Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Also known as Mr. Polk's War

http://catalog.colapl.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/hwyyModG8z/LHQ/203380656/9

MiztuhX (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

US Costs of War

Hey everyone, I found a primary source from Robert J. Walker (Sec. Treas. under Polk) regarding one monetary cost of the war. I made note of it on the Robert J. Walker page as "One example of financing the Mexican-American war can be seen in correspondence; he wrote to Major General William Orlando Butler, "February 23, 1848. Sir, Upon the ratification of a treaty of peace by the Republic of Mexico in conformity with the provisions of the act of the congress of the United States of America approved March 3, 1847 stated 'an act making further appropriation to bring the existing war with Mexico to a speedy and honorable conclusion' you are authorized to draw on this department for any sum not exceeding three millions of dollars to be paid in pursuance of the promotion of said act.""

It relates to the March 3, 1847 act found here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=210, and the February 11, 1847 act found here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=150 (the wording of the act goes from page 123-126.) These two acts describe an expansion of military forces and how it is paid out. The opening of the Mexican-American War page mentions the high human and monetary cost to the US, so I think these sources will add significantly to the page; however I'm not quite sure if there is a section in which they would fit well.

My questions then are: do these sources fit the page, and if so, is it worth creating a new section for costs? Thanks for any input. Unearthly Stew (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

no -- we want reliable secondary sources. In those the scholars look at hundreds or even thousands of documents to get at the cost. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That certainly would make a cost section more concise. I'll see if I can find any sources like that.Unearthly Stew (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Origins of the war Section

Reads as very subjective. No citations to support statements regarding American desire for territory or inclination to "lie" to get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.74.132 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2012 (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. 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 Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Mexican–American War → Mexican-American War – Endash to hyphen. See talk page. Apteva (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• This got moved as part of the great endash zeal of 2011. As it "has attained proper name status" the correct punctuation is hyphen as evidenced by the 36:2 ratio from a Google book search (Mexican-American War vs. Mexican American War). The same search, if extended to 100 books, shows that only 3/100 use an endash. It is clear that many other clean up moves will be needed like this one. The only reason for presenting this at WP:RM is there is an ongoing discussion on this at the WP:MOS talk page. Apteva (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  See list below ("your results may vary"). I am not going to try to find out why I said 3/100 on the 27th, but today I found 0/100. Apteva (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I request speedy closure. This page was the epicentre of huge struggles (with two marathon RMs for this page, and one for Battles of the Mexican–American War) early in 2011 that wasted months of editors' valuable time. It was treated as a "test-case" by PMAnderson, in his campaign to marginalise MOS and to have all style decisions decentralised. (PMAnderson is now under a one-year block, and an indefinite topic ban (MOS and title matters, broadly interpreted) for disruption of that same sort, including malicious sockpuppeting as User:JCScaliger.) The matter was finally resolved when ArbCom ordered a special community consultation to establish WP:DASH (part of WP:MOS) on a firm consensual footing. This occurred, and despite efforts by PMAnderson and others a final draft was eventually settled upon that met the community's expectations – by steering a middle course, and by continuous checking and re-checking to see that as many views as possible were accommodated, as well and as harmoniously as possible. In accepting the draft (now integrated into MOS, with little alteration since), ArbCom surely accepted the role of MOS guidelines such as WP:DASH as resolving questions of hyphens, dashes, and the styling of titles generally – not just occurrences of terms in parts of an article other than the title.
  It is not in the interests of the Project for this well-sifted material to be gone through yet again, ending a year of tranquillity and freedom to be productive elsewhere. Please, let's call a stop to it now.
  [Declaration: I was heavily involved in the 2011 activity, and in the last stages acted as "steward" to steer things toward the WP:DASH draft that was successfully adopted.]
  ♥
  Noetica^Tea? 10:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  Just a comment. WP actually uses the word "Steward" not in the dictionary sense above but as a "Super Admin" - someone who can do things like global blocks and give and remove "Bureaucrat" status, who are in turn editors who can give and remove Admin status. Stewards, as stewards, act on consensus decisions, but neither participate in them nor decide them. Bureaucrats and Admins do that, and Stewards act on whatever the result was. Stewards are global, and can act as either Bureaucrats or Admins on projects with none of either available. Apteva (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• You know, both Merriam-Webster and Britannica use a hyphen. And a hyphen is also used by the overwhelming majority of books from university presses, history publishers and educative publishers, as previously discussed. One has to wonder.....

Anyways, more than a year ago there was an Arbcom-mandated MOS draft, and there was support for "2d. To stand for between (male–female relations, French–German border)." And people usually interpret this name as "war 'between Mexican and American". So, this article ended up having a dash. And now wikipedia is in disagreement with most reliable sources...... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, that advice applies to made up names that are not proper names, like "Chicago–Miami flights", not proper names, which by definition have a correct proper name. And often a common usage "proper name" which is different. In some cases we balk at using the correct proper name, like WAL★MART prior to 2008, for practical reasons, and rarely use all caps (we used Wal-mart, and did not move it to Walmart until three years after the name had changed, in 2011). Apteva (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this name is not an official name, there is no authority that has the power of giving a definitive name, and there is no centralized authority that keeps a list of "correct" names for each war.

At this point I think it's reasonable to look at entries on encyclopedias, history books and textbooks. And they mostly use a hyphen. This makes me suspect that wikipedia is applying the wrong style rule, or misinterpreting it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Rated C-class. AlexiusHoratius 23:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Here are some examples of books that use a hyphen:
  • The Mexican-American War = Title - Ruth Tenzer Feldman - 2004
  • Manifest Destiny & Mexican-American War: Shmoop US History Guide
  • The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction - Page 34 - Mark E Neely - 2007
  • American Passages: A History of the United States - Page 301 - Edward L. Ayers, Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinsky
  • The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History: Volume 1 - Page 496 - Michael Kazin, Rebecca Edwards, Adam Rothman - 2009
  • African Americans at War: An Encyclopedia: Volume 1 - Page 434 - Jonathan Sutherland - 2004
  • A People's History of the United States: Teaching Edition Abridged - Page 126 - Howard Zinn, Kathy Emery, Ellen Reeves - 2003
  • The Story of the World: Early modern times - Page 232 - Susan Wise Bauer - 2004

  And there are probably tens of thousands of other books that use a hyphen. An endash does not even appear once in the first 100 search results. I think that a speedy close and move to Mexican-American War is in order - there is not really any need to wait a week. The results will not change during that time. Using an endash appears to have been an issue of trying to make a WP:POINT. Apteva (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• This – and the guidelines on en dashes more broadly – has been resolved under the supervision of ArbCom. Suggest you withdraw this as a poor use of editors' time and energy. Tony (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  Resolved? As in always use endash? As in always use hyphen? As I read the MOS, this article should use a hyphen, and the example in the MOS of a similar war is incorrectly using an endash when there is no support for it to be using an endash. As I read it the South Padre-Mexican War (a name I made up) would be called the South Padre(endash)Mexican war, with war not capitalized, but if it attained proper name status it would become South Padre-Mexican War, capitalized and with a hyphen. And just to make it more confusing, if I call it the Mexican-South Padre war, I do get to use a hyphen if Mexican is an adjective, as in the example "Franco-British rivalry". It is clearly original research to use "Mexican(endash)American War" when the vast majority of reliable sources use Mexican-American War, with a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

[The following comment on my vote I have moved from Survey to Discussion, where it belongs.–Noetica^Tea? 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)]

• I have no problems using an endash in a manner that is supported by reliable sources, but the MOS is a guideline, and it does not supersede policy, which states "No original research" "Use Reliable sources", and how about this one "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." That is one of the five pillars. Or even this one - use common sense. A lot of discussion can be avoided by simply applying those principles. Plus the guideline needs a couple of tweaks, like moving Wars (note that it is capitalized) from endash to hyphen, and moving the example of using a hyphen to hyphen. This entire project is a work in progress - nothing is cast into concrete, other than the five pillars, and even that page has over a thousand edits. Apteva (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We've been through all of this before, many times. Of course WP:TITLE (=WP:AT) and WP:MOS do not compete. Neither overrules the other. WP:AT is not about style, and WP:MOS is not about selection of titles for articles. These are orthogonal matters, almost entirely. If you disagree with Wikipedia having a manual of style that functions exactly like any other manual of style, take that up at the village pump, or some other general forum. Meanwhile, it does have one. Note also:
WP:OR applies to Wikipedia articles. (Read it and see!) It does not apply to MOS, or to any other guidelines or policies.
Reliable sources for MOS are other major style guides and manuals (MOS is one itself, now), dictionaries, and best-practice publishing. If you think that some MOS provision fails to respect those reliable sources, take it up at WT:MOS or whatever other MOS talkpage is appropriate for the guideline you are querying. What you are doing instead, in many forums simultaneously, is disorderly and disruptive.
☺
Noetica^Tea? 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The same principle is applied to choosing a title. I am not arguing against having a manual of style. I am against having false statements in that manual of style. It is not correct to use Mexican(endash)American War, just as it would be incorrect to use Mexican-american war or Mexican-American war. Saying "450 to 500 people, not from 450–500 people", using endash, is a style issue, and any publication can adopt any style they want (and since endash is hard to use, not likely to be used anyway). The examples "the Paris–Montpellier route; a New York–Los Angeles flight" are correct because they are not proper names. From my limited research, the examples "Uganda–Tanzania War; the Roman–Syrian War;" are misleading at best and as far as I can tell clearly wrong in the second case. I did not know if it should have been "Uganda–Tanzania war", but it does appear that "Roman-Syrian War" is correctly capitalized as it has achieved proper name status and is used with a hyphen in the references that I checked. Any time a MOS conflicts with itself you will find it harder to follow. It is not hard to fix. Move Roman-Syrian War to the hyphen section and remove Uganda–Tanzania War as an example. A war is probably not a good example to use anyway, because people tend to capitalize the word war just for the sake of identification, long before they become recognized as having proper name status. And it does appear that war should not be capitalized in the Uganda example, and as such is correct, other than the capitalization, which is incorrect. The first two books that popped up in a search use "war": "Tanzania-Uganda war in pictures", by Samuel Ismail Mmbando, and "Organization of African Unity" - Page 97, by Gordon Harris "The OAU and the Tanzania–Uganda war, 1978-79", which even uses an endash. So move Roman-Syrian War to hyphen and change the capitalization of war in "Tanzania–Uganda war". We do use reliable sources in choosing article title names. Apteva (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As to titles, I did find this note from 2007, and this criticism in 2011. "The recent wave of undiscussed changes by Tony, Noetica, and Kwami is mostly their pique that the recent discussion over Mexican-American War preferred this policy over the guidelines at WP:MOS. However, it also revealed that they disagree with the rest of us (CWenger, Headbomb, Wareh, Hans Adler, and so on) as to what WP:DASH says." That, is not surprising. Apteva (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Forumshopping: a call for this RM to be closed

I have posted this at one of the parallel discussions of the issued raised here (see last paragraphs of this version of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports), and will post similarly at WT:MOS:

"Good, Enric. You got it: I answered there [that is, at WT:MOS]. However, your report of my answer is not accurate. Nor is your take on my view of the matter. Ask what you want there, and I will answer there. On this proviso: this unruly and unproductive RFC and the ill-advised new RM at Talk:Mexican–American War be wound up first. I have personally spent the equivalent of full-time weeks of work on these issues, most of it in 2011. I am prepared to do more; but not in several forums simultaneously just because someone thinks that is a good idea. I don't. Wikipedia identifies it as WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as SMcCandlish points out above."

Noetica^Tea? 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as a little unusual to link to a version of a talk page. What if someone has commented on that paragraph? Even though discussions can get archived and become harder to locate, it seems more common to link to the topic instead. Apteva (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (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.

Timeline

I would like to have a timeline of the war. --JWB (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So is it hyphen or en-dash now? Turkeyphan^t 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Date Format

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

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)

Thornton affair

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Proposal to add "Mr. Polk's War"

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

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)

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)

Title

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"?

Mexico lost. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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:

1. 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).
2. 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)

Organization

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 144.183.224.2 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 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/20150522135623/http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/03/war_news_from_mexico_what_the_blacks_in_the_1848_painting_tell_us.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/03/war_news_from_mexico_what_the_blacks_in_the_1848_painting_tell_us.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707214318/http://www.battleofmonterrey.com/urbanwarfare.html to http://www.battleofmonterrey.com/urbanwarfare.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808121249/http://www.aquinas.edu/history/pinheiro.html to http://www.aquinas.edu/history/pinheiro.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000707012840/http://www.historyebook.org/ to http://www.historyebook.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513065929/http://dig.lib.niu.edu/mexicanwar/index.html to http://dig.lib.niu.edu/mexicanwar/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027184404/http://www.usa-presidents.info/pierce/mexican-war.html to http://www.usa-presidents.info/pierce/mexican-war.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105223955/https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zlY48eTMIq2I.k7MbF6mcfN6M to http://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zlY48eTMIq2I.k7MbF6mcfN6M

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mexican War

That title should redirect here. This is the primary meaning of "Mexican War" in English. I had a hatnote at this article to direct readers to the List of wars involving Mexico, but I have now been reverted twice. Some users are convinced that Mexican War should be a dab page. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We should add a list of battles

I don't know how to do it but I think we should add a list of the battles Viridiss (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC) i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.142.242 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

First Mention of General Arista

I do not understand what the sentence "the defeat of the U.S. troops by General Arista" is referring to. The mention of General Arista also seems like it needs more explanation. Randomcarnage (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Corwin-Speech 'On the Mexican War'-1847-Congressional Globe-ed. WRE-Apr11(2015).pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Thoreau Quote

I would like to discuss adding the following Thoreau quote from "Civil Disobedience" where he protests the war:

"When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize."

Source: "They Take Our Jobs and 20 Other Myrhs about Immigration" by Aviva Chomsky, p.51. MiztuhX (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To include it you need a reliable secondary source (RS) to explain why it's relevant and explain that it is hyperbole. It is likely to mislead readers into thinking that Thoreau and others in his circle followed the advice and tried to rebel or revolutionize. Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"War of North American Invasion"

It's called that in Mexico and the first paragraph should mention that in addition to "American intervention in Mexico." There are many sources for that, I will offer Contemporary Mexican Politics 2ed by Edmonds-Poli and Shirk (2012, Roman and Littlefield). I would add that and the citation but the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.96.208 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the most honest name. There was no military aggression from Mexico, it was a naked land grab, justified only by manifest destiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jergas (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war/treaty-of-guadalupe-hidalgo. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC) BiologicalMe (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

= absurdly biased article

At a minimum the lede will be completely rewritten. The current version just makes stuff up, claims sources say things they don't, and literally ignores/contradicts this wiki's own cited historical documents, such as the peace treaty itself, signed by both belligerents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Spanish text for the illlustration

In the section "Advance on Puebla", an illustration has description in Spanish: "Batalla de Cerro Gordo, litografía de 26 cm x 35 cm. Cortesía de la colección de Yale...". I do not speak Spanish, and not sure if it was pulled up automatically from some source, so leaving it to the more experienced editors to resolve or translate. -- 176.52.34.218 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun's speech

The quote in the article currently begins with "we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race" but does not cite a source. Where did it come from? I ask because there is another quote expressing the same sentiment starting with "nor have we ever incorporated into the Union any but the Caucasian race." As far as I can tell, both of these formulations supposedly come from the same speech that Calhoun gave to Congress on January 4, 1848, but the quotes are clearly not identical.

One of the "we have never" formulation's Google hits comes from the site Teaching American History, which supposedly pulls from primary sources (see their "Our Purpose" link), but does not cite one for this speech. The "nor have we ever" formulation appears in scan of a book printed in the same year as Calhoun's speech (1848). Given the date, I'm inclined to believe the second formulation is the actual quote, but I'd still like to know where the first one came from. BW95 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

NPOV

This article does not currently conform to Wikipedia's NPOV goal.

Some words such as "provocative" I will be removing. I suggest others make an effort to make this article more neutral.Ryoung122 18:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable, published source for any changes you think are necessary. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

How does one cite a source for removal of POV value-judgement-type adjectives such as 'provocative', that in all honesty have no business being in an encyclopaedia in the first place? Really,Sangdeboeuf, I would think you would know better than that...as much editing experience as you've got. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says that editors who wish to add or re-insert material must provide RS. Removing material has no such burden. Everyone in this discussion is experienced enough to know this. (Plus this discussion is 80+ days old and should have been archived by now.) BusterD (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the term "provocative" currently used in the article? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't find it. I spent a few minutes looking through page history and I don't see any such word, even the mainspace edits prior to the OP's comment. Further, I don't see any other "provocative" language. The page could use some improvement, but compared to drek one might see in many popular culture articles this is a fairly well-cited, relatively neutral history article. The OP has made 50 edits in the last 12 months, and two of those edits were to make drive-by claims of some unknown editor(s)'s POV. I see one really unfortunate "keep" assertion at an AFD which was closed delete. What I DON'T see is any kind of dedication to working to improve an article the OP complained about. We've spent more time discussing this that they did complaining about nothing. BusterD (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The San patrisa regiment

The San Patrica executions 58.170.54.103 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What about them? —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Major Grammatical Errors

Just got through reading the majority of the article. There are many incomplete sentences and grammatical mistakes, as well as sentences that make no sense at all. I am not an expert on the topic and so can not provide meaningful edits. It would be nice if someone with knowledge of the topic can help out here!

212.95.103.18 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Starting with the nonsense title. Mexico vs America war. Mexico still on America continent. And i live in America and my country did not have wars against Mexico. Should be used U.S.A - México war. --45.173.230.27 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Does someone seriously need to point out to you that the authors of this Wikipedia article were not responsible for naming the historical event known as the Mexican–American war? That is the name of the war in the modern English language. The authors of this article had no role in naming it. L'être et le néant (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The historical period of 1800-1900 regarding Mexico is incredibly complex. I agree this Wiki was hard to read, largely because the subject is too large and complicated to sum up in a Wiki page. However, the links provided were useful. Perhaps this topic should be in outline form, with links going to pages where the details could be fleshed out more. Floresnw (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Major factual error in first paragraph

Why does this article state that Texas was "defacto an independent country"? That is neither true nor factually accurate. The Republic of Texas was de jure a full-fledged independent and sovereign country for nearly ten years (from 1836 to 1845), including its own president (four presidents in total), vice-president (five total), secretaries of state, legislature, currency, economy, laws, courts, constitution, military, and government. Also, the Republic of Texas was recognized by foreign countries all over the world and had formal diplomatic relations with them, including with the United States. France had an embassy in the Republic of Texas and vice versa, for instance. There is nothing at all "defacto" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'être et le néant (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead is pretty clear. Mexico didn't recognize Texas as an independent country, but was unable to enforce its claim on the territory, hence "de facto" independent. Whether Texas was also "de jure" independent might depend on one's perspective (Mexican or Texan/US), but "de facto" is unquestionably true and relevant to the article's point. Further discussed in Velasco treaty, which is also linked to in the lead. (As a side note, it is really helpful if you sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes; there's a button for it below or you can click that squiggly button next to the italics one above. It lets us other editors know who you are. And even if we don't agree, it reminds us we are talking to a person, deserving of respect. :-) Cheers.) CAVincent (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Slavery

Slavery was a very important issue to Austin, one he called "of great interest" to him. Austin was a periodical slaveowner throughout his life; however, he had conflicting views about it. Theoretically, he believed slavery was wrong and went against the American ideal of liberty. In practice, however, he agreed with the social, economic, and political justifications of it, and worked hard to defend and expand it. Despite his defense of it, he also harbored concerns that the long-term effects of slavery would destroy American society. He grew particularly concerned following Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831, stating:

"I sometimes shudder at the consequences and think that a large part of America will be Santo Domingonized in 100, or 200 years. The idea of seeing such a country as this overrun by a slave population almost makes me weep. It is in vain to tell a North American that the white population will be destroyed some fifty or eighty years hence by the negroes, and that his daughters will be violated and Butchered by them."

While Austin thought it would be advantageous some day for Texas to phase out of slavery, up until the Texas Revolution he worked to ensure that his colony's immigrants could bypass the Mexican government's resistance to it. Doing so ensured the population growth and economic development of his colony, which was primarily dependent on the monocropping of cotton and sugar. In August 1825, he recommended that the state government allow immigrants to bring their slaves with them through 1840, with the caveat that female grandchildren of the slaves would be freed by age 15 and males by age 25. His recommendation was rejected.

In 1826, when a state committee proposed abolishing slavery outright, 25 percent of the people in Austin's colony were slaves. Austin's colonists, mostly pro-slavery immigrants from the south, threatened to leave Texas if the proposition passed, while prospective Southern immigrants hesitated to come to Texas until slavery was guaranteed there. Austin conceded that the success of his colony was dependent on slavery. Without slaves, the colonists would lack the mass labor to cultivate the land, which would stall the pace of immigration needed to develop and increase the value of the land, and would deflate the economy and motivate his colonists to leave.

Austin went before the legislature and pleaded that, at the least, his original 300 families should be allowed to keep their slaves. He argued against the "bad faith" of freeing them, demanded reparations to slaveowners for every slave emancipated by the state, warned that the loss of slaves could leave some colonists destitute, and reasoned that freeing them would not only leave his settlers alone in the harsh Texas environment, but would also expose them to the discomfort and nuisance of living amongst freed slaves, who would become vagrants seeking retribution upon their former owners. While he waited for the legislature's verdict of his request, Austin went into a deep depression over the issue and sent his brother, Brown Austin, to further lobby the legislature on his behalf.

In March 1827, the legislature signed Article 13 into law. Despite the law complying with some of his requests, Austin called it "unconstitutional". He contested the law as it freed the children of slaves at birth, established a six-month grace period before fully emancipating all slaves in the state, and included provisions to improve the conditions of slaves and transitioning freedmen. Austin –– who had been so effective in persuading the legislature, however, that the author of Article 13 (before its passage) requested to withdraw it –– helped his colonists evade the law by advising them to legally supplant the word "slave" with the words "workingmen," "family servants," and "laborers," and by working to pass a decree that banned freedmen from Texas and forced emancipated slaves to work for their former slaveowners until the accrued "debt" (e.g. clothing, food), incurred for their own enslavement, was worked off.

In 1828, Austin petitioned the legislature to guarantee that slaveowners, immigrating to Texas, could legally "free" their slaves before immigrating, and contract them into a lifetime term of indentured servitude, thereby avoiding recognizing them as slaves. He lobbied to help his colony elude president Vicente Guerrero's 1829 decree to legally emancipate slaves in the province, and to bypass the government's effort to prohibit slavery when it passed the Law of April 6, 1830.

In 1829, John Durst, a prominent landowner and politician, wrote about the president's emancipation of slaves, “We are ruined forever should this measure be adopted” . Stephen F. Austin replied,

"I am the owner of one slave only, an old decrepit woman, not worth much, but in this matter I should feel that my constitutional rights as a Mexican were just as much infringed, as they would be if I had a thousand."

In 1830, Austin wrote that he would oppose Texas joining the United States without guarantees that he should "insist on the perpetual exclusion of slavery from this state [Texas]". In 1833, he wrote:

"Texas must be a slave country. Circumstances and unavoidable necessity compel it. It is the wish of the people there, and it is my duty to do all I can, prudently, in favor of it. I will do so."

In May 1835, Austin's colonists learned that Mexico's tolerance for the evasions of slaveowners was drawing to a close, with its proposal of new abolition legislation. Alarmed, and with Austin imprisoned in Mexico for pushing for independence, colonists turned against the Mexican government, calling it "oppressive" and a "plundering, robbing, autocratical government" without regard for the security of "life, liberty or property". Resisting the impact a changed slavery policy would have on economic growth, and fearing rumors of Mexico's plan to free the slaves and turn them loose upon the colonists, shortly after Austin returned from Mexico, he and his colonists took up arms against the Mexican government. Austin later gained U.S. Government support for his revolution when he wrote to Senator Lewis F. Linn and pleaded that Santa Anna planned to "exterminate" all of the colonists and fill Texas "with Indians and negroes [freed slaves]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalantFan (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/10/27/2054125/-Lies-about-history-in-Texas-can-be-traced-to-the-Lonestar-State-s-own-Big-Lie-The-Alamo {{One of the first things Santa Anna did was abolish slavery in the Tejas region. For white settlers, this was a bridge too far. Stephen F. Austin, the so-called “Father of Texas,” wrote many letters to Mexican authorities about the importance of slavery for the Anglo settlers. William Travis’ letters about fighting for freedom get a lot of attention by Texan historians, but Austin’s letters speak about the settlers’ true concern:

“Nothing is wanted but money,” [Austin] wrote in a pair of 1832 letters, “and Negros are necessary to make it.”

American settlers in Tejas tried to circumvent the new law by converting enslaved people to lifetime indentured servants, but Mexico responded by passing a law saying such contracts could not last longer than 10 years. Mexico was a post-colonial nation founded on egalitarian principles, and Santa Anna was determined to enforce the end of slavery throughout Mexico, including in Tejas.}}

{{In case there is any doubt of what the Republic of Texas was all about in 1836 here is the constitution regarding rights and slavery

"SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy."

Note the "forever prohibited " of course the Republic didn't last before joining the US and then we decided that once again slavery was more important and seceded.

Statement of causes for secession

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States."}}

GalantFan (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

No reference to Pancho Villa in the commanders section?

Should there be a reference to Pancho Villa in the list of commanders, along with his engagements with a young George Patton before the Mexican surrender? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Pancho Villa was born in 1878, so wasn't around for the Mexican-American war. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Page has been admin-locked to canonize First Mexican Empire fanfiction

The First Mexican Empire didn't even exist at the time of the war lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.130.124 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been fully-ptotected for sysop only editing, just semi-protected, see WP:SEMI. Otherwise you are however correct, at some point the vandals succeeded in confusing RCP as a result of which Black Kite unintentionally restored vandalism in this diff before applying protection; I expect it will be fixed shortly. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Could you please revert this edit as it removed part of the caption with out explanation 2001:8003:34A3:800:315B:5DDF:8F35:D93A (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That edit is from 2022. You're not providing an explanation either about why it should be added. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it was a good request, and well-caught. The 2022 edit in question removed part of the caption and left the first image in the infobox unexplained and the next four images explained out of order. I've made the requested edit (although as a manual restoration rather than a revert). CAVincent (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Hist401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peach345, 0Blu3bird (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ghamilton5000 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I wish to update the cash value conversion to todays amount.

i would like to update the cash conversion of 25 million in 1846 $785,178,571 --> 999,314,935.06 and instead of it stating "as of today" i would like to make it "as of 10/26/2023. Ilikeupdatingcashvalues (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ilikeupdatingcashvalues You can do this yourself by using Template:Inflation. Put the text: {{Inflation|US-GDP|25000000|1846|fmt=eq|cursign=$}}, which produces "equivalent to $758,498,759 in 2023." That is using the US-GDP deflator, which is more accurate for government expenses. You could also use the value "US", which would give the conversion based on regular inflation, but that is less accurate for large expenses. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: @Ilikeupdatingcashvalues: You didn't provide a source for your conversion rate, and it is probably better practice to use the template anyway. The statement "as of today" isn't really accurate though and the template was a bit malformed, so I copied CaptainEek's version but changed the date to 1845, which was the actual year according to the last paragraph of Mexican-American War#Polk's gambits. Liu1126 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Certain language is just wrong about the Nueces Strip

The border was the Nueces river, and it was claimed to be the Rio Grande only to be able to provoke war with Mexico. Like the phrasing that Mexico sent their military over the border is inaccurate. There were already cities that were established, like Laredo. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth875937/manifest/

You can search that website to see lots of discussion from the Laredo leadership and the seals are of the Mexican flag. The Republic of the Rio Grande existed during 1840 and was defeated by Santa Anna. The capital was Laredo. On the north side of the border.

The way it is written is very... pro polk? Like bordering propaganda in my opinion. 2603:8080:E0F0:8F0:DD07:8D81:1369:83D2 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Mexican War?

I’ve taught for almost 40 years and have never addressed it as “Mexican War.” Why the hell would you say something that is NOT true. “Fake History.” That slight uneducated statement is very damaging in trying to portray a history that’s not true nor supported by any historical source. If so name your source. ?????? Be Educated not illiterate. What proven background do you have to make this statement? I’m going to bring this to public view and take course to bring your unfounded statements to light demonstrating what dangers are being taken to destroy the credibility of our American History. 2603:8001:24F0:480:8DBB:397E:8570:9FA1 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The article's references include many sources using the name Mexican War, including multiple sources from the 21st century. There's even a quote or two from Ulysses Grant in which he calls the war by this name. I think the credibility of "our American History" is safe on the Mexican War front. CAVincent (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)