Talk:Mexican–American War

Quibble about usage

Re: section entitled "Defense of the War"

I have been asked by another contributor to solicit consensus here on a point of usage.

When is it appropriate to deviate from the past tense in writing about historical events?

Explaining his changes to my text, Beyond My Ken writes, "Let's please recall that we are compiling an encyclopedia for general audiences. There's no particular reason why an article about a past historical event needs to be so complex in its use of tenses - plain old past tense is just fine."

I maintain that when discussing the contents of a book, an argument, a speech, etc., the present tense is employed.

For example:

"At the end of the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein takes note of his frequent references to the very general facts of nature and fends off any overeager metaphysical use of them..." [my emphasis] (The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, ed. H. Sluga and D. Stern (Cambridge U. Press, 1996), p. 152.)

This is an instance of the "ongoing truth exception" to the general rule governing sequence of tenses, and a common source of confusion. When we speak of an ongoing truth or state of affairs, the present tense is employed, regardless of when it originated. Thus She said she is sorry, not She said she was sorry. The act of speaking is indeed past, but not its contents.

I agree that we needn't be overly fastidious about slight deviations from standard usage in a popular work of this sort, but it seems odd to bother actually introducing them into material that is already written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakesnobread (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not doing a free-standing analysis of a speech or communication, you are recounting the events surrounding the speech in the context of an article in a general-interest encyclopedia about a historical event. The proper tense is use is obviously past tense -- this stuff isn't happening now, and the subject is not some eternally present thing. It happened in the past, it is of the past, and the description should indicate that. Your desire to change tenses in the middle of the article for the length of a paragraph entirely disrupts the flow of the article for the reader and is totally unnecessary. This is not an academic paper, and your wish to flip tenses is pedantic in the extreme. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your last three edits, since in the process you deleted my response. Please be more careful. You'll need to re-add your minor changes to your original comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is one supposed to know when the page is being edited by someone else at the same time? Bakesnobread (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't being edited at the same time. In your first re-edit, here, you deleted my comment, which I had saved 9 minutes before. If we had been editing the article at the same time, when you tried to save the system would have told you that there was an "edit conflict". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider:

• Wikipedia Manual of Style: Internal consistency:
  • An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.
• Wikipedia Manual of Style: Clarity:
  • Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
• Wikipedia:Readers First:
  • Having established that potentially every English-reader may also be a reader of Wikipedia, albeit that certain elements of a very small number of articles may include some technical details not everyone will understand, how should we cater for this audience?

    This can be difficult. Wikipedia is fortunate in having many editors who are full-time academics and who know a lot about their subjects. Their edits are very welcome, but often they are too complicated for the average reader. This is not surprising, when you are accustomed to writing for one audience throughout your professional life, it is difficult to write for a completely different one. Perhaps some good advice would be to imagine you are writing for people who read serious (i.e. non-tabloid) newspapers. Don't worry, that doesn't mean write in a newspaper style, it means imagine the selection of words and how much knowledge it is fair to assume that audience will have (bearing in mind they could be anywhere in the world). Another group which might make a good theoretical audience are high school and college students. Many of them do use Wikipedia to read about certain topics on a reasonably advanced level for the first time.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While this entire discussion is certainly pedantic, following simple, established rules of good usage is not. This is the only issue here, no matter how many red herrings get thrown up.

For the sake of wikipedia, I hope the next newcomer gets a less acrimonious reception. Bakesnobread (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Acrimonomious"? You are new, aren't you? Why not try to get your feet wet a bit and get the feel of the place before you start attempting to change things? I know we don't meet your exacting standards, but there might be value in the project anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of confusing ignorance of particular parochial habits with general nescience. Experto crede!

I know that wikipedia is used by many millions of young people and learners of English whose writing habits are not yet so incorrigible as ours seem to be, and therefore has an opportunity and a responsibility to set the best practicable example. Bakesnobread (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of confusing ignorance of particular parochial habits with general nescience. Sure, and you be sure not to confuse access to information with wisdom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The speech itself is not what I was writing about, but rather its atemporal contents. I've given several examples of correct usage in such cases. You will find further discussion in the entry on tenses in Garner's Modern American Usage. If you have any counter-examples or other editors who share your opinion, please produce them. Bakesnobread (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't quite understand why you are arguing. Either grammar is correct for common readers, however the more similar to a newspapers, probably the better. If it is such a point of contention, I would suggest moving on to something else.

Bakesnobread, please consider exploring the standards of Wikipedia a little bit more and try to deal with articles that really need to be examined for grammar, not ones like this where only specialist knowledge of stylistic handbooks would be alarmed at such a use. To find other articles that need grammar work, consider checking out Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit or Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. Thank you for the work, and happy editing, Sadads (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I never had any interest in proofreading this article. I was concerned with its bias, and added some material which I felt might be a start towards achieving some balance. This was then revised by another editor, whose changes I disagreed with. Only then did I talk about usage and grammar. This other editor should perhaps be looking at the lists you mention. In any case, I agree that it's time to move on. Bakesnobread (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Combat Photography

This was the first war to ever be photographed, but nowhere in this article does the word 'photograph' even appear.--70.178.226.24 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you find some sources for us to write a section on it? That would be really useful. Sadads (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that good sourcing would be needed for this claim. During the 1840s, the only real photographic process available was Daguerreotype. This is a technology suitable for landscapes or staged portraits, but photographing any type of action was not practical. Thus while it was technically possible for some of the war's participants to have portraits made, battle field photography similar to that made during the American Civil War would clearly qualify as an extraordinary (if not impossible) claim. --Allen3 ^talk 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott's Mexico City Campaign vandalized

Has been vandalized can someone roll it back

Included in the invading force were Robert E. Lee, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The city was defended by Mexican General Juan Morales with 3,400 men. Mortars and naval guns under Commodore Matthew C. Perry were used to reduce the city walls and harass defenders. The city replied as best as it could with its own artillery. The effect of the extended barrage destroyed the will of the Mexican side to fight against a numerically superior force, and they surrendered the city after 12 days under siege. U.S. troops suffered 80 casualties, while the Mexican side had around 180 killed and wounded, about half of whom were civilian. During the siege, the U.S. side began to fall victim to yellow fever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.138.193 (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move; MOS is only a guide and the Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy overiding it. Consensus here is to move, but with vocal opposition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Mexican–American War → Mexican-American War — Believe it or not, this is controversial; therefore this request to move to a hyphen, what English actually uses - and should use. These are the printed books which use "Mexican American War" (search phrase chosen for neutrality). I have looked some way down the list for one which does not hyphenate when one clicks through to the actual scan and not found one; for one Google has an OCR error and reports a space. Since this a compound adjective, being the war which is both Mexican and American, hyphenation also complies with WP:ENDASH. (Unlike Michelson–Morley experiment, which is a compound (proper) noun used attributively, this falls under WP:HYPHEN 3.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom; unless there is some well-printed source which actually uses the dash, this ahould be strong support; it there is merely a consensus of sources, it is MOS:FOLLOW. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—Mr Anderson, you know very well this is just a WP:POINTY exercise because you (1) have always disagreed with the MoS on this matter, and (2) object to the role of the style guide at WP in the first place. Thank you. Tony (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please discount this personal attack. I subjoin the entirety of what MOS says about endashes. Most of it is sound; none of it supports this bizarre formation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think you're right about this, Septentrionalis. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Septentrionalis. Jonathunder (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, Mexico–America but Mexican-American. Powers ^T 14:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support lighty but status quo is fine, in researching the proper usage of the en dash and hyphen, it is clear that a strong case can be made for using either one. To quote the Wikipedia article on dashes, "Prefixes normally takes hyphens, not en dashes. For example, while the France–Germany border is commonly dashed, the Franco-Prussian War is hyphenated, as Franco- is not a separate name but a prefix for France. However, when prefixing a compound word, an en dash may be used." BUT "This is generally avoided as a distraction in the case of hyphenated compounds." So even the article on dashes gives us two ways to do it. It does imply strongly that a hyphen is preferable in our case, but not required. -- Avanu (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles where a dash has been used in place of a hyphen. (see discussion for full reasoning)--Xession (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. See new subsection below: Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  First edit in over two months by editor who speaks routinely with the first oppose.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See response below: Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If ^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}N would like a discussion at MOS, she can (first) link to a clear discussion and (second) still keep in mind the posters here. But she does come off like a ranting petty tyrant and would be better served by discussing the merits of the policy. In any case, per Tony1 below, no, we don't have to justify ourselves against standard policy (Semp already did fine) and feel free to cut and paste our votes over there as votes against this policy towards establishing a new and less ORy format. — LlywelynII 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I try to keep what I have to say in one place (see below: Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS); but I am disparaged here, and will reply just once. LlywelynII says I "rant" like a "petty tyrant"; but she gives no grounds for that. I have clearly shown that the issue is general, not specific to the compound "Mexican–American". As such it should be considered generally, along with vastly many similar cases like those I mention below: Turkish–Armenian War, Zhili–Anhui War, Saudi–Yemeni War, Iran–Iraq War, and so on. You'd need to produce an argument that my voicing such a concern is "petty" or "tyrannical". Far from disrupting the project in any way, I have not even edited an article or guideline since January last year. I remain concerned for Wikipedia, and choose to have my say against an irrational proposal that threatens consistency in the naming of articles. It gives nothing but precedent for local wrangling throughout Wikipedia. As for LlywelynII's remarks "per Tony1", and about the enigmatic Semp, I have no idea what she is talking about. Neither, I suspect, does she. I have no interest in discussing anything further at this talkpage. If anyone seeks to continue such a juvenile squabble, know this: I will not be a participant.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Apart from WP:FOLLOW, there is also the issue of policy WP:V. The hyphenated name has been verified in multiple books. The dashed name has not verified anywhere. Also WP:COMMONNAME, the hyphenated name is the most commonly used name.

Also, in case someone raises the strawman of "lazy webmasters / lazy book editors that don't use dashes correctly because it's too much effort", those books use dashes correctly (for example, dashes in page ranges, dashes to separate sentences). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this needs to be sorted out centrally at WT:MOS. This page is entirely inappropriate for such a poll. Mr Anderson has launched the poll as a point exercise because he cannot gain consensus at the MoS for his views. We do not want inconsistent treatment in article titles. Tony (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, what this page should be titled is properly discussed here - that's what move requests are for; please stop making things up. When you have a policy that says so - and MOS itself does not - or an argument on the substance of this RN, do get back to us.

And the results of discussion at MOS, principally your own cries of "sabotage", have been several comments, particularly Xession and Enric Naval, who support this move. So your undocumented procedural claims aren't consensus either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

discussion

I'm sorry, this is not legitimate. The Manual of Style clearly says that the dash is used in this case ("versus"). Mr Anderson has failed repeatedly to gain consensus that the MoS should be simply overridden by anyone who doesn't like some aspect of it. He has mounted another one of his challenges at the talk page now. Those who are saying Support need to to provide cogent, clear reasons why the MoS needs to be breached on this occasion—not simply "Support" per Anderson, and "I think you're right about this" and, bizarrely, support "Mexico–America" but "Mexican-American" (why?). If you want to change the article name, you need to give specific reasons why, in this instance, "common sense" should apply to make the project better by going against the guideline, as it says at the top of the MoS. Better, you need to gain consensus to change the guideline at the MoS if you think it is inappropriate. Mr Anderson has failed to do so, as I said, and he is using editors on this page to pursue his campaign. Tony (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not legitimate? Where does it say that? Please stop inventing policy; what policy actually says is that Wikipedia is not governed by statute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

But I grant the appropriateness of claiming a procedural rule which does not exist in order to argue a substantive issue on which MOS does not support you. ;} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• From the College Handbook of Composition:

"The dash, a dramatic mark of punctuation, indicates a sudden change in the thought or structure of a sentence."

"A hyphen is used to indicate the division between syllables of a word at the end of a line, and to join the parts of a compound word."

This book is rather old and is is indiscriminate in regards to the various types of dashes. However, the content regarding this matter is clearly stated and is just as relevant today. In this matter, the words, "Mexican" and "American" are both adjectives, describing the noun "War", or in this case, which war. (see Adjective restrictiveness)

"Words used as a single adjective before a noun are usually hyphenated."

Examples: bull-necked fighter, worn-out clothing, high-strung girl, right-hand man, far-reaching results

As such a description suggests, I fully support PMAnderson's position on this matter, to change the title from "Mexican–American War" to "Mexican-American War"

--Xession (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Again, this is not a legitimate straw-poll. Any opposition to Mr Anderson's agenda to challenge the role of the MoS is apparently labelled as a "personal attack". Registrations of "Support" that express reasons such as "I think you're right about this, Septentrionalis.", and "per Septentrionalis." and "I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles" provide no substantive reason, as required, that this article presents a special circumstance requiring non-compliance with the site-wide guide line. The fact the Mr Anderson has on several occasions failed to convince editors at the MoS of his line about en dashes is no reason that this article should be moved, and User:Llywelynil's comment, "we don't have to justify ourselves against standard policy", and "feel free to cut and paste our votes over there as votes against this policy towards establishing a new and less ORy format" expose a very strange perspective. So does the use of as supporting evidence a page that is tagged "This page contains material that is considered humorous." (WP:FOLLOW). So does the notion that because a few sources have been found that use a hyphen (against the strong evidence supplied by User:Noetica concerning the use of dashes, both on and off wiki), somehow this article should be moved. Unless people can come up with well-argued, substantive reasons, such a move would be pure disruption, with the clear implication that it is WP:POINTY and part of a political campaign. Tony (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  You're repeating yourself, Tony.

  • Your attacks on me have no evidence (and are false: what "politics" could possibly be involved in the punctuation of this war?)
  • You've brought this up at WT:MOS, and gotten the response that your insistence is petty and non-collaborative.
  • You still haven't presented any reason to believe that this poll, the standard mechanism of WP:RM. is "illegitimate".
  • You haven't presented any reason to ignore WP:TITLE, which is policy on article titles.
  • You haven't said anything about the substance of what title we should use for this article.
  • You haven't found any sources which use a dash for the Mexican-American War (which would be relevant - and if I were cherry-picking, easy). I can't find any either.

  Noetica came in convinced, as she says; no wonder you haven't convinced anybody else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style

1. To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war). Ranges expressed using prepositions (from 450 to 500 people or between 450 and 500 people) should not use dashes (not from 450–500 people or between 450–500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10).
   • Is this War a range from Mexican to American?
2. To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border).
   • This is closer; but no; all of these are noun compounds. The War is both Mexican and American; we are not dealing with the nonce-phrase Mexico–America War.
3. To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones), nor a hyphenated place name (Guinea-Bissau), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).
   • Again, no; these are noun compounds.
4. To separate items in a list—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used between track titles and durations, and between musicians and their instruments. In this role, en dashes are always spaced.
   • No list here.
5. In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate) and when prefixing an element containing a space (pre–World War II technologies, ex–prime minister) – but usually not when prefixing an element containing a hyphen (non-government-owned corporations, semi-labor-intensive industries). However, recasting the phrase (the conscription debate, technologies prior to World War II) may be better style than compounding.
   • This would imply that we were joining Mexico and American War.
6. As a stylistic alternative to em dashes (see below).
   • Nope. Mexican—American War with an em dash is unheard of.

WP:HYPHEN, however, says:

3.[Hyphens are used] To link related terms in compound adjectives and adverbs

And there we have it. Mexican-American is a compound adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's right, but so is "east–west", in "east–west runway", since there is motion to or from, or a range, or an opposition, not merely the jamming together of two words such as mostly occurs in a double adjective ("most well-known factors"). Thank you for your interest in the distinction. Tony (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Last time I checked, east and west were nouns, the adjectives being eastern and western, so that's in point 2 of the list above, unlike this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.105.17 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  East and west can be adverbs, nouns, adjectives, lots of things. I don't understand your point. It's the relationship between the two words in the context that matters. Tony (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  The part of speech that a word is depends on usage. "East coast" has 'East' as an adjective modifying 'coast'. "He came from the East" has 'East' as a noun. -- Avanu (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  I can't see why "east" in "east coast" would be any more of an adjective than "Dublin" in "Dublin Corporation" is. All the features distinguishing nouns from adjectives I can think of (and being an attribute of a noun isn't one, both nouns and adjectives can) would point at "east" being a noun, and "eastern" an adjective. (It is true that the part of speech that a word is depends on usage, as love is definitely a verb in I love you and a noun in Love is a feeling, but I don't think this is the case here.) 137.43.105.17 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  East coast partly, and east part entirely, has one characteristic of the adjective which is not shared by attributive nouns; the adjective can be separated from the noun (east, marshy part). But the real difficulty here is that east-west does normally have a hyphen, not a dash. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Attributive nouns or noun adjuncts: In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In plain English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"). However, it can generally indicate almost any semantic relationship. It is also common for adjectives to be derived from nouns, as in English boyish, birdlike, behavioral, famous, manly, angelic, and so on.

So there is what it is.... anyway, this is a silly debate :) -- Avanu (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS

This is decidedly not the place to have such a wide-ranging debate. I hold back (here at least) from any observations on the proposer's motivation for initiating this outlying skirmish, and on the excessively localised analysis presented so far in support of the proposal. I invite editors to look at the larger picture. They will plainly see that wars are regularly named on Wikipedia according to MOS style – interpreted as calling for an en dash (except where the first element is a mere prefix-form, such as Sino-). Look for example at the articles linked at List of conflicts in Asia. Sure, there are a few irregularities in the names of articles as they appear in that list (which need fixing, even for mere local consistency). But the linked articles themselves conform to the MOS guideline requiring an en dash (see Turkish–Armenian War, Zhili–Anhui War, Saudi–Yemeni War, Iran–Iraq War, and so on).

If you genuinely think (PMAnderson, and others) that the present article differs materially from those cases, by all means make the special case here. Otherwise, present the general question to WT:MOS, and propose wholesale changes to names of articles throughout the project.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is being discussed at MOS; indeed, most of the posts at WT:MOS for a couple months have been related to this issue, directly or indirectly. There is no consensus for the dash; there is at least strong opinion that MOS should in general follow English usage.

But this begs the real questions:

• Is MOS the central authority here?

  No. We have a policy on Article titles, which says to follow reliable sources; so does MOS, if the actual pronouncements of the oracle make any impact here.

• Does MOS actually say anything about this case?

  Yes, and it says it in WP:HYPHEN: Hyphenate compound adjectives.

• What is English usage?
  • Here it is clear; for Turkish Armenian War, it is equally clear: as far as I can see, only Wikipedia uses the dash, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  • This is an arbitrary comparandum in any case: Most wars are named after one side, like First Afghan War, or the precipitating circumstance like War of the Spanish Succession, or a general description First Balkan War - and have no internal punctuation. Those that do mostly use hyphens, like the Franco-Prussian War mentioned abovem or the Russo-Japanese War; this whole WP:MADEUP rule is an artificial separation between analogous forms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that, there is the question whether MOS should respond at all to a consensus of opinion elsewhere. Two editors think not; our policy, however, is that Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Their claim is that a shadow of a penumbra of MOS does set practice, against consensus, and against the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

[My response here also addresses PMA's remark in an earlier section, where I strongly opposed his proposal to move this article.–Noetica] Yes, my first edit in over two months – and one of only a half-dozen edits in the past thirteen months. That shows how seriously I view the present diversion from rational procedure. Each of my rare edits has been against subversion of stability and consistency in Wikipedia style. As you well know, PMAnderson, I am opposed to your widely recognised efforts to weaken the effectiveness of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Take the whole substantive issue (which is large, not local), to WT:MOS. If you are not happy with the treatment it gets there, just go away. (Learn from my example: it is not compulsory to make your own Thersites-like presence felt quite so relentlessly.) Above all, do not sow chaos in talkpages of particular articles, when it is clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia has a consistent and stable style – even if conservative paper-based publishers, with less universal coverage, are demonstrably inconsistent among and within themselves. I have shown Wikipedia's consistency in naming wars, which is derived from one respected and rational practice in traditional publishing. But you do not acknowledge such settled consistency, and you work tirelessly against every form of it that MOS has managed to bring about.

The Wikipedia endeavour is new. Appeals to fragmentary precedent are only one part of the story. Get with it, or take your skirmishing to some sphere of lesser importance in the new economy of knowledge.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And if I do go away, and appeal to Wikipedians in general against a misinterpretation that makes Wikipedia look stupid, what happens? Tony follows me and objects strongly to writing in English, and solicits your voice (contrary to WP:CANVASS) - not for any benefit this does the encyclopedia, neither of you having named any - but to preserve the "status of MOS" [sic]; and you demand that I go back there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And - albeit I revile not, but am reviled - I thank you for the comparison to the most sensible man at Troy. If I be Thersites, who is "Ajax the elephant"? Who is "dog-faced" and "deer-hearted" Agamemnon, misled by a lying dream? It's not my metaphor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The expected reply (since I know you for a Hellenist). The analogy is imperfect. You might, by the way, have mentioned the swift-footed Achilles. He remains aloof and uninvolved until certain reparations are made.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Agamemnon is a fool to offer to command Achilles;

Achilles is a fool to be commanded of Agamemnon;

Thersites is a fool to serve such a fool,

and Patroclus is a fool positive." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are descriptive of practice, not the other way around. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy Solution

I propose a new unicode character called the war dash. It looks just like an en dash or a hyphen, depending on your political orientation or number of eyes. Also, you can resolve conflicts about its appearance by simply starting another war and using the appearance that you prefer. Additionally, it has its very own manual of style written collaboratively by a collection of hyper-intelligent rodents armed with those tiny swords you find in drinks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take it up at WP:Bugzilla, I'll support this; it could work just like date autoformatting. ;} Quite seriously, if our boldface dash were as similar to a hyphen as in Roman script, this might well be moot. And I have some gerbil food for those hyper-intelligent rodents; having a MOS written collaboratively would be a great change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative and almost as easy solution

I propose that MediaWiki be modified to allow us to randomise the selection of hyphen, dash, m-dash and whatever other virtually identical characters we have when used in article titles, noting that they're already treated as identical for the purposes of searching. Then editors will have no need to decide, while readers, who don't care and mostly can't even tell, will be unaffected. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous, since MOS and the wikignomes have already done it. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point.

Seriously, is there a better way forward? We seem to have strong opinions on several sides, some more logical than others perhaps but who is to judge, but more important, would any of them, even if adopted immediately and by sudden, strong and miraculous consensus, add sufficient value to the project to justify the effort being expended? I doubt it. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If either of them were miraculously accepted as consensus, there would be next to no further effort required. For example, if the view that MOS is entitled to invent usage for dashes were abandoned, just page-moves for some of the wars Noetica names above and a copy-edit each. (Iran–Iraq, as a noun compound, may well be right.) The value to the project is that Mexican–American War is a public embarrassment, and it misleads foreign readers.

One miraculous transformation requires a half-dozen editors to stop pushing MOS into the Internet Newspeak Dictionary - if that were done, even they would have a break: they could stop running automatic editors to undermine the work of the rest of us. The other would require that all present and future editors fluent in English agree to abandon it at the whim of MOS. I know which I think less work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 26 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.