Talk:Mexican–American War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Mexico (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject North America (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Hispanic and Latino Americans (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / American Old West / Mexican-Americans (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Mexican-Americans task force (marked as Top-importance).
 


Thornton affair[edit]

Just a query This article says that 16 Americans were killed in the struggle while the main article for the affair says 11 were killed and 5 injured, which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soph.pretorius (talkcontribs) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A very later response: Eisenhower, John S. D. So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8061-3279-2. Originally published New York: Random House, 1989, p. 65 says 16 men were killed or wounded. Woodworth, Steven E. Manifest Destinies: America's Westward Expansion and the Road to the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2010. ISBN 978-0-307-26524-1, p. 155 says 16 killed or wounded. Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7432-9742-1, p. 241 says 11 Americans were killed and 6 wounded. Borneman, Walter R. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York: Random House, 2008. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8, p. 201 says 11 American dragoons were killed. The University of Texas Arlington web site page on the Thornton Affair says sixteen U.S. troops killed or wounded. The web site U.S.-Mexican War by Descendants of Mexican War Veterans says 14 killed, plus 2 died later. The web site Mexican American War page The Thornton Affair lists the names of 16 American soldiers who were killed and 5 who were wounded. The web page Mexican-American War: Roots of the Conflict from about.com says 16 killed. The 16 killed or wounded could be the 14 killed in action and the 2 others who were mortally wounded and died a little later. Five wounded in addition might have been omitted in the "16" version while they might have been subtracted from 16 in the one or two instances where the author cites 11 killed. I think 16 and 5 are the right numbers because one of the sites lists names and many other sources support or seem to support 16 as the number killed. Donner60 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Date Format[edit]

This edit October 26, 2007 edit established the default format for access dates for this article per MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET.--JOJ Hutton 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be correct on this, and on that grounds your change to MDY is acceptable. When you changed it, however, 1> you did not know this, and 2> every accessdate was already YMD and had been so for over a year. This means it is not true that "every instance of change the dates were in mixed format". I do see that 3> other dates were not unified & so using the script was helpful. I urge you to use the other script I pointed you to. Using a script does not exempt one from following wiki guidelines. Absent any indication which format to use, my inclination is to just leave the accessdates alone in the script. Unfortunately, some of the script headings are misleading--JimWae (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

En-dash in article title[edit]

I am aware that there was a long battle over whether to use an en-dash or a hyphen in the title of this article, and that the proponents of the en-dash won. This is a prime example of what happens when you allow people without any professional editorial background make editorial decisions by consensus. The result is something that undermines Wikipedia's credibility in the eyes of anyone who understands or even intuits style rules universally applied in all variants of English. (Not that anyone at Wikipedia cares, but I am a professional editor with a couple of decades of experience.) Hyphens are used for two-word compound modifiers (except when expressing ranges between dates or other numbers), while en-dashes are used to link an unhyphenated compound of two or more words with an additional element in a modifier (or two link two end dates or numerals in a range). "Mexican-American" is clearly a two-word compound (just like "two-word") and should have a hyphen. Wikipedia's use of the en-dash here smacks of amateurism and marginal literacy. I don't have the time or energy to wage a (probably futile) battle for consensus against people with more zeal and less knowledge than myself. However, I want to point out that letting this stand reduces the value of Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you feel about Dash#Relationships_and_connections? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no professional experience, but I'm vaguely under the impression that the Oxford Style Manual suggests using the en dash in places like this and American professionals/editors such as yourself find it quite odd. I don't have a copy of the OSM, though, so I'm not 100% sure. Thoughts? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a part-time worker at McDonalds, even though I'm 58 (younger people laugh at me when I wear the company cap). So I can hardly claim to be anything but a rank amateur in matters linguistic, and I know that I have to accede to the superior knowledge of professionals. However, I wanted to point out that majority usage in both the US and the UK is en dash, without the hyphen (interesting, the upswing after the typewriter era); and that your third use of the word two should be reconsidered. Tony (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Mr. Polk's War"[edit]

I propose that the label "Mr. Polk's War" be added as a variant name for the Mexican American War. Polk was the driving force behind instigation of the war, and, although many of his detractors used this term as an epithet, it aptly describes his obsession at acquiring California at any cost. Besides, this term is used as the title—or referenced in the chapters—of many history books on the subject at: Amazon and google books.

One example is from Amy S. Greenberg's "A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico (2013)", in the Intro on page xv:

"That exception, of course, is President James K. Polk. The war was closely identified with the man who started it, so much so that at the time opponents called it 'Mr. Polk's War.' The war defined Polk as well. It was his great project, the culmination of his life's work, and his legacy to the United States."

Pretty fair, short paragraph , NPOV, presenting both sides, both attesting to the appropriateness of the name.

MiztuhX (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious. Maybe it can go in the section of opposition to the war. Rjensen (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

American-Mexican War[edit]

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)

well no. a) There is no such naming rule. b) Mexico attacked first. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)