Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 1

message: *Why is this California battle not inserted into the war battle's section box at the front of this article? it was a significant defensive battle in which the Californios were victorious over a numerically superior American force, and were fighting to defend their land, not the Mexican government. I would recommend insertion of this battle into the index box..DonDeigo 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Dominguez Rancho 

message: Mexico came from gaining independance from Spain and also just came from another war against France in Veracruz. Thus, Mexico was to weak to put up a fight against the U.S.
And the U.S. has always been known as a bullying country agaist smaller or under developed countries. (I am not offending the U.S.)
If you look at the difference in troops you obviously have to give Mexico credit:
Mexico Troops: 18,000–40,000 soldiers
U.S. Troops: 78,790 soldiers
Casualties 
U.S.
Total dead: 13,271
Wounded: 4,152 
Mexico
25,000 killed or wounded (Mexican government estimate) 
The numbers are one sided Mexico couldn't defend itself.
 - Remember that only 10% of the US casualties were from combat. Most died from disease and whatnot. 76.236.177.235 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico's Reasons for Losing

message: I'm not sure, but when I took a look at this (16 Feb 2005), it calls the bias against the Irish, "racist"  I don't think this  quite factually right, as it could best be said as navtivst/religous, rather than racial.
Thoughts?--Mtnerd 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Patrico's 

message: Considering the ridiculous argumentation that goes on concerning this subject this entry is remarkably fair and factual.  
Two crucial facts that must be maintained are that Texas fought for and won its independence from Mexico, and that in victory Texas claimed the Rio Grande as its southern border.  Mexican acceptance of this border was not necessary for the Texan claim to be valid.
::So your whole point boils down to "the border had to be at the Rio Bravo because Texans said so. The historical border at the Nueces and/or Mexico's claims did not matter". Your comment is remarkably biased and not based on any facts. 
::No, because Santa Ana agreed to it. And the pro-Mexico camp in this dispute always seems to forget that Mexico informed the US that annexation of Texas would be considered an act of war. You also forget that it wasn't just Texas that balked at the abrogation of the 1824 Mexican Constitution, the original flag of the revolution was the Mexican flag with the year '1824' on it. Other states did break away before coming back or being coerced back into the fold. We can discuss the boundary issue all day long, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to the fact that the US had relatively strong leadership from the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Taylor, Polk, Lincoln, et al. and Mexico got stuck with Santa Ana, and that fact, frankly, is where the finger needs to be pointed.
By the way, it was Mexico who fought and won its independence from Spain. It was Mexican blood that liberated Texas from Spain's domination. Unlike Spain and the U.S., Mexico never was an imperialist nation. Texan settlers were not libertarians - they were opportunists, at best.Aguizar 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds fair to me... 

message: Don't you think that section "Political implications of the war" speaks too much about slavery-related implications instead of war-related implications? Saigon from europe 10:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political implications of the war 

message: I have actually never heard that theory before. In fact I didn't even know that Mexico had borrowed from the US in the first 20 years after the independence. Would you mind citing the sources for that? As far as I know, indeed Britain and France (and Spain, I might add) threatened to invade Mexico if debt was not paid, but that ocurred in 1861-1862, and the Mexican American war had been fought almost 15 years before. In fact, it was the war with the US, plus the Reforma War, the events that had depleted the treasury, which forced (as far as I know, I might be wrong) Benito Juárez to default (temporary cessation) on the debt for the first time, and which he promptly agreed to pay when the British, French, and the Spanish navies approached the city of Veracruz in 1861.  --J.Alonso 03:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buy Mexican territory to pay off debt to US??

message: I agree the background leaves much to be desired.  Some parts of this page are also unclear, such as when you speak of "General Twiggs".  You should probably explain who he was, and what his reason for being there was.  I would also like to see exactly what the United States and Mexico gained and lost from this war.  --Beow-- 6:47PM 30 November 2005
:Rjensen- I like your rewrite. This sentence -- "Third the Americans wanted to expand, offering repeatedly to purchase California" -- could, perhaps, be expanded to include one factor not mentioned in your otherwise complete, very well-organized list, namely, one of the significant reasons why Americans wanted to expand: to be certain to try to reduce influence, future and present, of European "empires." The "let's get as much land as possible to make sure the British, French, and Spanish don't have places from which to attack us easily" was a significant feature of American thinking in the early 19th century. But perhaps that can be addressed elsewhere (like in the article on Manifest Destiny). Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 10:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I agree on the need to somewhere say more about expansionist urges (but not in the opening summary). Rjensen 10:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background and Clarity

message: I had very minor grammar edit reverted as vandalism.  As I am a relatively new Wikipedia contributor, could someone please explain how I can tell which articles gladly accept proofreading? Just Some Guy 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No room for grammar 

message: Just have to say that this page doesn't meet our standard for geographic scope.  How many US politicians, diplomats, and millitary men are mentioned by name in this artice?  How many Mexicans?  I'd say its around 10 to 1 in favour of the Americans.  This page is in need of some serious attention regarding the Mexican prespective.  If you need help, flag the main article page with this tag.  Thanks.  Kevlar67 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what?  Six months later, and this is still written from an American prespective.  We can do better!  You may consider asking Mexican Wikipedians to peer review this article.  Kevlar67 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here, a Mexican who's just read the article. Anything you want me to suggest?--DWDarkwyng 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical Bias 

message: This seems to concentrate on the lead up to the major battles, it mentions them extremely briefly and in the wrong place. Also it seems to have a Mexican nationalistic POV.
::Ever wonder why this war is barely mentioned in the American history books even though it brought so much wealth to a young American nation? Well wait till I have the time to mention the various atrocities commited by the American forces against Mexican civilians during the war.  They come complete with sources too.  This war was clearly not one of America's finer moments.Mosquito-001 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Missing? 

message: This page lacks organization, is full of grammatical errors, and needs more details into the background and causes.  Ironically, the spanish language page is far less POV and includes much more needed information.  If I have time, I'll translate and merge in infomation from that page, though It'd be great if someone else would help too. Alcuin 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: does ALCUIN have any specific complaints re POV?? Rjensen 04:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no.  My complaints have more to do with organization and structure of the article.  The article reads like a hodge-podge of sentences supporting the political opinions of various editors.  This article could gain alot from the structure and information at the Spanish article.  Really, I'm just soliciting the help of more ambitious (and bilingual) editors.  Alcuin 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs major rewrite to higher standards and to remove POV 

message: Censure means criticism.  It is not a term specified in statute or constitution, simply the proper word for a criticism formalized by a vote of a legislative body.  Polk was censured by the House.  Furthermore, he was not censured by a vote of the Whig Party, but by the House of Representatives.  And no claim is made in the current edit that the Senate even voted on the joint resolution. Tmangray 06:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO "censure" is a highly specific term. President Jackson was censured and it was a HUGE deal. In the Clinton impeachment at one point the Democrats suggested clinton be censured, but the Republicans insisted on impeachment. What happened was that the House sent the resolution to committee where it never reemerged. There was never a final vote in either house or senate. The vote on the amendment was 82-81 along party lines, but since the bill never passed the amendment was lost as well as the bill. Keep the technicalities in and the POV out please. Rjensen 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make up stories, get it right. The primary and secondary sources all reject this interpretation. The word "censure" is famous in Congressional history and the Whigs were very careful NOT to use it here.  The vote was on sending a resolution to committee with a criticism. The criticism passed 82-81 on party lines. the measure went back to committee and never reappeared. It was all PR or spin. There was no final vote taken by either house.  As for Lincoln's role it was pretty trivial: Beveridge says:
 "no notice whatever was taken in Washington of Lincoln's speech. Neither the Whig nor Democratic papers at the capital made mention of it, except as a part of the routine report of proceedings in Congress. Lincoln's colleagues from Illinois did not speak of it in their letters to party friends about the political situation. McClernand frequently advised the editor of the Democratic paper at Springfield of developments in Congress, but he made no reference to Lincoln. Neither did Winthrop, nor Ashmun, nor Giddings, nor Toombs, nor Stephens, nor any of the Whig leaders, whether from the North or the South." [Beveridge 1: 428]Rjensen 7:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if I should inject in this heated debate, but Lincoln and the Whigs in general was actually dead wrong on their spot resolution. The Mexican army had actually engaged in two major battles after the Thornton affair, that it seems they hadn't received word of yet. Whether or not you consider Polk's order to build Fort Texas to be a provocation, they were committed to war after that. I think we should not get too much into the politics of the time - they were rigidly partisan and may not tell us much about what they thought about the war but more about the slavery stances. And we shouldn't judge people by present day standards. --Omnicog 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: the vote was on an amendment to send the resolution back to committee, with instruction the committee add certain words. That is procedure. What happened as Beveridge explains is that the Dems lost control of the motion by mistake. It proves the Whigs at that point (Jan 1848) were very critical of the war. They DROPPED that criticism that summer when the nominated Taylor who approved of the war. The term is used for official action against presidents (Polk, Bush II) and senators (McCarthy). It is never used otherwise in Congress. Rjensen 08:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censure and Mexican War

message: Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers.  An online version of an issue titled "Establishing Borders:  The Expansion of the United States, 1846-48" is available at this address:
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/start.html
If you think visitors would find this site valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.
Thank you so much for your attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) 21:03, April 25, 2006  (UTC)
:You can add it yourself if you want. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Smithsonian Education link? 

message: Saying that Mexicans were eager for war seems quite an overstatement. Negotiations through Slidell failed because the US government insisted to send him with plenipotentiary powers knowing (through previous diplomatic exchanges) that the Mexican government would refuse to negotiate with somebody having those powers. Also, widely circulated Mexican newspapers of the time repeatedly pointed out the folly of going to war against the American army, which was better equiped and trained. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slidell and the failure of negotiations 

message: I thought it was the other way around: the Democrats did not want to go to war and expand US territory to the south because of the fear that slavery would be taken to the new lands. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Democrats were the pro-slavery party back then. Nareek 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats supporting and Whigs opposing? 

message: GRIOT mixes up this war and the very different Texas war for independence a decade earlier. In 1846 no one claimed that Mexico planned to impose Catholicism in Texas. So we drop the old irrelevant stuff and focus on this war. Rjensen 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material RJENSEN removed was from the part of the article describing the background of the war and the Texas Revolution. Religion was an issue there. It belongs in this background material. Griot 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Texas Revolution was part of the historical backdrop that set the stage for the Mexican War, and should be mentioned, as such, but there is no need to go into detail about an event that has its own detailed article. The degree to which religious differences affected the outbreak of war is debatable: If an historian has credited religion as a factor, it should be mentioned and cited appropriately. If not, then it is speculation or OR.--Rockero 20:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion as Cause of war? Not 

message: For U.S. citizens the war was a good thing... the idea of freedom would expand the frontiers. Many opportunities for all. At least for anglo americans. 
But this war only meant one thing for Mexicans: To be illegal on our land. Freedom meant not the same for all. For the anglos it was opportunities. Liberty. Freedom. For the Mexicans it meant restriction. Prosecution. Racism. 
I hope the day for the mexicans can walk into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or Alta California with no restrictions at all. Just like walked hordes of U.S. Anglo americans into California in times of war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.78.234.152 (talk • contribs) 
I hope the day not ok, you vengeful know-nothing. RomanYankee (24.75.194.50 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "But this war only meant one thing for Mexicans:  To be illegal on our land."  Some might subscribe to this, but not all Mexicans live in the past and wallow in self-pity.  Nor are all Mexicans "illegal" in the United States.  In fact, many thousands are here legally as visitors or legal residents.  Only Mexicans who cross the border without official permission are here illegally, and that applies equally to those of any other nationality who defy our laws.  Moreover, Mexico and every other self-respecting country in the world have similar laws.  Finally, since Mexico lost the war, it's not Mexican land anymore.  (Kraken7 23:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds something like Israel-Palestine. When similar laws are applied, the dispossessed tend to take possession. Ask London to keep out the Irish, and they'll now say no, please no.--Shtove 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There may be a few superficial similarities to Israel-Palestine, but there are many more differences:  The United States and Mexico signed a peace treaty, the Israelis and Palestinians have not; there were no (or at least very few) Mexican refugees after the Mexican War, as opposed to the thousands of Palestinians who fled after the first Arab-Israeli war; the Mexican government, unlike the Palestinian government regarding Israel, does not support terrorists coming to the United States; and the United States, unlike Israel in Gaza, does not send its fighter aircraft across the border to bomb Mexican power plants.   (Kraken7 21:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom and racism 

message: Why would a user put information in the introduction, then 6 months later change his mind and delete the same info, based solely on his knowledge of the field? For some reason, the information Rjensen added to this article 22 Jan 2006 has suddenly become POV to Rjensen. I want to know what's true: is there a sudden change of heart, or has there been significant new scholarship on this 160 year-old conflict in the last 6 months? Please feel free to explain. If this was rarely used, then why did the user introduce the material in the first place? BusterD 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's sourced in a reputable history, and doesn't overwhelm a contradictory POV, then it's NPOV, even if the phrase itself is an expression of bias/bigotry.--Shtove 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Mr Polk's War" was a derogatory one occasionally used by Whig politicians at the time. It was never used by them to describe the whole war, only to specify Polk's responsibility for starting it. [Perhaps it would be like an encyclopedia calling the current war in Iraq "Mr Bush's War"] Therefore we should NOT suggest to Wiki readers it is a commonly used synonym of the sort they can use in a student paper. I did add the term by mistake--my apologies to everyone. Rjensen 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - doesn't belong in the intro.--Shtove 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Mr. Polk's War" POV and no longer acceptable in the intro? 

message: Mr. Poinsett, minister to Mexico in 1824, considered Santa Anna was a great apostle of republican ideas in 1824, a young leader who had just overthrown the empire, and was the avowed champion of popular government.After the 1836 Texas Revolution and capture of Santa Anna Mr Poinsett sent a message to Santa Anna while he was in captivity:
"Say to General Santa Anna that when I remember how ardent an advocate he was of liberty ten years ago, I have no sympathy for him now, that he has gotten what he deserves."
To this very unkind message, El Presidente made this deliberate reply:
"Say to Mr. Poinsett that it is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one."
Mrdthree 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: letter from santa anna while in captivity

message: According to the article, the conflict over slavery in the Mexican Cession was resolved by the compromise of 1850. Wasn't it still a huge question until the civil war ended? I think a better sentence would be: American politics entered several years of heated debate over slavery in the new territories, resolved in part by the Compromise of 1850 but ultimately by the American Civil War.68.4.212.158 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: after 1850 people rarely talked about slavery in the Cession teritories--debate switched to Kansas which was Louisiana Purchase. Rjensen 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict over cession resolved? 

message: why is this article named with a double wide between 'Mexican' and 'American' instead of a normal wide dash?  This dos not seem to be a normal naming convention.  Thanks Hmains 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered that myself.  According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), the proper punctuation for situations like this is the en dash, which is what's currently up there.  It's shorter than a "double-wide" em dash. The manual of style is pretty ambiguous on whether to use these special dashes in titles.  It says normal hyphens are to be preferred, but then gives examples like Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem where special dashes are used.  Unless someone sets a firmer policy on this, my vote is to leave it as is.  That said, the en dash messes up Google searches, so someone who has the time would probably do wikipedia good by setting that firmer policy and going on a renaming rampage. Epukinsk 22:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of this article  

message: - Leonard G. 06:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image found on Commons 

message: someone inserted an unsourced fanciful account full of POV. It's poorly done.  I replaced it with the section from the History of California to 1899 article that has passed intense scrutiny by numerous editors. Rjensen 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful. The ideology of George W. Bush is taking hold in the minds and hearts of US-American Youth. Really, Santa Anna was part of the axis of evil and deserved to be tried and 
. But hold it. At that time,  the Uk still had slavery, and Mexico did not, which is why the US settlers in Tejas started their famous revolution in the first place: They wanted to have their slaves, too. The nobility of the cause must be hidden elsewhere, then... But polemics aside (including the polemics of Mrdthree), I agree with the many voices on this and other pages bemoaning the deplorable state of history-writing in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to US aggression against other nations. Most articles are dyed by an unbearable pro-US-stance and a historical one-eyed-ness, was the self-proclaimed editors-in-chief  converts, not to inform. The US-Mexican War was a war of aggression on the part of the US, period, it need not be glossed over as some kind of humanitary action.Ulises Criollo 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War in / with California 

message: Corpus Christi would be considered just north of (or at) the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande (which is nearly 200 miles away). Changing that fact would cause the paragraph to not make sense. Could someone more familiar with the Mexican-American War look into this and see how it should read? Thanks. — Bellhalla 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corpus Christi is just north of the Nueces 

message: I have reason to believe that the troop strength on this article is inaccurate, does anyone know what source the troop strength is from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.48.37 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right.  I know Congress had said 50,000 volunteers could be raised and that more than that volunteered, but I know the number of troops who participated in fighting was much lower than that.  I'll check a few sources for a more accurate number.  BlazingDOSspeeds 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to The United States Army Center of Military History, "During the Mexican War, some 73,260 volunteers enlisted, although fewer than 30,000 actually served in Mexico." BlazingDOSspeeds 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop Strenghts... 

message: I think this article over-emphasizes the point of view of the US.  All the results are about the impact of the US, the campaign accounts are all about the US generals, etc.  What about the impact this war had on Mexico?  What about the Mexican generals?  And I think more could be said about why Mexico lost the war.  That has always been a big question for me.  Now I am from the US, but I still would like to see more on Mexico in this article, this is the Mexican-American war after all.
== the mexican american war =join they just had to have a big war about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.232.105 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-emphasis on US

message: I'm nearly finished with a year's worth of research on dissent against the Mexican War (from the US pov).  I was hoping to upgrade the section on opposition a bit since it's not organized all that well.  I will post whatever changes I plan to make here before adding them to the page.  Unfortunately I don't have much info on Mexican opposition.  I will likely have 3 sections, the first dealing with the debates over the constitutionality of the war preceeding and immediately following the declaration of war.  The second will deal with general opposition to war (religion/morality/democratic virtues).  The third will deal with opposition to the acquisition of new territories (slavery, manifest destiny).  All my citations are of primary sources - mostly speeches and newspaper articles.   BlazingDOSspeeds 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great topic for study: BUT No originial research is allowed in Wiki. You have to summarize exiting scholarship instead. Rjensen 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't planning on inputing any new interpretations, just paraphrasing and maybe a quote or two.  (for example - Daniel Webster, a prominent Whig, believed “there are three pretexts, all unfounded, upon which this war has been justified”.  Then a listing of the 3 followed by a citation of the primary source.)  No original ideas, just a broader perspective.  Just a simple, this guy said this kind of thing.  Like I said before, I'll post whatever changes I want to make here for review.  Is that kind of revision possible? BlazingDOSspeeds 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who recently pulled together paragraphs from two different sections and consolidated them in the new "Opposition to the war" subsection, I would be very interested in seeing your material added to the article, provided it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. If you haven't seen them yet, please be sure to read through the guidelines relative to primary and secondary sources. Then use your best judgement. Welcome aboard! Cgingold 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link.  Once I finish writing my paper on this, I'll take the time to find some of the better quotes I've come across and figure out a way to present them without analysis. BlazingDOSspeeds 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to War section re-write 

message: User:Ulises Criollo changed the name of Texas in the Background section to "Tejas".  Reading this article for the first time, I was confused by this--I'm familiar with the names and locations of the Mexican states, but "Tejas" seemed out of place, honestly it broke me out of reading, trying to figure out what the text meant.  I checked out "Tejas" in Spanish Wikipedia and got redirected to the Texas article , so it seems clear to me that "Texas" is not purely some weird American spelling.  Not to belabor the point, "Durango" and "Jalisco" and all the other names in the list are the names that an English speaker would use in referring to these Mexican states to another English speaker.  If we had a different name for those places, then that would be the appropriate name to use.  We have an article about Spain, not an article about "España". I think that a WP:POINT is getting made here that's disrupting Wikipedia. Thoughts?  Darkspots 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then I looked at three articles on Spanish wikipedia, including http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Intervenci%C3%B3n_Estadounidense, the article about this war, and realized nobody, certainly not most speakers of Spanish, spells the word "Tejas". You had me going for a second there. Darkspots 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's all very true, but doesn't change the central nature of the encyclopedia--it needs to be written for an audience of general readers of English.  See Mexican Texas, which I got to from the Coahuila y Tejas article you pointed out.  You see this as a debate about history--your comments seem to veer towards the political; I, however, see it as a simpler question of clarity. I think a compromise can be reached really easily here. Please see my new edit. Darkspots 10:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Texas]] 

message: The article asserts that while most Texans were in favor of annexation by the United States "Andrew Jackson rejected it."  That is certainly incorrect, as Andrew Jackson was one of the major forces behind the effort to annex Texas. See Lone Star Nation by H. W. Brands.DAvanyveren 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackson wouldn't annex Texas during his presidency, however. john k 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Jackson

message: Without desire to get into the discussion on the preferred name, according to WP:MOSDASH "Please do not use an en dash, em dash, or any type of dash other than a standard hyphen in a content page name because such symbols prevent some software (including Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP) from saving the page as a file on a computer. The non-hyphen dashes can be used in redirect pages if an enhanced precision for the page name is desired for use in wikilinks elsewhere."
I'm therefore going to move it to Mexican-American War, though it may, of course, change later to one of the other suggestions above. Adam Cuerden talk 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title problem 

message: I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong, but the header is constantly mired in bad formatting: as it is, "The Mexican-American War" has an apostrophe after the comma, yet I can't find any extras to remove.  And the rest of the intro also suffers from this bad formatting.  Somebody else please try to fix it and do better than I can.  Nyttend 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. There was a set of 5 unmatched apostrophes after (the theft of the century) that I removed. Weird, but it worked. :) -Ebyabe 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header formatting 

message: It is stated in the "Intro" that Mexico lost (52%) of its territory, but in the "Results" section, it is stated that the loss was "almost half of its territory."  Which figure is accurate?  I believe it is the former.  Winner of the Nobel-Prize in Literature (1990) Octavio Paz in his book "The Labyrinth of Solitude" states that the U.S. took more than half of Mexico's territory. MiztuhX 00:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of Mexican Territory 

message: :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 naming conventions.
*Oppose - I would have no idea which war involving Mexico the page was talking about. I see nothing in the naming conventions to guide me. Speciate 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: OK, this part kind of stuck out: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000, half the amount of money that the U.S. had attempted to offer in return for New Mexico and California alone three years earlier.
Err, I think someone is confusing the Mexican provinces of California and New Mexico with the American states/territories today. The Mexican provinces of California and New Mexico contained all the area mentioned in the sentence above it: "California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming." The inclusion of "alone" is implying that the U.S. took additional areas past the ones they initially tried to buy in the first place, which doesn't seem to be accurate.
Here are maps of the Mexican provinces: 
and 
and .
Depending on the source, you might say part of Sonora was taken, but that isn't clear. ;-) However, there is no mention of Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, or Arizona at all on the Mexican provincial maps.
WMS 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography Mix-Up? 

message: I flagged the claim that the Velasco Treaties set the Río Grande as the Tex-Mex border as "dubious". Check the Treaties of Velasco article: the border was to be set later (at negotiations that never took place) "no further south than the river". That the Texans wanted it at the Río Grande is clear, but the matter was far from officially decided at Velasco. The dubious non-official and non-ratified nature of the Velasco Treaties further clouds the issue.  Aille 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Border under Treaties of Velasco

message: Why is the Mexican declaration of war on April 23, 1846 nowhere to be found?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.136.199 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of war 

message: This article seems to have benefitted somewhat from NPOV editing, but it still needs lots of work.  For some reason, some people seem to love introducing POV, anti-American propaganda into articles about Mexican/US relations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougRWms (talk • contribs) 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just one editor, and I don't normally get involved with this page though it is on my watch list, but I can't agree with the unsigned comment left above by User:DougRWms. It appears to this editor that user has newly come onto this page, called this page POV with little supporting discussion, then edit warred with long-established page editors, mostly about subjects already covered in previous talk, crying vandalism in virtually every edit summary. IMHO, the article reflected less POV before user started making edits than where the page stands now. Further, I'm concerned that user has been systematically applying this pro-US view on many of the page spaces user has edited recently, while decrying as POV those who are actually trying to avoid biasing the article. Besides User:DougRWms, whose opinions are becoming known in talk and edit summary, I'm wondering how other editors see this. BusterD 23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: the disputed territory of 150 miles between two rivers seems to have been rather large.  Does anyone know how many sq miles, sq km or whatever was the area involved here.   It would helpful to add this to the article. Hmains 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  area of dispute 

message: Kraken7 appears to insist on including the word "more" in the note In the United States, the conflict is more commonly known as the Mexican War.. I do not see that there is any clear evidence for Wikipedia to make such an assertion. The supposed evidence on the talk page here is at best original research put forward to support a POV in regards to the name of the article. While it is indisputable that the conflict is commonly known as the "Mexican War" in the U.S., IMO, without a reliable source to for the assertion that it is "more" commonly known by that name, such an assertion does not belong in the article. Other opinions? older ≠ wiser 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, accusations of POV or original research (or both) are ipso facto credible because rarely are such accusations supported by evidence, let alone coherent argument. This is no way to run a railroad.  As for the "supposed evidence," it was assembled by working through the elaborate procedures found in the Wikipedia: Naming conflict guidelines. Are these guidelines obsolete? If so, explain how and when they became obsolete. Were steps in the guidelines omitted or done badly? If so, then show how and where mistakes were made. On an related topic, what "reliable source" states the 1846-1848 war between the United States and Mexico is more commonly known as the "Mexican-American War"? Kraken7 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Precisely what "elaborate procedures" on Wikipedia:Naming conflict lead you to conclude that there is a basis for including in the article an unsourced factual assertion that one name is "more" commonly used than another within the U.S.? older ≠ wiser 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be sorry, just read: Wikipedia: Naming conflict: Other considerations: Identification of common names using external references. Kraken7 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh, and I still don't see how anything there justifies making a questionable factual assertion in the article without a supporting reference from a reliable source. older ≠ wiser 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How is it a "questionable factual assertion" to state that this conflict is more commonly known as the "Mexican War" when evidence per Wikipedia guidelines shows that it is? And what justifies calling this war "Mexican-American"? Where is the reliable published source for that name as the most common usage? Kraken7 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "more" commonly 

message: "Mexican War": 730-114-1 = 615
7 terms mentioning both countries: 410+114+1+2+2+2 = 531
Ratio: .86
--JWB 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 and later

message: Please stop edit warring.  When this page's protection drops, I will be watching — I don't want to go rouge, but I'll fix a 1RR on this page if this keeps up.  Oh, and the socking is really, really lame. --Haemo 05:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, this is pointless — it's just a bunch of sockpuppets edit warring.  --Haemo 05:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: After looking over titles on Google books, an admittedly unscientific analysis, it appears that the term "Mexican War" was much more common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Not until the mid 20th century did "Mexican-American War" become a vernacular term, and even then, it really didn't take off until the last 25 years or so.  Why did this change take place?  Maybe as the corners of the Earth became more accessible due to air travel, people realized that the "Mexican War" was unrecognizable outside of North America, so its usage fell out of favor.  The "Mexican-American War" is more descriptive, and therefore undoubtedly makes more sense to those who aren't residents of the United States and Mexico.  Personally, I agree with them, but that's just my opinion.  Kindest regards, AlphaEta T / C 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If, as the 30 October post claims, Mexican-American War has eclipsed Mexican War as the most common name, the proof is not found in Google books.  To the contrary, a November 28, 2008, search of English-language books published between 1983 and 2008 shows 79 books with Mexican War in the title but only 43 with Mexican-American War.  Thus, a review of the titles on Google books reveals that the "usage" of Mexican War did not fall "out of favor," but rather remains the most common of the last 25 years.  Also, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is irrelevant whether "people" believe Mexican-American War is "more descriptive" or "undoubtedly makes more sense to those who aren't residents of the United States and Mexico."  What matters is that Wikipedia guidelines (see "Requested Move II," first post) state that the most common name in English should be the article's title and that name is the Mexican War.  Kraken7 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporal considerations

message: Name of the Mexican-American War in other Languages	Name of the Mexican-American War in other Languages	Name of the Mexican-American War in other Languages
Language                                           	Name                                               	
Arabic                                             	الحرب المكسيكية الامريكي                           	
Bosnian                                            	Američko-meksički rat                              	
Bulgarian                                          	Мексиканско-американска война                      	
Catalan                                            	Intervenció Nord-americana                         	
Chinese                                            	美墨戰爭                                               	
Croatian                                           	Američko-meksički rat                              	
Czech                                              	Америкăпа Мексика хушшинчи вăрçă                   	
Danish                                             	Mexicansk-amerikanske krig                         	
Finnish                                            	                                                   	
French                                             	Guerre américano-mexicaine                         	
German                                             	Mexikanisch-Amerikanischer Krieg                   	
Hebrew                                             	מלחמת ארצות הברית מקסיקו                           	
Hungarian                                          	Mexikói-amerikai háború                            	
Indonesian                                         	Perang Meksiko-Amerika                             	
Italian                                            	Guerra messicano-statunitense                      	
Japanese                                           	米墨戦争                                               	
Korean                                             	멕시코-미국 전쟁                                          	
Liguru                                             	Guæra Mexico-Stati Unïi                            	
Netherlands                                        	Mexicaans-Amerikaanse Oorlog                       	
Norwegian                                          	Den meksikansk-amerikanske krigen                  	
Polish                                             	Wojna amerykańsko-meksykańska                      	
Portuguese                                         	Guerra Mexicano-Americana                          	
Russian                                            	Американо-мексиканская война                       	
Slovenian                                          	Ameriško-mehiška vojna                             	
Spanish                                            	Intervención Norteamericana en México              	
Swedish                                            	Mexikanska kriget                                  	
Ukranian                                           	Американо-мексиканська війна                       	
I've appropriated the outline from American Civil War, and put in a very few things. Let's flesh that out. BusterD 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but irrelevant to the subject at hand:  What is the correct title for this article per Wikipedia guidelines? Kraken7 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try taking all this energy [[Naming the Mexican-American War|here]] 

message: I happened to be reading the Spanish-language Wikipedia today (I do that on occasion) and ran into the article titled "Intervención Norteamericana en México" which apparently is about the Mexican-American War.  I was reading it and was surprised by some of the things I read in it.  I went back to check the article on the English-language Wikipedia (this article) and there appears to be a very large number of conflicts.  Now, neither this article here nor the Spanish-language article use much of any references. This makes it a time-consuming process to do any fact-checking and hence I have not done it.  I was wondering if some of you would be willing to do some fact-checking to resolve this conflicts.  In the process, this would also help add more references to both articles.  If you are wondering what the conflicts are, just read both articles, they are not hard to find.  Some examples are that the Spanish-language article has the following sentence "Taylor cruzo el río Nueces, violando  abiertamente el tratado internacional sobre la frontera de esta «nueva nación tejana»." refering to an international treaty (name not given) regarding the borders of "the new Texan Nation" and establishing said borders at the Nueces River.  It also has a sentence regarding the annexation of Texas to the United States, "La República de Texas se anexó a Estados Unidos en 1845; la frontera natural y reconocida en ese tratado fue el Río Nueces, es decir el territorio entre el Nueces y el Río Bravo era reconocido como perteneciente a México.", that refers to some treaty recognizing the border as the Nueces River and it explains that the land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande was recognized as belonging to Mexico.  On the other hand, the English-language article mentions no such treaty or treaties but instead mentions the Treaties of Velasco and devotes three paragraphs to Polk's attempt to purchase Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México by sending John Slidell, none of which is mentioned in the Spanish-language article.  Overall, the two articles paint completely different pictures on just these points alone and there are still more conflicts between the two articles.  I have not raised the issue in the Spanish-language Wikipedia largely because the vocabulary I use when writing and speaking Spanish is more limited than in English and trying to translate from the English-language Wikipedia to Spanish would result in some challenges (or awkward/imprecise translations).  If someone else wants to bring that up there, I would encourage it.  In any case, I think it would be worthwhile to resolve these conflicts but I don't want to attempt to do it just on my own. Mecaterpillar (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts with article in Spanish-language Wikipedia 

message: I think there is a typo in the info box, its listed that there were 17000 something KIA but right underneath that it states 13000 something dead, so i'm thinking its supposed to be casualties not KIA? 
C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: It's great being able to go back and see a previous version of a Wikipedia article, but it seems that it's not quite as easy to do the same with a Wikipedia image. In the case of [|this map] , I think I saw a version of it last week, which would be before its current (and only) version date of March 29. So I guess that would mean that when the original image was edited, the new one was put up as a new file instead of a new version of the old file. So now I can't find the old one. Anyone got any suggestions?
User:fletcherism April 1 2008
ahem, maybe if you downsize this article.  Here this war isnt relevant and breaks up into many wars.  IE Rome vs Carthage, Rome vs Egypt Rome vs Greece West vs Russia.  West vs Middleeast.  Relevant.  America vs Mexico a minor revolt.  It just gets repetitious is all.  Thanks, though.  --68.55.212.187 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I've never heard the term "Texian," the Wiki Texas page says the proper demonym is "Texan," and barring complaint, I'd like to change it.  It's locked.  Can anyone make that correction? Dolewhite (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Texian.  The term is only used in this article for the period of time when Texas was a part of Mexico, and part of the state of Coahuila y Tejas, which is an acceptable usage of the term. Darkspots (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That's an excellent idea.  Darkspots (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. Sandstein (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Texians versus Texans

message: Instead of the paragraph which appears in this article in the following way:
"On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors returned to Fort Brown."
I propose (as a starting point for negotiation) a substitute:
"On April 24, 1846, about 1,600 troops under General Arrista crossed the Rio Grande.  In what became known as the 'Thornton Affair', 70 American dragoons led by  US Capt. Seth Thornton were ambushed or were attacked at Rancho de Carricitos on April 25.  Eleven US Soliders died in the confrontation, Thornton and others were taken prisioner, and some returned to Taylor (at Fort Texas/Brown or not?)."
The old paragraph is bad because of the following problems it contains:
1:  wording implying that the Mexicans attacked on April 24th (which is not true according to all sources except the speech of James K. Polk)
2:  use of the word 'routing'
3:  the implied idea that Thornton's soliders had been sent in to the disputed area seperately from Taylor's soliders (a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande)  it makes it sound like Taylor sent Thornton's company into a disputed area, but I think we should make it clear that Taylor was always in the so-called disputed area and that Thornton was just sent to patrol the border.
4:  Thornton wasn't slain, he was captured  (side note:  if he had been slain, it would have been he rather than Ringgold whose name would have been hailed hero)
5:  While the statement that a few survivors returned to Fort Texas/Brown is true, I think it would be prudent to mention that several fellows were taken prisoner (including, I believe, Thornton)
We all need sources for our info on a subject as contested and truly important as this; please don't write a paragraph like this without a source!  Mine is:  http://www.nps.gov/paal/historyculture/ranchodecarricitos.htm and http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/documents/polk.htm
::All the text above this post was added by one IP.  IP, can you clean this up and make it coherent for the other readers of this page?  I think your thoughts are out of order and I can't make sense of what sources back up which claims.  Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thornton Affair Date 

message: The "see also" section contains a List of Mexican-American War Veterans that no longer exists.  In light of the article's deletion, could an admin please remove the item per the page layout guidelines?  Thanks, AlphaEta 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a good thing to do. 
 Please remove the List of Mexican-American War Veterans from the "See also" section. Darkspots (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: --CapitalR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Mexican-American War Veterans

message: The article title should stay "Mexican-American War" for clarity, but the article text should note that "Mexican War" is the traditional name in the US and make some use of the term in the rest of the article. Here are some ideas for distributing mentions of the two names of the war within the article: 
*roughly half MAW and half MW
*Text referenced to a source should use the same term used in the source
*MW for passages about older US scholarship, MAW for modern or international
What do you think? If no discussion, I'll work on this myself at some point. --JWB (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this somewhat reasonable compromise had been offered before, I would have had no objection. I endorse such action now. However, since there's an article created for naming, I'd suggest the fuller explanation appear there, then a more concise explanation appear in the article introduction itself (not a hat or a mere note). I'd like to see at least one mention of at least one of the terms La Intervención Norteamericana ("The North American Intervention"), La Invasión Estadounidense ("The United States Invasion"), or La Guerra de Defensa ("The Defensive War") mixed into the body as well, if appropriate. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what is the article created for naming? --JWB (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Mexican-American War any clearer than Mexican War when the latter is the most common name? Further, Mexican War is not merely "the traditional name in the US," but rather the most common name by far in English for this war (see this talk page, "Requested Move II," first entry). Therefore, to use both names interchangeably as suggested above would be to suggest that the two names are equally common, which is not the case (ibid.). On a related topic, why use the Spanish names "mixed into the body" of the article's text? Kraken7 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology within article 

message: First image in the article should be replaced with its duplicate "Battle of Veracruz.jpg". Thanks. Siebrand (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, :Image:Battleveracruz.jpg should be replaced by :Image:Battle_of_Veracruz.jpg to deal with image-duplication issue. Darkspots (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  --CapitalR (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Veracruz.jpg 

message: You semi-protect against vandalism (the stated reason here), since logged-in vandals are quickly dealt with. You fully protect against edit warring. Now which is it to be? Not both, please. And I find the long duration of protection inappropriate. What is the reason for it? TONY (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection status or reason seems wrong 

message: It was introduced in 1846, not 1847.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 06:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilmont Proviso 

message: This section seems a little suspicious.  It's not attributed, and seems like a sneaky political statement. Theinfo (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does look like trolling. Added 11 hours ago by User:Piledhigheranddeeper. I've removed it. --JWB (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of the War in Mexico 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.  With proper inline citations, this article would easily qualify as class B if not GA.    --dashiellx (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The Mexican-American War article should provide a link to the Mormon Battalion article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Battalion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also link for Mormon Battalion 

message: Quote from page-Fellow Whig, Congressman Abraham Lincoln, contested the causes for the war and demanded to know the exact spot on which Thornton had been attacked and U.S. blood shed. "Show me the spot," he demanded. 
Isn't that kinda really realy awkward sounding? 
98.221.25.226 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So how would you rephrase it?  Something better can go in the article. Darkspots (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was consensus to move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward phrasing? 

message: Desertion was very common in the US army at the time, with usual peacetime rates of about 14.8% per year (see Coffman, Old Army (1988) p 193). About 200 joined the Mexican army says Miller. "Notable" means that history textbooks usually note this, and very few do so. hence it is not notable. Rjensen (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there are a million facts about the war (the books listed run to thousands of pages in total) and Wiki can only handle the most important ones. This "fact" is a constructed one that misleads readers into thinking it was high (it was actually a below average rate) and may have been included as POV. For example it does not compare wars fought in North America (where desertion to home was possible) -- in WWi, WWii, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq  etc desertion did not allow a soldier to come home.  As for the 4000 number, let's see the exact quote from the source--keepiong in mind that the US armies that entered Mexico under Scott and Taylor were small -- Scott had 10,000 American soldiers and Taylor had fewer) so that 4000 would be noticed and apparently it weas not noticed at the time. Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, historians say there were "hundreds of desertions to the Mexican side, not thousands. (There were 200 to 500 or so in the San Patricio). Thus one recent historian: "Desertion to the enemy became attractive for hundreds of regular army 
soldiers, despite the problems of blending into the alien culture and caste." (cite: Paul Foos, A Short, Offhand, Killing Affair: Soldiers and Social Conflict during the Mexican-American War University of North Carolina Press. 2002. Page : 104) Foos reports that the total number of American deserters was 6,800 (page 109). Most deserted shortly after enlistment inside the US; often they deserted to join another AMERICAN unit (probably to get a second enlistment bonus) Foos says "a more common offense than desertion to the enemy was desertion from a regular unit to an American volunteer regiment. Also not uncommon was desertion from one regular unit to another." (Foos p 109). Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be an interesting subject (one that I would professionally enjoy discussing) but the inclustion of a mention of desertions seems random and completely out of place in the opening summation of this article.  I recommend someone with a good history of editing remove the reference from the opening paragraphs.  If it needs to be a sub-area of the article, I whole heartedly agree and support.  TurboManiacal  —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Desertions

message: One person --eith no explanation--reverted the statements: "Northernern anti-slavery elements (a small number at the time) feared the growth of a Slave Power; Whigs generally wanted to deepen the economy with industrializaion, not expand it with more land. Democrats wanted more land, and northern Democrats were especially attracted by the possibilities in the far northwest; Polk cut a deal with Britain that gave the U.S. control of Oregon (an areas that became the states of Oregon and Washington). and also The most important consequence of the war was the settlement of the Texas issue (Mexico never again claimed it) .... I don;t see the problem here. The fear of slave power was held by only some northerners--ie the anti-slavery elements. how "small" they were is perhaps an issue?? --they ran a candidate in for president in 1848 (Van Buren) who got 10% of the national vote and about 15% in the North. The Whigs opposed expansion but the Dems favored it. That goes as well for Oregon. As for the second part, the war ended Mexico's efforts to claim Texas (which caused the war in the first place and should be mentioned). Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok I revised alomng lines suggested by JWBRjensen (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: little disputes

message: After initially correcting the spelling of chanty from shanty, I've deleted this fairly pointless (and unreferenced) sentence from the end of the Santa Anna section:
 (However, his actions did inspire the Sea chanty, "Santianna".)
I don't think such bits of trivia belong in an article unless they are placed in a References in Popular Culture section. I decided not to add such a section because (1) the claim being made about the song is unreferenced and (2) I'm lazy.
:Urk... I just realized that chanty is spelled chantey. Never mind, the main point stands.
--Mrrhum (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heave away, Santianno 

message: The Mexican government had long warned that the annexation of Texas would mean war with the United States. Britain and France, which recognized the independence of Texas, repeatedly tried to dissuade Mexico from declaring war. British efforts to hide the women were fruitless in part because the mexicans were somehow smart, and found them. Rape arose between Mexico, Britain, and the United States. When Texas was granted statehood in 1845, the Mexican government broke diplomatic relations with the United States. But they still craved american women. so some hid out in Texas, where the Mexican raping continued.
Someone fix the random vandalism in the article, for some reason I am unable to revert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.241.70 (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism