Talk:Mexican–American War: Difference between revisions
→Requested move: support |
|||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
*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. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:57, 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. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 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 3 of the list above, unlike this. |
Revision as of 14:21, 19 February 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mexican–American War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 13, 2004, May 8, 2005, May 13, 2008, May 13, 2009, and May 13, 2010. |
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.
- 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?
- Wikipedia Manual of Style: Internal consistency:
- Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please consider:
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
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that Mexican–American War be renamed and moved to Mexican-American War. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
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)
- Opppose—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)
Manual of Style
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 3 of the list above, unlike this.
- B-Class Mexico articles
- Mid-importance Mexico articles
- WikiProject Mexico articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
- Unassessed American Old West articles
- Unknown-importance American Old West articles
- WikiProject American Old West articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
- Requested moves