|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.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Mexican–American War has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|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, May 13, 2010, and May 13, 2012.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 4 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
The Lemma must sound American-Mexican War not Mexican-American War, because the United States od America attacked Mexico and the attacker is named first and the defender named second.--MBelzer (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I only want to dispute one phrase: "The war was initiated by Mexico". If there is a territory in dispute that still belongs to a country, and a second country moves troops to that territory, the latter is a invader and therefore the initiator, no matter the reasoning behind that move and no matter who fires first. If not, we should say that Poland initiated Second World War and Kuwait the First War of the Gulf. In fact, I believe that the neutrality of this article leaves a lot to desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agar73 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I only want to dispute one phrase: "The war was initiated by Mexico". If there is a territory in dispute that still belongs to a country, and a second country moves troops to that territory, the latter is a invader and therefore the initiator, no matter the reasoning behind that move and no matter who fires first. If not, we should say that Poland initiated Second World War and Kuwait the First War of the Gulf. In fact, I believe that the neutrality of this article leaves a lot to desire.--Agar73 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The casus bellum was not a geographical one of disputed boundaries in a nearly unsettled area. The issue was national pride. Mexico was determined to get all of Texas back under its full control. Its mistake was to massacre an American army unit instead of escorting them out of the disputed area. Rjensen (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say that the fact of which country started the conflict is debatable. General Ampudia had sent a letter to general Taylor requesting the withdrawing of American troops, and not only the letter was ignored but Taylor advanced up to Rio Grande and built Fort Brown, which Mexico saw as a de facto occupation of the disputed land. Which side was right is not my concern, but I do believe that there are many points that are debatable in this conflict (from the validity of the Treaties of Velasco to the consequences of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), and I think the Wikipedia page should show those unresolved areas instead of giving a single answer as indisputable. In fact, no other than Ulysses S. Grant tells the following in his "Personal Memoirs": "The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, “Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.,” and prosecute the contest with vigor.".... "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the “invaders” to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras. It was desirable to occupy a position near the largest centre of population possible to reach, without absolutely invading territory to which we set up no claim whatever". (Chapter IV) ¿So Mexico started the conflict because its troops fired first, or were the American troops, who were following orders to press on further into "her soil" until a fight was inevitable? I would think that the point of which side started the war is certainly debatable.--Agar73 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have always heard of this war referred to as the Mexican War, and most people whom I address using that term, understand what war I am talking about.
Why call it the "Mexican-American War"?
- If you take the time to skim the archives for this talk page, you will find two major reasons for why "Mexican–American War" is used:
- As per WP:COMMONNAME, the most commonly used term is the (generally) preferred title. Past surveys have determined "Mexican–American War" is the more commonly used name for this conflict. The bias toward this name is even stronger when you restrict yourself to texts published since around 1980 (Many older texts published in the United States use Mexican War, but this term appears to have declined in popularity since the mid-1970s).
- Wikipedia is written for an international audience. Mexico has fought in a number of conflicts and the term "Mexican War" is ambiguous outside of a strictly American context.
- --Allen3 talk 02:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
A map shows U.S. territories as "unorganized". The map should be deleted, or changed to also show the Mexican territorias as "unoranizisto" - in order to improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mexican–American War. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228202255/https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_principal_wars.xhtml to https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_principal_wars.xhtml
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mzr02
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.duke.edu/~agf2/history391/migration.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115062024/http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page16.html to http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/4367
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.