatism. Muscular foreign policy being, as a practical matter, far older in the American political tradition than the modern neocon movement. RayTalk 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be used as an epithet in some circles, but it is also a factual description of an actual movement, however poorly defined it may be. We aren't concluding anything about Bolton here - we can't make conclusions due to NPOV and NOR - we are simply doing exactly what we should be doing: reporting the facts taken from reliable, authoritative sources. Gamaliel (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It can't be a "fact" that Bolton is a "prominent neocon" if the definition of a neocon isn't well-established and highly dependent on one's POV. The best we can do is say that a certain journalistic set considers him a neocon. RayTalk 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the description 'neocon' is one of those tags (probably invented by a journalist) that is not well defined. It seems to stand for religiously followed conservatism as in: no unions, all out privatisation with establishment of gig economy, regime change by force where they do not oblige, the new American century, Wolfowitz Doctrine, Full Spectrum Dominance, military funding comes above all else. These are the features that come to my mind off the cuff which I'd say are the hallmarks of neocons. In that sense Bolton is a posterboy neocon. 2001:8003:A928:800:ECEE:D34A:7A8D:C1F0 (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see grounds here to make the article claim that these sources are of dubious accuracy unless you can find other sources which claim that these sources are unreliable in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of point of view. Within their point of view, they are perfectly accurate. However, the usage of "neocon" to describe advocates of Bush foreign policy is very much a trope of Bush-era political rhetoric, and only loosely connected to the more academic and historical usage of the term. Thus, it ends up by being misleading. RayTalk 20:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit like when you have Randian objectivists insisting that they, and they alone, are entitled to be called "freedom lovers" or "liberal thinkers". As Ian Buruma pointed out, writing of just the coalition that most people today identify as neo-cons, guys who want a tough and expansively muscular foreigh policy coupled with emphasis on "traditional values" at home, some of them should be called in French "vieux cons" (old crooks/old cons) because they have always been conservative, but in actual political outlook snd methods, these old cons and neo-cons are the same kind. And distinct from e.g. isolationists and Nozickian minimal-state republicans To most people it's obvious that Bolton is in the same posse as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz and Ken Adelman. /Strausszek (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

huge error

He had a hit song, "How am I supposed to live without you" and it is missing. I know a singing career is a bit of fluff but a brief mention is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FUW999 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


hahahhaha

192.197.71.189 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And, he was part of the chorus in today's republican nominated hit-song "Supported by an anti-islamic blogger, and the neocons, and the birthers". http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_republicans_iowa_bolton.html --ph.a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.253.67 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Cameo appearance

Isn't he the orderly appearing from around 23 sec into this classic video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhHJ4zEKDZY Strausszek (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Links

fixed several red links for United States Attorney General and United States Commission on International Religious Freedom that were broken. 67.194.17.65 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

At the top of the article it says that Bolton is associated with a number of politically conservative organizations and then goes on to list some of them such as the National Rifle Association. One of the organizations it lists is the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. I do not think that organization should be included in that list, the Commission is not a conservative organization, it is an official commission of the United States government established by an act of Congress and that reports to Congress on issues of international religious freedom.

I am considering editing the article to remove the Commission from that section, but for now I will wait until I hear some feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stcold (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on John R. Bolton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on John R. Bolton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John R. Bolton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John R. Bolton. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John R. Bolton. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in John R. Bolton

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of John R. Bolton's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nyt1112":

  • From Cabinet of Donald Trump: "Donald Trump Is Picking His Cabinet: Here's a Shortlist". New York Times. November 12, 2016. Retrieved November 12, 2016.
  • From Political appointments of Donald Trump: "Donald Trump Is Picking His Cabinet: Here's a Shortlist". New York Times. 12 November 2016. Retrieved November 12, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Twitter

He may not have been rejected https://mobile.twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/821790158429233152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.168.35 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Mustache?

The article says, "Several Trump associates claim Bolton was not chosen, in part, due to Trump's disdain for Bolton's signature mustache." This is sourced to a news article that cites speculation (not fact) and anonymous speculation at that. Not encyclopedic and seems more of a jab at Trump. It should be deleted I think. Opus131 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John R. Bolton. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John R. Bolton. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John R. Bolton. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the other people in the John Bolton disambiguation page, I do not see any of them as having as much impact on the world as John R. Bolton, a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations. That position is rather influential in world politics, because of US veto power in the UN. So I think there's a good case for the UN ambassador to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment, although his page gets few views, John Gatenby Bolton may be the most long-term and worldwide significant John Bolton, give or take a hundred years. So if this RM passes, maybe a hatnote. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Leave disambiguation, which only helps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply: Why would a former UN ambassador not qualify to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Because he did something for six months and got on TV a bit afterwards. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
That "something" - namely United States Ambassador to the United Nations - happens to be one of the most powerful positions in the world! Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
With respect – that's a stretch. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
A word of caution. Making a topic primary, even in the most clear-cut of cases, guarantees that it will accumulate wrong incoming links which are unlikely ever to be spotted and fixed. That is unhelpful to readers and bad for the project. Tetrahedron is beyond all doubt WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I look at that page from time to time to check for links intended for Tetrahedron.
I found this discussion because User:DPL bot had found a link to a DAB page in John R. Bolton. There are currently zero wrong incoming links to the DAB page John Bolton – because editors including WP:DPL members have been alerted to any such, and have fixed them. Narky Blert (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply: In terms of page views, John R. Bolton consistently gets at least 100x more monthly page views than John Gatenby Bolton [1], and the John Bolton disambiguation page currently has no incoming links of significance. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I've told you why the John Bolton DAB page is clean. Read what I wrote. Narky Blert (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have to assume the vast majority of all readers are looking for the former President of Red Eye. That there have been other people named "John Bolton" is coincidental. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to assume that you haven't noticed that Red Eye is a DAB page, and that the TV series isn't broadcast to large parts of the world. Including places like UK, Australia, India, NZ and South Africa, which are full of people who speak English. Narky Blert (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Reply: Bolton the former UN ambassador was a frequent guest on Fox News' Red Eye [2] [3] and was once called "the president" of that show, back in 2013 [4]. Chris troutman was making a joke. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Arbor to SJ: I found found it fruitless and ineffective to try to make jokes. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"Bolton the former UN ambassador was a frequent guest on Fox News' Red Eye"
What's Red Eye? some sort of local news programme? Never heard of it. Can't get it where I am. See WP:GLOBAL. Narky Blert (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Red Eye (TV series): A former talk show on Fox News Channel. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Isn't Fox News Channel some sort of local U.S. thing? See, again, WP:GLOBAL. Narky Blert (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Does being United States Ambassador to the United Nations - the position that got Bolton famous - not qualify for WP:GLOBAL? Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Arbor to SJ, you haven't indicated to what title you would have the article about the footballer moved. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. 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.

Lock suggestion

I recommend locking this page to prevent vandalism at the announcement of his placement in the NSA. Sovietmessiah (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

In 2006 a former politician from Sweden's Liberal Party, who a quarter of a century earlier had been the party chairman but since had left the stage of active politics, nominated Bolton for the Nobel Peace Prize.[1] Technically almost anyone can file such a nomination and there was no indication that the Nobel Committee had pondered the name of Bolton. The prize that year went to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work".[2]

I am not sure why this is in his biography, the reference does not work. Anyone of the over 1,000 qualified nominators can send in a sarcastic nomination. The actual short list of nominations and their rationales are kept secret for 50 years. --RAN (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ SFgate.com Archived August 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ "The Nobel Peace Prize 2006". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved October 20, 2008.

Infobox image

Upon hearing of the nomination I wanted to refresh my memory on his background. No better place to get basic facts fast, than Wikipedia, true. However, also no better place than a "political" Wikipedia page to confirm the omnipresent "progressive" bias of editors. To the person who selected the main photo - you expect us to believe you weren't deliberately selecting a photo where your "political enemy" looks goofy? Really? Like I tell my computer science students - for non-controversial entries Wikipedia is great. For anything political, be aware that "left wing" bias prevails. You'll see goofy "selected" photos for conservatives - but never for progressives.

Anyone have a more neutral photo of Bolton? It strains credulity to think the one up there is representative. 108.6.7.182 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a photograph at Commons:Category:John R. Bolton you would recommend? We can only use freely licensed images or public domain images. File:John R. Bolton by Gage Skidmore.jpg has a more traditional, neutral composition. File:John R. Bolton.png is the most formal, but is a low quality file and almost 20 years old. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the one currently in the infobox and it will work nicely until his official White House staff portrait is taken and available. The photo that was there previously (and the one prior to that) had an odd expression on his face. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You're "editing" here. That makes you an "editor". So get off your soapbox, take a minute to set up an account, find a picture that you like and that's public domain or freely licensed, and upload it. Or take your pick here. Good luck, 'though; what with the facial bristles – I believe that's called the Seventies Porn 'Stache - and the big hair what are the chances of finding a non-goofy one? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Please try not to insult the subjects of BLPs. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't generalize. And what part of my comment are you objecting to? Goofy? I was quoting the IP address editor. The grooming? Bolton's heard it all before and he doesn't care. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. I've selected 4 possibilities below, based on what we have to work with. I think quality and composition should be be balanced with timeliness and accurate portrayal of the present appearance of the subject. Of these, I think A., B., and C., are all reasonable contenders, with natural and appropriate representations. D. is the most formal, yet is somewhat out of date. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

Closing RFC per Wikipedia:Requests for closure. Consensus is to use image choice B. Opinions seem to concur that the cropped version featured further down seems to be the best version. Fish+Karate 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which image should the infobox contain? Current image is choice A.-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Choices

  • Choice A (2017)
    Choice A (2017)
  • Choice B (2018)
    Choice B (2018)
  • Choice C (2018)
    Choice C (2018)
  • Choice D (2001)
    Choice D (2001)
  • E (2015)
    E (2015)

Choice A

  1. Support as first choice. Image is recent enough (2017) and shows Bolton in a neutral, professional manner. Is the best of the four until we are able to get the official White House Staff portrait to use in the infobox after he takes the oath of office - probably sometime in April. Image D is too old and not representative of Bolton currently. Image B has an uncomplimentary facial expression and C is taken too much from the side of Bolton's face but also doesn't portray a professional appearance, something the infobox photo of future NSA Director should portray. Images A and E are more full frontal, give him a professional appearance, and therefore, are preferable. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I see nothing wrong with B or C but I'll agree A is the best option. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - As second choice. NickCT (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support – this is the best image. Corky 17:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as best of the bunch (aside from D which, at 17 years old, would not really be meaningful). Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Makes Sheriff Bolton look more like a sheriff and less deputy-ish. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support per Winkelvi Seraphim System (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support (Summoned by bot) It's really a coin flip, but this one has the edge. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support There is unfortunately a bit of a "deer in the headlights" quality to the expression, but I still think this is the best of the options. If not for the low resolution of image D, it would certainly be the best candidate, but alas, resolution is a significant consideration for a lead infobox image. Snow let's rap 04:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support per Winkelvi: neutral, professional, and recent. Zoom (talk page) 01:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support - I prefer this image because it is closer up, is relatively recent, and his facial expression isn't as awkward as the alternative options. I'm not opposed to Choice B either, but prefer A. Strong oppose C, D, and E. Meatsgains(talk) 01:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support as the most professional image. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  13. A C B I really like the 2017 one the best, but the 2018 cropped version might be better. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Choice B

  1. Support Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support - Seems like best image. NickCT (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support: Highest quality image and the most recent, though I'm also OK with Choice C. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - It's more recent and better quality (focus, lighting) than 'A', although I would prefer a 3:4 crop. 'A' would be my second choice.- MrX 🖋 17:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as second choice – this is the second best option. Corky 17:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - It looks the best and is the most recent. Vhstef (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC) — Vhstef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  7. Support as is or the cropped version. Changing my vote. It is one of the two most recent ones, taken at a public event, i.e., not a "candid" shot. It has better focus and lighting than A where the entire hand and part of the lectern are in the forefront. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    Seeking consensus is not voting. We don't vote in Wikipedia as this is not a democracy; we seek consensus. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support. as is most recent and seems better quality than the rest. –Davey2010Talk 14:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Most recent and best pic IMO. Number 57 04:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Highest quality, personally I think the wide eyed expression in A is more unusual than his squint here. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support Either Choice A or B would work as an infobox image. I have a slight preference for B because it's more recent and the quality of the image is marginally better.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support - much better quality. A makes him appear like a deer caught in headlights. Atsme📞📧 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support best of these - a crop removing lower part would improve it. Good quality and makes him look human. We do all realize that any image on Commons can very easily be cropped, don't we? From some of the comments above perhaps not. I've done a bottom-only crop as an example. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    Here's B with a modest slice off the bottom.
    It's in the job desription: Must look human. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support: no official NSA portrait? All joking aside, with the crop, it's nearly perfect: most recent, excellent quality, makes Mr. Bolton not look like a frightened roe. It's the best of the lot. — Javert2113 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support B as a cropped version. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support B, either as is or cropped. SarahSV (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Choice C


Choice D


Choice E

  • Support as second choice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. Support Nice close-up fairly recent. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)



Unhelpful and stricken comments

Choice F

*Not gonna be trolled into action by anonymous IP address with a gripe. I'm gonna get slapped down again for this but come on: A–deer caught in headlights; B–oops, passed gas on the elevator; C–Marlon Bundo's boy-bunny friend (John Oliver version); D-the good ole days in low res; E-deer in headlights getting nervous. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not helping. Did you have anything useful to add that actually assists in building an encyclopedia? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. We got trolled, resulting in much ado about nothing. There's nothing wrong with the photo we are using now that's not also wrong with every other photo of Bolton that I've seen. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, your time-wasting addition of the fictional F choice is equivalent to trolling. It would be a good idea for you to remove this entire joke sub-section (since you started it), if you would. At the very least, it should be struck out, but I don't think anyone will object to it being nuked entirely. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t troll, ever. I stand by what I said about and to the IP address troll. In hindsight it would have been better if I had left it at the first sentence with the instructions for getting off the soapbox and finding a photo more to the troll’s liking. If other editor’s want to do the troll’s bidding, I shouldn’t interfere. Sorry about that! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Winkelvi: This isn't that big of a deal, but you seem confident that Bolton will soon have an official NSC photo taken of him. However, looking at the NSA article, the vast majority (at least) of national security advisors don't have official photos for that specific position. Thus, I don't think whatever photo we choose will be temporary. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In recent history, it is usual and customary for individuals working within presidential administrations - especially those in leadership positions - to have official government photos taken. If such an official government photo already exists, then the most recent one is often used unless it is quite out of date. Both Gen. Michael Flynn and Gen. H.R. McMaster already had U.S. Army photos, those were used for their official portraits. See the following for NSA official photos: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Bolton is not currently in the Administration, and has not worked in a presidential administration since George W. Bush was in office. It's pretty likely that there will be an official portrait when he becomes NSA in April. All that said, if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll owe you a steak dinner. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The photos you shared seem to be legit (AFAIK), except for Rice (that's her Secretary of State photo). No one after Hadley, including McMaster (maybe you're right that they just decided to use his army photo, since he still serves, but I would have expected a new picture for the new position) and Obama Administration appointees, have official NSC photos. Because of this, I doubt the WH will diverge from this trend and take an official photo of Bolton. But regardless, it's not that big of a deal, and we'll see what happens. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to add that Winkelvi will never support one of my photos being in an article, as they have a history of going around from article to article and removing them. They've been blocked for Wikihounding me once in the past. Because the image was changed by Winkelvi unilaterally, without any discussion, and then there was found to be equal support for both of the images in the above discussion (thus, no consensus), I restored it to the previous image that was in the article prior to Winkelvi's sudden interest in this article because Bolton is in the news. Since there is a discussion pending, gain consensus before changing the photo. Calibrador (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Gage, please revert your change of infobox image at the John Bolton article. You are welcome to participate at this RfC to indicate your choice, however, it is unethical for you to change the photo back to a photo you have taken (and you have been warned previously to not do that) it is also against Wikipedia guidelines to make such a change to content when a discussion on the content is taking place. If you do not make the change within the next hour, I will take this issue to AN/I, especially since you have been warned there previously to not edit war over or change out photos for your own without discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
To editor Winkelvi: I don't think it's appropriate for you to edit war with the bot about keeping this RfC open after you've already taken a side in this. You could just agree that there's no consensus and return to status quo ante. Your editing gives the appearance of unfairness. Please contact an admin if you want this RfC to run for another 30 days. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, Chris troutman, I'm just trying to see if we can get an actual consensus. We don't have one. According to the policy on RfCs, they can be relisted (which is what I just did after reading how to make it happen) if there is no consensus. If I were acting unfairly, I wouldn't be doing this. As it is, with no consensus, the current image stays. Which is the one I support. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This RfC has been going on for over a month and it appears to be toss up between A and B. Although I don't really care which image we use, Chris troutman does make valid points.- MrX 🖋 20:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The numbers are close and I don't mind if the RfC runs longer, but I saw the bot add an RfC ID and then close the RfC, and I don't know why. I didn't want there to be an appearance that the RfC was being extended just to achieve a particular outcome. That said, I voted for A, which was the status quo so I'm not un-biased, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if some of the comments here are caused by only looking at the tiny gallery size, rather than the infobox size? For example, -- ψλ's comment ("[A] shows Bolton in a neutral, professional manner. .... Image B has an uncomplimentary facial expression") makes some sense at the tiny gallery size, but (to me) none at all at a larger size. The "frightened deer" aspect of A, which several (including those voting for it) have mentioned, is not too apparent at gallery size, while B, actually with a rather twinkly smile at full size, can look rather forbidding at the small size. Images often read very differently at different sizes, as is well known. A cautionary lesson for formatting such rfcs. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In fact I've resized the gallery to 200px, which already makes quite a difference to A & B. The infobox image is of course larger. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Time to close this. I note that B leads, and "cropped B" has got all the votes since it was put up. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod, we don't go by "votes" or which point/image "leads" in support/oppose, we go by consensus in Wikipedia. So far, there is no consensus - 14 supports for one and 13 supports for another is not a consensus. As a result, policy states that the current image stays. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and neither you (nor I) are appropriate persons to close this (someone who can count properly is needed for a start). Like others of your opinions, it seems wrong to me. You'll note that several people have raised specific objections against A, but only you against B. It wasn't me who added B just now btw. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not welcome, Johnbod. [10] Perhaps you should refamiliarize yourself with WP:NPA and WP:FOC? Moreover, what I stated is not opinion, it's policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

John Bolton never served in the military (check it out and researh) 2607:FCC8:7542:3F00:1595:DD78:7368:1CA8 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Bolton did serve in the Maryland Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve, as the article body states. These units are part of the U.S. Army. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Content about 2005 nomination--too long

Could we please trim the content about his 2005 nomination as UN Ambassador? It's too long. We do not need a day-to-day breakdown of the nomination process.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually like how detailed it is. It shouldn't be trimmed, and I don't think it's excessive. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Support for Bolton

On PBS, Matthew Kroenig said he supported Bolton's appointment as NSA. However, it's in a video, so we can't cite it. Is anyone able to find an article we could cite please? Kroenig also says Bolton has many conservative supporters--who?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I do know that The Washington Examiner has posted several op-eds by various authors[11][12][13] (including the site's editorial board[14]) lauding Bolton's appointment. Sebastian Gorka[15] and Caroline Glick[16] also wrote favorably about the appointment. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Videos can be used if they are published by a reliable source. See template:Cite video and template:Cite interview.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
There is also a transcript there, so it seems fine to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Early life and education

The last sentence contains a quote from an interview on the Diane Rehm Show: by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from. There's a link to an archived www.wamu.org page, but it doesn't seem possible to listen to the audio or read the transcript. The Urquhart book review doesn't mention it. Is there another source for the quote? In Bolton's book (currently ref. #27 in the article) he writes something similar on page 11, but doesn't name Ted Kennedy: Before graduation, I joined the Maryland National Guard, finding a position by driving from armory to armory in the Baltimore area and signing up on waiting lists until a slot opened up. I had concluded that the Vietnam war was lost, and I made the cold calculation that I wasn’t going to waste time on a futile struggle. Dying for your country was one thing, but dying to gain territory that antiwar forces in Congress would simply return to the enemy seemed ludicrous to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Neoconservative

An editor with a history of straight-up vandalism[17][18] has removed text saying that Bolton has neoconservative and hawkish foreign policy views. The text is reliably sourced, and one of the defining characteristics of Bolton.[19] The text should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor Walsak: Per WP:BRD, discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Bolton is not a neoconservative. Even in most articles, he is referred to as being a "conservative" and "hawkish". Calling him a neocon is opinion, and false at that, not fact.Walsak (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I cite one of the top journals in political science and BBC News. There's plenty more, but those high-quality RS are sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I think "hawk" is the best label. Plenty of sources saying Bolton is not a neocon. https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/23/17155830/john-bolton-national-security-adviser-trump-mcmaster Bolton isn’t really a neocon because he doesn’t seem to care about promoting democracy abroad; he just wants t http://theweek.com/articles/762826/john-bolton-exactly-what-trump-promised Mr Bolton is not a neoconservative. Neocons believe US values should be universal. https://www.ft.com/content/9ba83ab2-2e34-11e8-9b4b-bc4b9f08f381 the first thing to understand about neoconservative ideologue John Bolton is that he’s not a neoconservative ideologue. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/john-boltons-appointment-is-a-warning-to-americas-enemies/ Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin rejected the neocon label, arguing that Bolton is really a “conservative hawk.” https://newrepublic.com/article/147640/scarier-neoconserative-john-bolton-radical-nationalist https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/opinion/sunday/john-bolton-hawk-war.html http://nationalinterest.org/feature/whos-afraid-john-bolton-25048 NPalgan2 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that "neoconservative" is not the best term for Bolton, as he differs in several ways with them (more sources on this: [20][21][22]). However, this does not take away the fact that people still commonly call him a neocon ([23], [24], [25], [26]), and we should mention this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Just today New York Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat described Bolton as a hawk, not a neoconservative. The label neoconservative is used mainly to describe Cold War liberals who moved rightward on foreign policy mainly in the Reagan era. This label does not fit Bolton. NPguy (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

DOJ tenure discrepancy

This article (both the infobox and article body) says that Bolton served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division from 1985 to 1989. However, the article United States Department of Justice Civil Division (as well as the DOJ website) shows him having served in that position from 1988 to 1989. I suspect that the DOJ website is correct, but that raises the question of what Bolton was doing between 1985 and 1988? Was he still in the DOJ, or doing something else? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

He was Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice from 1985 - 1988. It's listed under "Experience" in Annex B of the congressional committee report on his 2005 nomination for UN ambassador (ref. 1 in the article). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I fixed the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew internship

I put the Yale Daily News back because it is needed as the reference for the date of Bolton’s internship with Spiro Agnew. I did not remove the Washington Post article, but their claim that he interned for Bolton after Yale Law School is incorrect; Bolton did not graduate from Law School until 1974. The blog date is confirmed by David Keene: In fact, Bolton is a lifelong conservative who first came to Washington as a summer intern assigned to me while I was working for then Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1972. Later that year he played a key role in a major rules fight at the Republican National Convention in Miami… Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Please take the Yale Blog ref back out. Also, your contention that the WaPo article is incorrect is an incorrect approach also known as original research. It may be true that his graduation date is right in the 2005 blog, it may not. It would seem the blog writer is using original research as well, considering his unreliable 2005 posting conflicts with the March 2018 WaPo reliable source article. The Human Events article by David Keene isn't a reliable source, either. We have to go with what reliable sources state. In this case, that would be the WaPo article. See WP:RS for more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. I can see your posts on this Talk page. And please stop lecturing me. I have not done original research, I did research, and I put the source (David Keene writing in Human Events) for my information in my previous post. I have now added that source to the article. The WaPo is a reliable source, but they also get a fact or two wrong occasionally. I’m going with the man who was working for Agnew in the summer of 1972 when Bolton was a student summer intern at the WH: Bolton is a lifelong conservative who first came to Washington as a summer intern assigned to me while I was working for then Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1972. Bolton graduated from Yale Law in 1974; it says so right there in the Congressional Records at reference 1, so stop guessing and get off my case. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop responding in an uncivil and needlessly aggressive manner (see WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE. It doesn't matter if you think the WaPo got it wrong, what matters is that a reliable source states something different than the unreliable sources you are banking on. We go with reliable sources or we go with nothing. This is a BLP, they are treated differently than regular bios. Everything that could be challenged needs to be supported by reliable sourcing, period. Original research, personal feelings, and unreliable sources are not welcome. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I've removed both as not meeting Wikipedia's policy and guidelines on reliable sourcing and BLPs. Space4Time3Continuum2x, if you put them back in, you will essentially be edit warring - I'm assuming you know that's not a good path to start down. If you'd like, we can start an RfC to get other eyes on this, but I really doubt if you'll get much support for your insistence on keeping the two sources you want included. My suggestion is that you start looking for a reliable source (that meets Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources) to support the year you believe Bolton graduated from Yale Law. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I haven’t made all that many edits in the article. I added the section on Bolton’s Super PAC (all of it properly and reliably sourced), I corrected the infobox section on Bolton’s NG and AR service (still searching for his rank and unit), and I added an inoffensive little sentence on his 1972 summer internship for VP Agnew with first one and then a second source, both of whom were perfectly acceptable sources for a minor biographical fact. In short: just plain facts - who, what, when, where - no evaluations, no opinions, no personal feelings. And yet you have lectured me repeatedly - and condescendingly - on BLP, OR, and RS, and accused me of trolling, original research, uncivility, a needlessly aggressive manner, and (as a preventive measure, I presume, like Bolton’s proposed preventive bombing) of planning to edit war. You’re also still pinging me, mid-paragraph, no less, after I asked you – politely – to please stop doing that.
What set you off, some flip remarks about allegedly unflattering photos? I looked at the revision history to find out what started the image spat and discovered that at 01:10, 23 March 2018, you replaced the image at Choice B with the one at Choice A with an edit summary mentioning B’s "goofy look on article subject’s face." Ten hours later, at 11:45, 23 March 2018, IP address 108.6.7.182 posts a rant on the Talk page about deliberately selecting a photo where your "political enemy" looks goofy, "left-wing" bias, and goofy "selected" photos for conservatives. That was targeted at you specifically and not at Wikipedia editors in general. I should have stayed out of it – wouldn’t want to get between you and your troll(s) – there are two, or the first one acquired an unregistered IP address for his second post.
As for the summer internship, I do not think the Washington Post got it wrong, I know it, and I provided two reliable sources; why would the students at Yale and Keene, who was Bolton's supervisor at the WH, lie about the year? The reliable source that you suggested I start looking for to "support the year I believe Bolton graduated from Yale Law?" Kindly take a look at ref. 1 (the report on the 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, unless that’s also unacceptable according to your understanding of OR and RS), Annex B: June 1972-Aug 1972-White House summer Intern, Office of the Vice President. Annex B also lists his education: J.D. Yale Law School, 1971-1974; B.A., Yale College, 1966-1970. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Rant over? Hope so. Have no idea why you are battling on this article's talk page. I've removed the reference you added to the Agnew content as it didn't support anything relating to Bolton's internship in the summer of 1972. I do remember the summer of 1972 - it was the turning point in the Vietnam War with our bombing efforts over N Vietnam. It was a good move by the Nixon/Agnew White House. I wonder what Bolton thought of it, hawkish as he is now. Are you old enough to remember 1972 and the Nixon years? Just curious. Asking for a friend.  ;-)
Back to WP:RS: It doesn't matter what you think you know to be right, what matters is what reliable sources say. Verifiability over truth, you know. Content based on anything else is original research. Bottom line, end of story. No pinging this time (although I can't even imagine why it would upset you so...). Ta. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fox News contributor

There doesn't seem to be any mention that Bolton was (is?) a Fox News contributor. For example, see:

—2606:A000:4C0C:E200:51D9:C715:1A1D:7336 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry

Something should be mentioned in the article about Bolton's Jewish ancestry. According to this, he's ⅛ Ashkenazi. 2601:8C:4500:480:E039:9502:568:60A7 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nearly all of us have some Jewish ancestry, if we go back far away. And Arab, too. Why should we mention this in particular? We don't discuss the alleged Scottish, Irish, English and German ancestry (assuming the source is reliable, which I doubt)... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ethnicelebs.com generally does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information. See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Gatestone Institute should have a link 155.64.23.37 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks, NiciVampireHeart 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Politician vs Diplomat

Someone recently changed Bolton's description in the lead sentence from "diplomat" to "politician". There are zero sources that describe Bolton as a politician and he has not run for a single elected office in his entire career. On the other hand, his career is in diplomacy and has held numerous diplomatic positions. When I changed it back to "diplomat" because that is what the sources describe I was told to "add the sources please".


It should be obvious enough as he was quite literally the US ambassador to the United Nations but here are multiple sources that explicitly use the word "diplomat":

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/bolton-trump-foreign-policy-confusion-482168 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-atlantic-politics-policy-daily-bolton-down-the-hatches/556430/ https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-john-bolton-trumps-incoming-national-security-adviser-has-a-super-controversial-track-record-8583736 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/john-bolton-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-who-is-he-un-ambassador-hr-mcmaster-a8269571.html http://theconversation.com/who-is-john-bolton-and-what-does-he-want-93917

Should be pretty simple enough, can we have a quick consensus to change "politician" back to "diplomat"? Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. You are correct, Marquis de Faux, Bolton has always been a diplomat (post-law career) and has never been a politician. He still isn't. Plenty of reliable sources support him being a diplomat, as well. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Suggest you revert your edit in the article. 1 hour 23 minutes and one editor agreeing do not a consensus make, and WTH is a "quick consensus"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He hasn't run for elected office, but he has worked in every Republican administration since Reagan (not even counting his summer internship for VP Agnew in 1972). He's also ran an RNC committee and for 2 years and a PAC and Super PAC for 18 years, supporting political candidates for political office. For the references, please look at the article, they're all in there. By contrast, he has held only one diplomatic position, a recess-appointment as ambassador to the UN which lasted for only 14 months. Except for Bustle magazine (is that even considered a reliable source?) your sources refer to him as a former or ex-diplomat, or they use past tense as in "was working as" and "served as." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Working for and/or during presidential administrations doesn't make one a politician. If that were the case, the SCOTUS justices would be considered politicians as would press secretaries, secret service agents, attorneys general, and so on. What office has he run for? What multiple reliable sources refer to Bolton as a politician? I'll wait. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, describing someone as "ex" in past-tense isn't done. People like Elliott Abrams or George Moose or Susan Rice for example, are not described on Wikipedia as "ex-diplomats" even though they are not currently in government. Furthermore, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs and Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs are very much diplomatic positions. As previously said, working for an administration does not make one a politician. You would not describe Elliott Abrams or George Moose or Susan Rice or Samantha Power as politicians, they are government officials in various positions. Additionally, there are NO sources that describe Bolton as a "politician". Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Definition of politician (Merriam-Webster) 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government; 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession; b often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Marquis: I wasn't proposing to use "ex" in the article, merely quoted your sources. As for the former UN ambassadors you mentioned: Moose was a career Foreign Service diplomat from 1967 to 2006 (1, 2) who was promoted to Career Ambassador in 2002 (there haven't been that many), totally different kettle of fish. Rice's page says that she "is an American public official" who "was formerly a U.S. diplomat". Power's page does say "is an ... academic, author, political critic, and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017." I looked up the Wikipedia pages of about 20 former US ambassadors to the UN and found that about half were called diplomats and the other half weren't, including Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. who served two terms for a total of 9 years. I checked for guidance in Wikipedia Help but didn't find any. I therefore propose the following wording since you seem amenable to using "government official": "... is an American attorney, government official, and former diplomat who serves as the National Security Advisor ...". Or we could take it to an RfC, if you'd prefer. I haven't initiated one of those yet but it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSUFFEXISTS. As well, "government official" is ffar too broad and non-specific. Diplomat is supported by the sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Got sources? No? Then drop the stick and back away from the equine carcass. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Lodge was a prominent US Senator who ran for President, and thus article describes him as such. As for "merely quoting my sources," I do not see how "ex" makes Bolton any less of a diplomat for Wikipedia purposes. Power's page says "diplomat" as well as other things she did, none of which was "politician." The point is, none of them were described as "politician" unless they actually were politicians who ran for office. Again, Bolton also served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs and Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, which are very much diplomatic positions. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t agree that the term "politician" only applies to people who have officially run for office; quite a few people, including Bolton, have "explored" the possibility and then refrained from actually doing so. However, I did not use the term in my proposal which I am repeating here in case you overlooked it: "... is an American attorney, government official, and former diplomat who serves as the National Security Advisor …" I stand corrected on Bolton’s length of service as a diplomat; I did not count the years from 1989 to 2005 that he spent as a lawyer at the State Department before the recess appointment as ambassador to the UN. His diplomatic career lasted 7 years and ended 13 years ago; it's been past and done for close to twice as long as it lasted. Please provide recent RS (post-2006) that use the term "diplomat (John) Bolton" without "former" or "ex" or in a context that makes it clear that it's in the past; the sources you provided don't, with the exception of Bustle (Republican diplomat and lawyer). Below are RS that refer to his diplomatic past in one way or another. Wikipedia is not the protocol school of Washington, and we are not addressing an official letter to a former/retired ambassador; we should stick to what RS say:

  • Your source Independent, March 22, 2018: In 2003, when he was serving as America’s chief arms control diplomat, - past tense. Contains link to Independent 2016, December 12, 2016, headline: Ex-US diplomat John Bolton
  • Your source Atlantic, March 23, 2018: former diplomat
  • Your source Politico, March 22, 2018: hawkish former diplomat
  • Your source The Conversation, March 27, 2018:. While working as a diplomat in the U.N., he notably feuded .. - past tense
  • CNN, March 28, 2018: Bush-era diplomat
  • The Atlantic, March 23, 2018: former diplomat John Bolton
  • BBC, March 23, 2018: right-wing former diplomat, John Bolton, ...
  • Vox, March 28, 2018: Bush appointed him to be undersecretary of state for arms control, basically the top diplomat focusing on weapons of mass destruction ...

As for your Wikipedia precedent, the Samantha Power article, there the term "diplomat" is immediately followed by a qualifier giving the specifics of her tenure: Irish-born American academic, author, political critic, and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017, i.e., diplomat is immediately followed by a qualifier giving the specifics of her term. In Bolton’s case, the qualifier does not follow until two sentences later, leaving us with the impression that he is still a diplomat today.

Breaking down the individual parts of my edit:

  • Lawyer: 28 years in private practice and still a member of the bar, at least 4 years in government service
  • Political commentator: Fox News contributor from 1996 until present, author Weekly Standard from 1997 to 2000 and again from 2014 to 2016, publications at AEI and Gatestone Institute between 1997 and 2018
  • Republican consultant and activist (highlights): 1964 volunteer on Goldwater’s presidential campaign; executive director of RNC Committee on Resolutions 1983 to 1984; 1999 Florida election "hanging chads" recount; featured speaker at various CPACs; John Bolton PAC and Super PAC; also numerous articles and commentaries - see preceding bullet point
  • Government employee & former diplomat: USAID 1982 to 1983, Justice Department 1985 to 1989, State Department 1989 to 2006 Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the proposal. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

In the second paragraph, where institutions in which he is involved are enumerated, please add that he is founding member of:

http://www.friendsofisraelinitiative.org/about/founder-members

Thanks. --Sophia.Orthoi (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Sophia.Orthoi (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In this case, reliable independent sources are necessary to demonstrate this association is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Is not enough the web site of the institution cited above that names Bolton as its member? Here some other sites that name Bolton as member of the initiative, found putting "john bolton"+"friends of israel initiative" in google:
   https://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/20/friends-of-israel-initiative-the-neoconservatives-eastern-front/
   http://www1.cbn.com/jerusalemdateline/archive/2010/08/27/the-friends-of-israel-initiative
   http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2011/Pages/Pres-Peres-hosts-delegation-from-Friends-of-Israel-Initiative-14-Jul-2010.aspx
You can select the one you consider reliable. Please, do not hesitate to ask for more sources if needed. --Sophia.Orthoi (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The question is not whether Bolton is a member of the organization but whether there is any significant coverage of Bolton's involvement in this organization. So, yes, the organization's web site is not enough is not enough. Please read standards on notability and the standards on reliability. Of the sources so far offered, two are not independent of the subject, one is a definitely non-reliable source, and the only one that may be reliable is the Pulse Media one. One eight-year-old blog article does not convincingly demonstrate there has been significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It is really difficult to find something newer, but this "Friends of Israel Initiative" is active, for example was behind the creation of the institution http://www.high-level-military-group.org and sponsors it, this is mentioned in the following Norman Finkelsteins book published this year:

https://books.google.de/books?id=qo84DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22High+Level+Military+Group%22+%22friends+of+israel+initiative%22&source=bl&ots=n41DxGo_1H&sig=-3Xx4WMHt0vo6afBQILskOeYDRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw1Pfbv_7aAhXN_aQKHSGmCREQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=%22High%20Level%20Military%20Group%22%20%22friends%20of%20israel%20initiative%22&f=false

but it does not mention Boltons membership in the "Friends of Israel Initiative", but here it is mentioned:

http://www.achgut.com/artikel/darueber_hat_weder_die_faz_noch_die_taz_berichtet

the last piece is from 17.12.2015. Of course, a source is reliable only for those that want to rely on it. I am only interested that Bolton be mentioned as member of this institution. Perhaps the following could be the source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Israel_Initiative

And then mention Finkelsteins Book in that Article. Does someone have a better idea? --Sophia.Orthoi (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of citations

@KalHolmann: Where in MOS:OVERLINK does it discuss references/citations? Please show me. It only discusses internal wiki-links as far as I can see. Thus, I oppose this edit, and I think a fourth reference is OK to add. I won't fight it further, though. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: sorry, MOS:OVERLINK is the wrong guideline; it does apparently relate to internal links, not to references. Instead, the pertinent discussion of citation clutter is at Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Let's see what other editors have to say. If consecutive references 2–4 added anything substantive to what the first citation supports, I wouldn't object. But I believe it's pointless to pile on references for the sheer sake of piling them on. It serves only to impair readability. KalHolmann (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Bolton/Archive_3&oldid=1149796941"