Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 4

Additional moves needed
These pages also need to be moved: --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Also, Sep invented the distinction between attributive adjectives and attributive nouns. That is not supported by our sources. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Mexican–American_War to Category:Mexican-American_War
 * Battles of the Mexican–American War to Battles of the Mexican-American War
 * No, the move was illegitimate. There is utterly no consensus at the MoS for it; no notice was taken of the cogent reasons provided here that there should be no move; no article-specific reason was given here as to why this article alone needs to breach the guidelines. It will need to be moved back unless some reason is given and supported by consensus. Tony   (talk)  12:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Tony's claim that there must be a centralized discussion is illegitimate; guidelines (especially contentious and ill-mannered ones like MOS) should reflect the decisions on actual talk pages, not the other way around; as Enric Naval says above, that is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To Tony and Kwami: if you have a problem then make a new RM showing English language usage of dashes in this name. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No he didn't. That distinction is explained e.g. in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Ch.6, §2.4.1. (As for its relation between it and the hyphen vs dash issue, long ago I saw a source recommending red-green shirt for a shirt which is red and green (adjectives) and red–green colour blindness for the inability to tell red from green (nouns). --A. di M. (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia Question: Which was longer, the Mexican+American War, or the argument over what to call it?
We've seen great arguments from both sides of this issue, and in this editor's opinion, it barely matters. 99.9% of people who come to this page are not going to care or notice. So, why not just move on for a while? Its actually making me smile and chuckle about how much effort we have put into on this tiny technical detail. Maybe we need to have a forked article, The - -/— — War of 2011.

Well.

Maybe not. -- Avanu (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me thinks a Lamest Edit War addition may be in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Add the Eye–hand coordination one too? Tony   (talk)  07:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Breach of the WP:INVOLVED policy by Graeme Bartlett
Mr Bartlett has broken the strict policy against administrative actions by admins who are "involved"; the stated reason for this rule is to avoid conflict of interest by editors who have been granted special powers in good faith by the community. The policy, inter alia, states that:

involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include ... disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

He has breached the rule by pursuing an administrative action and then, within a day, entering exactly the same dispute to barrack for one side and against the other in line with his use of the tools. It is utterly irrelevant whether his admin action or his unwitting disclosure came first. He has attempted to defend his actions by saying, "I am involved in this second discussion, but not in the first one. I will not be closing this second discussion." The discussions are about the same issue, and the second has been directly brought about by his admin action. He appears to be up to his neck in it, and it is now there for everyone to see that he was up to his neck in it while acting as an admin, too. He is welcome to express his views as an editor, of course.

Mr Bartlett gave explicit and implicit undertakings at his RFA to abide by the policies pertaining to admins, and the community took him on trust when they voted to give him admin status. I will show good faith by assuming that he is misunderstanding a basic duty of WP admins (rather than disregarding it). I ask him to respond to the points I have made here. Tony  (talk)  14:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, as per the above discussion the appropriate forum to press this charge is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and not this talk page. Given your own involvement in this dispute, both in the previously closed discussion and in related discussions among involved parties on talk pages predominately favored by only a single side of the debate, I would recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG before continuing to press the issue. --Allen3 talk 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No thanks, Allen. I've chosen to ask Mr Bartlett to respond here, the scene of the breach, and the most appropriate place to give him the right of reply. Are you saying that daring to take an admin to task about a flagrant abuse of a fundamental policy is to "shoot oneself in the foot"? I wonder why you are taking this stance? Does it have anything to do with the fact that you yourself are an admin? Do you believe admins should be able to breach policy for their own ends as they wish, with impunity? You say, ""Given your own involvement in this dispute". As I pointed out above, everyone is welcome to put their view as an involved editor—Mr Bartlett and you included. However, I did not take an administrative action while involved: he did. What exactly is your point? I'm not sure you understand the principle of conflict of interest; and I had hoped the en.WP had moved on from the practice by which admins gang up to support each other's wrongdoing. Tony   (talk)  15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that the admin Did Not breach any policy as an involved admin. The above WP:RM had already been closed and done, and there was a new WP:RM created. Graeme Bartlett was not involved in the RM that he closed and is very capable of commenting on a completely new RM. Unless of course you feel that the two discussions are the same?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's someone who "Is not a Wikipedia admin, but would like to be one someday". I'm sure your support of the admin's wrongdoing will be appreciated; will it be returned at your RFA? Now, listen carefully: the two RMs are over exactly the same matter, yes? Are you trying to say that they are not? If so, exactly what is the difference between them, aside from the fact that one is attempting to reverse the other? You people will argue that red is blue to get your way, it appears. Tony   (talk)  16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it obviously looks like you have done some checking up on my user page. Good job. So much for the Assume Good Faith crowd. The first RM is closed and done. Once a new RM is opened, its a new thread and new discussion, even if covering the same topic. You may not be happy with the result, but wikipedia policy says that you should respect consensus, and stop trying to Game the System with countless RMs.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that Bartlett is allowed to give his opinion as the closer of the last RM (I have seen this done in many places like AFD and DRV). Also, the proper place for this complaint is WP:ANI (although WP:AN would be a better place). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you have not provided any evidence he was involved when closing the RfM. If he's crusaded against en dashes, that would be a COI, but you've not shown that. There's no reason for him to even respond to you here. If you only want a personal explanation, there's his talk page, assuming he's willing. If you want to pursue sanctions, take it to the proper place, ANI. But they'll require evidence, or you'll simply be seen as disruptive. — kwami (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The admins have nothing but garbled anti-logic to offer. There is no "proper" place in particular, and this page is where the wrongdoing occurred. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, AGAIN, that Bartlett resign his adminship. It defies common sense to ignore the fact that Bartlett had strong feelings on the matter. He has displayed these publicly above, and it matters not one bit whether he revealed them at the time or afterwards. Here again, if you didn't get it, is the policy:

involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include ... disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.


 * It is surprising how quickly other admins (and one want-to-be) have rallied to his support with non-arguments. This is a strong display of why admins have a very bad reputation on the English WP. Still waiting to hear why the involved rule has not been breached. And here, since you ask yet again, Kwami, is the evidence:
 * Oppose the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Wikipedia uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 6:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+11)
 * Tony  (talk)  08:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with his reasoning (IMO this is a difference of style, not of naming), but all that quote shows is that he was convinced that one side of the dispute better corresponded to WP consensus. That's an imperfect system, but pretty much how things work. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, and we should stop wasting our time. I've asked Tony to provide difs showing a COI, and he has failed to do that. Without evidence there is nothing for us to talk about. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Bottom line Tony, Bartlett was not involved when he closed the previous RM, but he has the right to become involved at a later time if another RM is opened, which it was.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to be waylaid by this. He has told us fair and square that he feels strongly biased towards one side. It is spelled out explicitly in his comment. What part of "Oppose the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Wikipedia uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best." is unclear? A lot of people here do not agree with this view, and now Bartlett is seeking to become part of the consensus by !voting on exactly the same issue at the same place within a few days. If it were an even slightly different issue, we would take it into account; but it's not. The WP:UNINVOLVED policy says that administrative actions must not be taken by admins who feel strongly one way or the other. It also says the the community interprets involvement very broadly. It is improper, for example, for an admin to express their personal opinions on the issue when closing. That is why the policy insists that another, uninvolved admin be brought in to make the judgement. Johjhutton says, "Bartlett was not involved when he closed the previous RM, but he has the right to become involved at a later time if another RM is opened, which it was." (1) He was involved, by his statement (unless his views have suddenly changed in a day or two). (2) He does not have the right to become involved a few days later in exactly the same debate he has closed and resolved to favour one side—casting a !vote, no less, to influence the outcome of moves to reverse his action. It is the most blatant conflict of interest I have seen on WP for some time. Tony'   (talk)  12:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, since Tony is using WP:INVOLVED as a basis for admin misuse, let me actually cut and paste what the guideline actually says, because Tony is just using a small snippet of the guideline to advance his theory that Bartlett misused admin privileges.
 * In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.
 * This means that admins should not act as admins if they are involved in an already continuing discussion. It does not say that an admin cannot act as an admin if they have strong feelings only.
 * Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
 * As far as time goes, it says Current and past discussions. It says nothing about future discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: It is a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of the admin policy. Kwami, you keep asking for diffs, but the evidence is just above. I have copied it here twice: Bartlett disclosed strong feelings (that is, "involvement") within a day or two of making an administrative action. Mr Hutton is concerned about past versus present versus future: the policy says nothing about when a disclosure of CoI is made; it cares only that an admin action be made without involvement at the time. The main argument by fellow admins who have rallied around Bartlett seems to appeal to when the disclosure of CoI was made. If, as an admin, I closed an RfC, took admin action to implement what I interpreted as consensus, while admitting there was vocal opposition, and then admitted two days later that I was partisan (!voting as such in a move to reverse it), I would resign as an admin when someone complained. Kwami and others talk about WP:TITLE gazumping MOS. Let's take a look at WP:TITLE. I see this, first off:

Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.... Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

Could Bartlett explain how his actions were in accordance with WP:INVOLVED and the text above in WP:TITLE? His continuing silence, in my view, proves his guilt. The matter will need to be pursued, sooner or later, since the community deserves to know whether the protection against corrupt actions that is afforded by WP:INVOLVED can be simply glossed over by wikilawyering over whether the disclosure of involvement at the time of the action was made before, during, or after the action. Tony  (talk)  07:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony, there's nothing wrong with an admin being convinced by the arguments in a RfM, and therefore having a strong opinion about it from then on. The only problem is if they come in with a COI.
 * If I may offer my opinion, I think it would probably be a much better use of time to start a discussion at TITLE or MOSFOLLOW on whether they really intend that the stylistic choices of our sources should override the MOS. Such a position could potentially be quite disruptive: either title formatting & style would no longer match the text of the article (as currently here), or if it is further decided that text style needs to conform to title style, much of the MOS would be invalidated. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying to Tony1's issue: My response to you is already included above.  I was not involved in the previous move request.  In the current move request I have opposed it, and therefore am involved in the second request.  I have remained quiet because my response had already been made. I will not be closing the current discussion. For newcomers to this: my talk page also has discussion on the nature of the earlier consensus decision. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's as though you haven't read my last post at all. It will not wash, this timing trick you seem to think holds water. Please read my post again. You have publicly announced in your !vote that you have strong partisan feelings on the issue. Unless your case is that you suddenly changed these views in the course of the intervening two days, you have significantly breached a basic tenet of the admin policy. It is worse still that you show no sign of understanding the concept of conflict of interest. You need to resign now. It is untenable that a WP admin either have such a complete misunderstanding of his/her responsibilities under the policy, or be prepared to blatantly breach them in this way. The matter is going to have to be resolved. Tony   (talk)  08:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't have any particular investment one way or another in the outcome. I think both ideas are fine, and really don't see why we've all made such a fuss.  As such, I don't see why we would want to 'hang up by the yardarm', anyone who is a part of this rather academic debate.  How about we just let people apologize, and move on?  Being excessively gruff doesn't seem like it will help anyone much either, everyone makes mistakes at times, and this is such a pointless thing to have such strong words about (in my tiny opinion).  Ok, well, I'm going to get the boiling oil ready. If its needed, just call. :)  -- Avanu (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's a serious breach of policy, he hasn't apologised, and he is still refusing to acknowledge his conflict of interest. "Everyone makes mistakes at times" is fine if there's an acknowledgement (and, BTW, a reversion to the original name). WP:TITLE explicitly says that such a move should not be made. Tony   (talk)  13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you still haven't shown any breech of policy that I can see. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place. If the move was illegitimate, then of course it should be reverted, not just apologized for. But you aren't getting anywhere here. If you're serious about it, take it to WP:ANI and provide the diffs they need to see things your way. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can drag out the diff if you want: the disclosure is just above. Here it is for the third time: "Oppose the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Wikipedia uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 6:54 pm, 16 March 2011, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC+11)". It's a reverse disclosure that demonstrates beyond doubt that he was conflicted when he carried out the admin action. Do you have a logical problem with this? Tony   (talk)  02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about the other editors here, but really, I would like to ask that if you have an administrative issue with another editor (rather than something directly related to the Mexican&American War) that you take that complaint to the proper forum, and let it drop here. I've seen a lot of passionate arguing already about dashes and hyphens, and I'm not really all that concerned with someone modifying the name.  So maybe they did wrong.  Take it to the right place to remedy it.  A *polite* discussion with that editor, or to the powers-that-be. -- Avanu (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Technical Correctness
Since we're still blabbing about the hyphendash conflict, I thought I might mention that technically, Mexicans *are* Americans, so really a more techincally correct title might be "The war between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848". Well, anyway... blah blah. -- Avanu (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and because of that some sources call it the "U.S.–Mexican War". But in English, "American" generally means Usonian, not, um, American. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The country that gave us W. V. O. Quine (and Wikipedia!) would do well to read his (still awesome) views on naming! And perhaps also WP:battleground and get back to the job. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More commonly, U.S.-Mexican War, as here - an element of the Oxford History of the United States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- Good Grief is this still going on? I think the war has been over for a while now. Time to make friends and have Pow Wow.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be. But if you check the dates, it took a while to get the last Move Request closed; it would not be surprising if there is some hesitation now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me thinks some may have poisoned the well.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that over? I thought the U.S. was building a wall to keep out the Mexican invaders. :/ (Tho they may have it in the wrong place. ;p)
 * This argument is sillier than the mass pagemoves over hyphenating ship classes. :/  Captain Canuck   wave my flag  11:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Regrettable edit
This edit changes some of the hyphens to dashes; whatever may be justified, this is contrary to MOS:CONSISTENCY: while some may think ''An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.'' is too strong, that is what MOS says.

Perhaps more seriously, it damages the article. Foos' book is subtitled about the "Mexican-American War", not, as Kwami makes it, the "Mexican War" - a significant error in these days of string searches. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kwami's revert war also restores from 1846–48 - yet another MOS violation. (What is the standard of professionalism being used here, anyway?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The page move was illegitimate, I'm afraid, made in flagrant breach of WP:INVOLVED—it needs to be moved back to the original en dash, in conformity with the MoS and the practice elsewhere in this and related categories of articles. Tony   (talk)  03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it up. Nobody but you thinks that the page move was against WP:INVOLVED.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sep, you were so quick to revert that I had no time to restore the actual corrections that you made. BTW, you left en dashes in the article (U.S.–Mexican War, multiple instances of Mexican–American War, Texan–Mexican conflict), so it was hardly consistent as you left it.
 * Tony, whether the move was legitimate is rather beside the point. The move was made based on the conclusion that TITLE took precedence over MOS. There was no decision that the MOS is therefore suspended from the article. As with any article, if one has a problem with the MOS, that should be discussed at the MOS. — kwami (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just ask yourself what normal people think of this
So now you have a title with hyphen, the lead-section ("lead–section"?) with en dash, the reflist with hyphens, and the talkpage notice (yes, up there ^) with hyphen... hello?... WTF people? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appeared to be part of a crusade to change the MOS through the back door by getting articles changed and then claiming that the MOS needs to be changed to match. Wanting a hyphen in phrases like this is a perfectly legitimate POV, but it should be debated on its own merits at the MOS. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kwami puts it perfectly. Mr Anderson, who has been site-banned for a week (again), is making this a WP:POINTY part of his campaign to reduce the style guides to ... well ... nothing. He has, actually, done us a service in raising matters to do with the relationship between the MoS and external sources, and between the MoS and WP:TITLE. But I believe he should give his campaign a rest; it is highly disruptive and we all have better things to do. Yes, dashes vs hyphens carry important meanings for readers, and are a long-established part of the language. It is yet more important since readers see our text on electronic monitors; often, they are not of the best resolution, and no one sees it as well as on paper in good light. Hyphens can look like dots or smudges in many circumstances. This might be OK for when a hyphen is correct, but when a dash is prescribed by many of the most prestigious authorities in the US, the UK and elswhere, it is professional to use it. This debate needs to be at MoS talk, not here. Tony   (talk)  02:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Choyoo. Book titles should appear exactly as they were written (barring capital letters that Americans insist on using at the end of words), idem from names of book chapters.


 * @Kwami. What, no, that's not a backdoor, that's how it's done, see WP:GUIDELINE.


 * @Tony1. I looked at several dozens of books from reliable publishers, and the immense majority go against your interpretation of the MOS. (note that I looked at the sources before commenting in both RM; although I prefer the hyphen, I don't mind using it... if it's the customary usage in RS). Either the reliable publishers are not listening to those prestigious authorities, or those authorities have little influence in English common usage (which Wikipedia uses). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric, are you referring to title case? I think you'll find that it's widespread. Certainly in journal articles and conference proceedings it's like a full-body rash. While I fully support WP's insistence on sentence case, my point is that if we really did go by the balance of external sources in style and formatting, WP would look rather different. Tony   (talk)  13:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

from 1846–48
Guys, I am not a native English speaker, but, are you sure that this construction is correct? I don't recall seeing this before. Shouldn't it be one of the following? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * in 1846–48
 * of 1846–48
 * from 1846 to 1848
 * As a native English speaker I don't see a problem with this. Someone seeing "from 1846–48" would read it as "from 1846 to/through 48", which is perfectly acceptable. Is this really a violation of the MoS? If so can somebody point out where exactly? –CWenger (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've come across several style guides which say s.t. to the effect that an en dash means "from X to Y", so that it's incorrect to use it with words such as 'from', 'between', etc. Others simply state that it's bad style because it's mixing conventions ('from' is a word, but 'to' is punctuation). Either way, they say that "to" should be spelled out if a separate preposition is used for the first number. (I think "in 1846–48" would be OK because 'in' refers to the range, not to 1846.) — kwami (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSDASH says that when there's a "from" or other preposition before the range, it's a bump for the reader to then have to move into a typographical symbol. So "from ... to ...", not "from ...–...". It's not a big deal, but I correct this if I'm copy-editing to make it more logical/consistent/smooth for the reader. Tony   (talk)  02:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The MOS reflects normal editing practice on this. A normal Engish speaker might not care, but this "from 1846–48" is the kind of construct that my copy editor would also try to stamp out, because it's just wrong, and makes the writer look illiterate to sufficiently literate readers.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how many sites parrot Wikipedia (sorry partly off-topic)
"Mexican troops were trained to fire with their muskets held loosely at hip-level" removed by 99.189.28.19 for 'lacking citation since 2008'

I looked this quote up in Google to see if there were any reliable sources, and mostly I find that a LOT of sites copy Wikipedia content verbatim without checking the facts. -- Avanu (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To check facts would cost money, copying it wholesale makes your site appear in search engines for alot of topics unconnected to your core focus draw eyes and clicks to your advertising-based funding. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Silly Argument - versus –
From Avanu (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Rather than going on and on and on, why not introduce some additional reliable sources? Everything I have seen above that is being suggested as a "solution" does nothing to actually advance the debate about which type of punctuation is best. Since we are bound by "Reliable Sources" being our guide, and since the sources are clearly in dispute for numerous reasons, either get more sources, toss a coin, or duel it out at dawn. Either way, it is clearly an endless debate that can't be solved by just arguing a lot.

So my suggestion is, either:

1. Get an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources for one side or the other.

2. Compete in some game of chance or skill to decide this. (plus, it's fun)

3. Shut up (and I say this in the most charitable way possible).


 * Silly? Yes, of course it is. I would recommend you choose
 * 4. Go to WP:AN and ask for a neutral admin to close this move request, now long overdue.
 * That should get all of us out of this talk page, although you may want to warn them about Tony's interminable attack on the last closer.


 * (1) has already been tried. Enric posted "the ímmense majority of sources use hyphen, even in the title, see see google books search. Specific books: books by military history publishers like Osprey_Publishing or university presses like Indiana University Press, University of New Mexico Press, University of Missouri Press, University of South Carolina Press, Texas A&M University Press when citing sources, University of North Caroline Press, Georgetown University Press or publishers of academic divulgative books Blackbirch_Press, Greenwood Press, ABC-CLIO, or publishers of textbooks like Cengage Learning, Infobase Publishing, Prentice-Hall uses dash in title but hyphen in text, Longman, Hackett Publishing.


 * "The point is there are some books using a dash, but they are in the minority (for example, Cengage Learning has published many books that mention the topic, and almost every one uses hyphens, and the nominator has listed a few books by academic publishers like Prentice-Hall and one university press). And the most notable publishers use hyphens in the immense majority of their books. For every prestigious RS using a dash, you can find literally dozens of equally-prestigious RS using a hyphen."


 * The three opposes replied that they didn't need no stinking sources, they were right - and that's the problem: lack of an objective standard, since they reject usage. (Finding yet more books with a hyphen would be easy, but would it help?). WP:MOS proceeds by hand-waving and analogy (as it must, not to be the length of a dictionary), and they firmly believe MOS says what they would like - even though more of us don't see it; they also assert that MOS, a guideline, overrules WP:TITLE, the relevant policy.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that you are both RIGHT. So this debate will never end unless you just agree to disagree and let it go. Whoever is going to win is either going to have to go get a HUGE preponderance of evidence for their side, or simply have this settled another way. Continually arguing when it has been proven a jillion ways to Sunday that it can go either way (and this is over a difference that amounts to a millimeter's worth of line) is just silly.  Flip a coin, whatever.  Just make a choice and stick with it. -- Avanu (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that any sources use an en dash is fair evidence that this construct is sometimes judged to fall within the scope of a style guide like ours that specifies the traditional use of en dash to join two names. The fact that many others use hyphen mostly just shows that either they don't have such a style guide, or they don't have a picky editor.  The test I proposed is this:  find a source that does use en dash to join names, but does not use en dash in Mexican-American War.  That would be evidence that an editor made a determination that the joined name provision does not apply to this war's name.  How many of those can you find, relative to how many with en dash? Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That whole paragraph sounds like a great justification to keep arguing, but really doesn't prove the point one way or the other. Use of a hyphen means they don't have a picky editor or a style guide? Really? What if they used a space? ("Mexican American War") What does that show?  Just pick something and move on.  A hyphen works, and an en dash works, so why are guys being so obstinate? -- Avanu (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because hyphen actually appears in the keyboard of +90% computers (all non-Mac computers). And it doesn't become a set of weird characters under certain conditions (try linking a section header that contains a dash). Because it's a deviation from the "standard" ASCII set of characters without a very good reason. And the most important reason: if the hyphen is incorrect, then why do the immense majority RS use a hyphen? We appear to be stating that most RS are wrong and that wikipedia is right. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric, I think you answered your own question. Most sources use it simply because it's easy to find on their keyboard, and/or because they work in, or have been heavily influenced by, a typography limited to ASCII.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If that was the reason, they wouldn't use “curly quotes” either. ― A. di M.​plé ​dréachtaí 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's a Mac-resentment issue for you, is it? There are plenty of methods to input an en dash, which is a basic part of English typography. I suppose the easiest is simply to click below the edit box on the en dash button. I can show you how to do this, if you wish. Tony   (talk)  14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's nothing against Mac. And the easiest is to simply type a hyphen. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "easiest" to use sloppy English, too; but we have higher standards. If you are satisfied with sub-professional typography, that is fine, but please don't force it on WP. Tony   (talk)  14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If most of RS used a dash, then I wouldn't see a problem in using also a dash, just like they do. But most RS use hyphen as I took the bother to document. Osprey Publishing uses hyphen, does it have sub-professional typography? What about Hackett Publishing Company, Cengage Learning. Or how about the university presses of the universities of Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgetown? Or how about frigging Oxford university Press, looking at the first 5 results of, they use dash in  books      but also uses hyphen in 10 books         . Are they sub-professional typographers only 2/3 of the time?


 * I keep seeing the same strawman raised again and again:
 * If it uses a hyphen then it's lazy typographers/webmasters.
 * If it uses a dash, it's professionalism and an example for wikipedia to follow.
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And another strawman that will probably be raised next:
 * If a publishing house uses always dash then it's professional and an example for wikipedia to follow.
 * If they use sometimes hyphen and sometimes dash then the style of those publishing houses is inconsistent and it shouldn't be followed.
 * If they use only hyphen, then those publishing houses have their own house styles and wikipedia has to follow its own house style (search "publisher" in this very same talk page, and you will see this strawman in action)
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Avanu (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * From http://www.pepperdine-graphic.com/perspectives/excessive-ing-es-prose-to-bits-1.2521380
 * "Excessive —ing —es prose to bits" or "Excessive dashing dashes prose to bits"


 * "The dash comes in two forms, the em-dash (—) and the en-dash (–). They have basically the same function, and the choice between them, as well as the spacing guidelines, depends on the publishing house or style guide of the writer. For example, we at the Graphic use the em-dash with a space on either side."


 * "The grammatical cousin of the dash pair is the hyphen (-), mischievous because of its unstandardized use. The hyphen typically joins compound nouns. It can also string together multiple adjectives before all-too-modifiable nouns. The bottom line is the hyphen is a joiner, a connecter. Like any good business major, it networks, pulling words together."


 * -- Avanu (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the basic rule. The "non-standard" comment about hyphens means largely that there are words and phrases which vary between "black bird", "black-bird", and "blackbird"; there is no general rule about which to use, although there are a number of fairly good generalizations. There are also some special cases in which some or many writers use "black–bird'' with a dash, but this is largely an early-twentieth century idea which has not caught on.


 * If anybody wants to edit the article to match the present title, that would be helpful. I hope my next comment will be on the substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment regarding the preceding section
The preceding section has been subject to a lame edit war about whether a subheader should make reference to horse carcasses, as far as I can tell. I have been asked to look at this on my talk page. I've warned one editor two editors not to edit-war, but the warning really applies to all of you. Folks, if you want to make comments about horse carcasses or something, please add them as a new comment and do not overwrite anything written by others. And above all do not edit-war on a frigging talk page. Or I may block you all for sheer lameness. Regards,  Sandstein   19:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be generated to go into conflict with the style guides
There have been attempts to breach the style guides on the dash issue. That would be fine, but consensus needs to be gathered here first, on the basis that this article should differ from WP's site-wide practice. I ask that those editors seeking to cause disruption in the article cease, and that the matter be sorted out here.

Keep the status quo in the text, consistent with the MoS guideline There was no consensus to change the typography of the article title, and there is definitely no consensus to change the article text. To do so, it should be demonstrated that this article has special conditions that make it "common sense" to go against site-wide practice as articulated in the style guides. Tony  (talk)  14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. N oetica Tea? 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC). (See my fuller reasons for the en dash, below.)
 * [add signature here]
 * Change the typography to a hyphen, consistently; it's what the overwhelming majority of sources do, and we disagree on what MOS says on this issue.
 * For example, see CWenger's !vote in the second move request. Neither reason is article-specific. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Change the typography for article-specific reasons (please state them with your signature).
 * [add signature here]

Time to stop repeated discussions and stay with established consensus (please provide outstanding rationale)


 * There have been two recent and protracted discussions that have both clearly demonstrated consensus for the article name to have a hyphen and not an en-dash. It makes no sense to use one name in the article title and another in the text body.  This position is based upon Manual of Style, which states "an overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article". --Allen3 talk 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One more time, guys: the immense majority of sources use a hyphen for this name, policy WP:COMMONAME says to follow the common usage in RS, MOS:CONSISTENCY says that it's not necessary to have inter-article consistency across the project. Those are undeniable facts that are not going to stop existing just because you don't like them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WP:COMMONAME is applicable here; we're arguing about the typographic style, not about what to call it. The relevant guideline is the MOS section on dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME is about the raw form of name that is chosen as the title for an article. It says nothing about punctuation. If it were intended to have any bearing on punctuation, at least one of its many examples should include something to show that intention. Not one does. WP:MOS makes recommendations on punctuation; WP:TITLE does not. The form "Mexican–American" accords with WP:MOS, with other articles under the category, and with the name of that category itself. If editors wanted wholesale systematic change, they should not have mounted a trivial campaign for piecemeal change: to this single article's title. I and CWenger made a clear invitation for them to work systematically and collegially, and so avoid all this wrangling. They refused that invitation to work together. We now see consequences of that refusal. N oetica Tea? 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONSISTENCY says exactly this: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion." If the title is considered part of the article, then the appearance of the name throughout the article ought to have been fully discussed in the two RMs. It was not. If the title is not considered part of the article, then there is no case from MOS:CONSISTENCY for bringing the form in the article into line with the form in the title. In either case, other elements of WP:MOS (guidelines for systematic punctuation) do apply. If there is a conflict of Wikipedia principles, that needs to be resolved. But – you guessed it! – this is not the forum for such a broad discussion of policies and guidelines. Nothing can be settled here about them. N oetica Tea? 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That assumes that two names only differing in punctuation are the same name. This is not the case. "Finnegan's Wake" is a song. Finnegans Wake is a book. ― A. di M.​plé ​dréachtaí 00:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We use typographic style to suggest that one is a book title and the other some other kind of title. Similar, the hyphen suggests that "Mexican-American War" would be a war about Mexican Americans, while the en dash in "Mexican–American War" suggests that it's a war between Mexico and America.  The typographical style doesn't tell us everything, but our MOS suggests that we use to help where it can.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Dicklyon has probably given the best defense of using the dash of anyone that I have seen. -- Avanu (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless we send a little copy of Dicklyon out with this article each time it is accessed, no reader will understand what we mean by the dash - because in fact this is the war which is both Mexican and American, as the Swedish-Polish War (not Swede–Pole War) is both Swedish and Polish. We already cause most readers to stumble a bit by not calling it the Mexican War; we puzzle them again by a dash they've never seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No offence, Avanu; and with all respect to Dicklyon: that is the bleeding obvious reason for having the war and the article named with an en dash. The point has been made repeatedly. It is also the point behind the punctuation provisions at WP:MOS. It is also the point that two admins who closed RMs here have missed in the discussion, against their duty to attend to it. It is also the point that eludes a group of editors opposing regularity in naming articles, with their imperfect understanding of punctuation and their unwillingness to follow arguments and learn. N oetica Tea? 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this hypothetical situation is a real problem that actually happens in the real world. Some days ago I asked for a RS saying that this confusion is a significant problem, I ask for such RS again. If there is some war where the confusion is frequent, then it would be sensible to use a dash for that name. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical or not, the reason given above is the most substantial and useful argument I have seen anyone make on either side about why to choose a dash versus a hyphen. Most of the rest of the arguing has just pretty much been "because some source used it".  An actual reason based on logic!!, wow, it's won me over to the dash side. -- Avanu (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual argument is "because most sources use it, including the most prestigious and reliable ones" ..... Apparently, none of those publishers has any idea of how to use punctuation, and they all use imprecise and ambiguous names..... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The lazy sub-professional typographers at Oxford University Press, Osprey Publishing and Hackett Publishing Company and Cengage Learning, not to mention all those university presses that fill their unprofessionally-typed books with imprecisions and ambiguities. We don't want to imitate that sort of people here at wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another way of answering A di M: It does not necessarily make that simple assumption at all. And anyway, aren't "JF Kennedy" "J F Kennedy", "J.F. Kennedy", and "J. F. Kennedy" forms or presentations of the same name, but punctuated differently? We would normally speak of them that way. Same for spelling. People might ask me: "How do spell your name, with a 'cs' or a 'cz'?" They are less likely to ask me: "Is your name the one with 'cs', or the name that is exactly similar except that it has 'cz' instead?" These are complex ontological and [meta]linguistic matters; no definitive answer will be reached on the talkpage for a North American war. N oetica Tea? 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was talking about the apostrophe before the ess which is there in the title of the song but not that of the book, not about the quotation marks/italics surrounding the titles (which are not part of the titles themselves anyway). ― A. di M.​plé ​dréachtaí 11:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CWenger asked a good question at my talkpage: was my recent edit here was a violation of MOS:CONSISTENCY? I reproduce the answer I gave there, because it is relevant to our present deliberations:
 * "Good to see you here, CWenger. No, it was not a violation. For one thing, some material on the page (in the categories at the bottom, and elsewhere) had the en dash form and could not be changed, and some had the hyphen form. So consistency could not be achieved in any case. Therefore, when in doubt, edit according to clear MOS guidelines. The prevailing and irremediable inconsistency comes about because of editors' refusal to accept a peace proposal that you tentatively suggested and I took up and presented, in the second RM at Talk:Mexican-American War [...] I'm not kidding: this is all more serious than it looks, because of the wide implications for policies and guidelines, and the potential to generate precedents for disorder if they are ignored."
 * N oetica Tea? 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noetica: there is a wider, systemic issue concerning the role of centralised style guidance at the en.WP. Taking to its logical end the argument that " "most" of my sources use X, so that's enough for me to override the consensus of the MoS built up over years" will destroy the stylistic cohesion of the project. This cohesion is reasonably flexible, but does require WP to make a call about many issues of style and formatting that goes against some external practice. How could it be otherwise? There is considerable variation in English, and most writing is sub-professional out there. Who wants to emulate it? Now, either you agree with the professional aims of the project, or you take the matter to the style guides themselves and ask the community, or you create chaos to try to deride them. Which is it to be? Tony   (talk)  14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * “Professional” what? Last time I checked Wikipedia contributors were unpaid volunteers, and no-one earns their living by it. (Whatever the hell this has to do with this, BTW?) ― A. di M.​plé

​dréachtaí 17:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed on WT:MOS; there's been a thread there for months. "Either [you do what Tony wants] or [you go where he will refuse to listen or discuss] or you are creating chaos." This doesn't need to be derided; it's already risible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have talked to several fluent and literate speakers of American about this; their reaction has been consistently: "Wikipedia spells Mexican-American War how?? Why?" The only profession I know of that succeeds by bewildering literate readers of its product is shock comedy, one of the things Wikipedia is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring notice
There have been TWO move request over the title of this article, next guy who edit-wars to reinsert the damned dash will be dragged directly to WP:AN3 for violatiing MOS:STABILITY. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was stable with en dash in Mexican–American war since the middle of 2008; just because someone got it improperly moved doesn't mean you have license to go changing that everywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There were two Requests for Move closed by to different admins, the second closed while a thread in An was active. If you suspect any impropriety then raise the issue at WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Enric here. How can you say it was "improperly moved"? Maybe the dash→hyphen move was a fluke, but the move back was proposed and there was no consensus for it. We all see things on Wikipedia we don't agree with; you can't simply call them improper/invalid/illegal when they have consensus. –CWenger (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're saying "damned dash", it sounds like you might need a short break. This issue isn't worth losing sleep over. It's just a punctuation mark. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (Damn! Well, I'll be damned!) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I say dashed dash, in an effort to preserve a sense of proportion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Category rename to fit the page renaming
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's go to arbitration mediation
I moved over the past week and a half, and came back to Wikipedia disappointed to see that there has been absolutely no progress on the Mexican~American War naming issue. Again, I personally am not really sure if a hyphen or en dash is correct, but I do know that using both interchangeably, particularly in the same article, looks unprofessional. I don't see any way this issue is resolved without some authoritative figure/body making a decision. Therefore I suggest arbitration as the only way forward. –CWenger (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is centrally for resolving behavioural issues, not content issues. Tony   (talk)  04:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what? –CWenger (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mediation perhaps? –CWenger (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, refusing to accept consensus is a behavioural issue. But I'm not sure that arbitrators would see that way unless it's very clear situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Refusing to accept consensus" does seem mighty widespread here. Maybe that means there's not a consensus? Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two closed Requests for Move in this very same talk page. You even commented in the second one some 16 hours before it was closed as "no consensus to revert the move". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both relative to content and behavior, this is one of the lamest pursuits on the Wiki. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 17:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; and it's already listed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the comments in AN, maybe we should move it to the top of the list or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be presentism. ;-> Several LAME discussions have been even sillier and more disruptive - hard though it may be to believe. This (after all) is an issue internal to Wikipedia; there are no chat groups of True Dash nationalists ready to conduct anon vandalism to change the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDIATION would be more appropriate; WP:MEDCOM will actually have an authority figure, and may therefore be more likely to persuade people to co-operate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is worth a shot, but I can see this getting denied because one of the prerequisites is: "Except in extraordinary cases, earlier steps in the content dispute resolution process, such as requests for comment, or informal mediation, have been utilised without success". Not sure if they would consider this an "extraordinary case". Is anybody willing to put in the effort to request mediation? –CWenger (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only see this problem in mediation. If Tony1 and Noetica agreed to mediation, and the mediator concluded that using a hyphen was better, would they accept the result and allow other editors to replace dashes with hyphens, rename articles, etc? I mean, look at how they reacted when the RMs were closed with results they disagreed with.... No point in starting a mediation and investing time on it, if there is so much evidence that some of the participants will only accept the result if it goes their way..... --Enric Naval (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we go to arbitration, and let them defend this record; but I believe Tony will be more sensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everybody involved is acting in good faith and would abide by the decision. And anyway, if they don't, doesn't the mediation committee have the power to enforce its rulings with topic bans and blocks and such? –CWenger (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, mediators do not have power to block and ban and such; yes, they are probably a good idea for this issue. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

more pushing by Enric_Naval
I reverted some changes of hyphen to en dash within the article, and a move a related linked page that User:Enric_Naval moved from en dash to hyphen. I think we don't have consensus for that, and if consistency is what he's after, there's an easier way back to that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The title was changed after one move request, and a second move request was closed as "no consensus to move" (no consensus to move back to the dashed title). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I missed some of that. So why not move it back to the stable version, and not propagate all the hyphen changes?  Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and the impropriety referred to below concerns a breach of both WP:TITLE and WP:INVOLVED, not to mention WP:MOSDASH. Tony   (talk)  13:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we prefer that this article be in American English, rather than consistently in a language foreign to all anglophones, Commonwealth and American alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So, let's tone it down and draw back: kindness?
Hey, listen, we may have differences and feel passionately about the role of this or that style guide or policy, and the role of various typographical symbols. But one thing we must agree on, I believe, is to show some kindness towards each other, or at the very least, a non-personal approach. Let us by all means strongly debate the issues, but it would help if we studiously avoided even mentioning usernames. I have been guilty of this, too. The tone and standard of discussion will rise, I can assure you.

User:Sandstein is right to be concerned about the drama. So let's fix the drama ourselves, or an unsatisfactory solution will be imposed on all of us. I suggest the matter be slowed down, more measured, with emotion taken out if possible. (I have a RL workload that leaves little time for WP right now, I'm afraid.). Tony  (talk)  15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Provided that the rain of falsehoods and the language about "MOS breaches" and "MOS violations" also ceases. The Manual of Style is a (contested) guideline; it is not a code of law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A common sense argument for the hyphen
I know we have been over every inch of this topic several times, but I want to present a new, common sense argument that I came up with (originally on my talk page). MOS:ENDASH makes an exception for elements that lack lexical independence, e.g. Sino-Japanese trade. Presumably this would apply to Franco-. Is it likely that two terms as similar as Franco-German border and French-German border would use different punctuation? I think the idea behind the "hyphen for elements that lack lexical independence" rule is that the disjointedness of the two elements is evident. With nouns, like France-Germany border, it could possibly be mistaken for the border of a single country (France-Germany). With adjectives, like French-German border, it fits best into the former category, i.e. there is minimal possibility for confusion with only a hyphen. I think this explains why the vast majority of reliable sources use Mexican-American War, and why we should follow them in our WP:MOS. Even if it is not explicitly stated in style guides I think we should be able to figure out what is going on and follow common usage. –CWenger (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what's behind the opposition to the en dash. The ambiguity of the hyphenated construct is very clear, even commented upon in reliable sources like this book that says "...'The Mexican-American War' has fallen in estimation because of the contemporaneous usage of 'Mexican American' to refer to an ethnic group."  He resorted to calling it the "U.S.-Mexican War", but the conventional approach to avoiding the ambiguity would be just to use the right punctuation instead of the hyphen.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My opposition to the en dash is simply because it is so rarely used. I don't think the possibility of confusing Mexican-American War with one fought between Mexican Americans is very realistic, and besides, there is no requirement that names of wars be accurate, e.g. War of Northern Aggression. –CWenger (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You must really hate exclamation marks! I just counted, and if you convert all the dashes in Mexican–American to hyphens, there will still be 73 en dashes in the article.  And no exclamation marks at all!  And how did you come to have an en dash in your signature if you oppose it?  And why does your user page say you're a hyphenation expert and a converter of hyphen to dash?  I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from here.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am actually a huge fan of en dashes but in this instance, common usage doesn't seem to support it, and therefore I go with the hyphen. –CWenger (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I misunderstood you. So what about things like ""McCain-Feingold legislation"?  It's hard to find a source using an en dash there, yet it's obviously exactly the kind of thing for which en dash is appropriate.  And it can't be argued that it's the proper name of a thing.  So why do we have an MOS if we're going to copy the majority, which uses a lower common denominator style?  OK, I found one, out of about 20 I looked at in books, about the same as in the Mexican–American war.  In science, it's much more common to use the en dash as a stylistic way to clarify things named after two people instead of one, like the Bose–Einstein condensate; wikipedia adopted that style, yes?  Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, good point, McCain–Feingold is indeed pretty rare (I found this source that uses the dash and this source that uses it sometimes...odd as well). I like the idea of having the MoS to promote consistent typography throughout Wikipedia, and in this case we have chosen the en dash to separate two disjointed nouns used as a compound adjective, following the scientific style as you note. It has a major clarifying role in this case, as there could be somebody named McCain-Feingold and it could be solely their legislation. However, I think the MoS should itself, derive from reliable sources. I haven't seen any examples where two adjectives, separately by an en dash, is the most common usage (e.g. French–German border). –CWenger (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean things like true–false, male–female, and red–green? Perhaps they're not "most common", but still appropriate?  Have you seen examples where the en dash is most common in pairs of names?  I doubt it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is those could be nouns as well depending on the context. An example with proper adjectives like French–German border, where the en dash is very common, would be extremely conclusive to me.
 * If you do a Google Books search for "Michelson Morley experiment", about half use an en dash. That tells me it is commonly used in reliable sources and since there is motivation behind it (clarity/precision), it makes sense for Wikipedia to adopt it in our MoS. –CWenger (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, it's common (maybe not majority) in science. And we did adopt it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a French–German. Didn't take long to find.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This paper has Russian–Georgian and Russian–Western in the PDF, but hyphen in the online HTML version. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what I'm looking for is an example when one of those phrases is the most common usage (or at least very popular, on the order of Michelson–Morley experiment). –CWenger (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * hum, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 121, for Michelson Morley experiment there is 80% hyphen and 20% dash in the first 30 results of google books and google scholar. Oppenheimer-Phillips has 90% hyphen and 10% dash, and still people want to use dash Talk:Oppenheimer–Phillips_process. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought there were a few more dashes for Michelson Morley experiment than 20%. But anyway I support the dash there and in Oppenheimer Phillips process because it has a major clarifying role. I see it as much more significant than the clarifying role suggested in Mexican American War, i.e. not a war of the Mexican American variety and not a war among Mexican Americans. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: Wikipedia has chosen a typographical style (en dash for two disjointed nouns in a compound adjective) that may be a minority usage (~30% in professional publishing) because it imparts extra clarity and precision. I have trouble accepting that Wikipedia should choose a typographical style (en dash for two disjointed adjectives in a compound adjective) that is an extreme minority usage (~5% in professional publishing) when it imparts very minimal extra clarity and precision. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What I had asked for before was any single example of a publication that shows evidence of a policy of using the en dash in the style that our MOS specifies, and yet does not use it for the Mexican–American War. Surely they must exist. I've found the other way: this book set's the "core–periphery" conflict with en dash, and also the war with en dash. So far, that makes en dash in Mexican–American War a majority among books that clearly have a policy of using en dash to represent to, and, between, versus. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's not just inconsistent typesetting; the two instances of Mexican~American on the same page don't seem to be using the same mark (the book's hyphens can be seen a few pages up, with fellow-readers. But if not, it's just another instance of the generalization: of the millions of books published, we can find one using any remotely plausible typographical choices. Where is the significant minority? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a fair request and your source does persuade me somewhat. I will look and I hope the other hyphen proponents will too. –CWenger (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked through the first few Mexican-American War books. Unfortunately the noun~noun noun construct is just pretty rare, and I never even saw it in the hyphenated form. However, I did find an example here. This book uses Mexican-American War but on the second-to-last page it uses "54–40", which is a case of MOS:ENDASH #2 that we are dealing with here. –CWenger (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting special case, but how to punctuate a latitude in degrees and minutes is hardly a test of the principle in question. Most likely that was done by a typographer who knew to put en dash between numbers.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not an ideal example. But again, the problem is it is such a rarely used construct. I didn't see any cases using a hyphen either. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This uses both Mexican-American War (hyphen) and 1841–1845 (dash; as Polk's term). You will have to search; the dates are in the footnote. That would appear to be a solid majority of usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost every book I looked at did that. But it's just because using an en dash for ranges is very common. Using them in certain types of compound modifiers is much more rare. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 03:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the Oxford dashes should stand and fall together; but here's Spanish-American War (hyphen) and Clayton–Bulwer (dash). Since the double surname dash is relatively common, being one of the few cases where the dash actually serves a differentiation of meaning, this may not be surprising. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Clayton~Bulwer is hyphenated to me. Certainly in the main text, the only place that is questionable is in the title but it's hard to tell as there are no other hyphens/dashes in that font and size to compare to. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 03:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's an en dash in the title it's probably just due to yet another en dash convention, which is to use them instead of hyphen when the words are set in all caps. So this is not an example of what I asked for. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other examples, but it has the usual problem: Clayton-Bulwer is usually hyphenated, because there is no Mr. Clayton-Bulwer out there; but Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, where the dash is reinforced by the word being a compound of compounds, works: link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's something. But it looks like they only do that to show that it is two people, one with a hyphenated name. A few pages later I see "Kissinger-Tack declaration" with a hyphen. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 04:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's WP:ENDASH 5. So? That's "the dash in the style that MOS specifies". If you're going to insist on every point MOS specifies, first show me a book that uses all of them. As usual, OUP publishes this system, but doesn;t follow it.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying, the really conclusive evidence would be a book that uses Mexican-American War (hyphenated) but X–Y Treaty (en dashed). That would say the distinction between nouns and adjectives is real. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, we still have no example of a book that uses en dash to connect parallel nouns (like core–periphery or Bose–Einstein), and yet uses a hyphen in Mexican-American War. So there's no evidence that would support making this odd exception to what our MOS specifies. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More accurately, we have only the slightest scattering of books which use en dashes to connect parallel nouns at all. None of that handful have been found to discuss the Mexican War, let alone call it that politically correct term Mexican-American War. The odd exception is using an en dash to connect parallel nouns in the first place; the extension of that exception to the compound modifer Mexican-American is the invention of sciolists, unsupported by the text of MOS - even after its recent non-consensus edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ugh, it's very difficult to find. I sampled the 78 results of "mexican-american war" "mexico-us" in google books. :
 * First of all, turn out that "Mexican American" is usually punctuated with a space, so there is no possibility of confusion due to using hyphen, see "(...) the Anglo-Americans and Mexican Americans who inhabited the southernmost region of Texas along the Mexican-American border. The Mexican-American War (...)" p. 77


 * Second, look at the preponderant usages:


 * space for name of war and dash for "Mexico-US"


 * hyphen for both the name of the war and for "U.S.-Mexico X" and "Mexico-US X", including the Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia.


 * dash for both


 * dash for the name of the war and hyphen for "mexico-US" (there was another one, but I lost the link)


 * Looks like both ENDASH#5 and the last example of ENDASH#2 are at odds with the majority of RS, including the highest-quality ones like OUP. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * PMAnderson, you are factually wrong where say "More accurately, we have only the slightest scattering of books which use en dashes to connect parallel nouns at all. None of that handful have been found to discuss the Mexican War, let alone call it that politically correct term Mexican-American War." Look at this book, which I pointed out before.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Enric Naval, I'm not getting your point. First of all, the "preponderant usages" are not nearly as relevant as those uses that show some relationship to the WP:MOS points that we are discussing.  The several "dash for both" examples support our claims that "Mexican–American" is not treated differently in this context from "U.S.–Mexico".  You still no examples to suggest that Mexican–American should use a hyphen in the context of style that uses en dash to connect things as described at WP:ENDASH.  The fact that some of our MOS provisions are not what have been adopted by others is quite beside the point of this discussion.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is a WP:CIRCULAR argument. You can't argue: RS are wrong because they contradict something written at wikipedia. And, per MOS:FOLLOW, wikipedia adopts the practices of RS, not the other way around. MOS:FOLLOW doesn't say: follow sources unless they are at disagreement with other points of the MOS in which case you can dismiss all of them as not following the rules of wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying RSs are wrong. But they do have a different adopted style than we have, in many cases, so may not be useful for resolving fine points of the interpretation of our style, which adopts one standard but not widely respected role for en dash.  General guidelines like WP:FOLLOW are less relevant when they are superceded by more specific WP:MOS provisions, for example as in WP:LOWERCASE.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this post is just saying that reliable sources don't count. The only thing that counts is the meaning that three (or is it four?) editors have read into the Manual of Style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dicklyon. We seem to have a basic difference of interpretation. IMO, MOS:FOLLOW not only dictates those cases that the MOS doesn't cover. IMO, it also dictates that, if some of the points currently covered is in dispute, then the dispute should be decided by looking at the common usage in RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation seems to suggest that we don't care about consistency of style, and don't need an MOS. That's not my interpretation, I agree.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your reading. Enric Naval does not say any such thing. It is perfectly possible to support usage and uniformity; one need merely agree to follow usage where it is uniform. The proposal of this section, however, is to take a genuinely uniform usage, and then do something completely different, which two or three editors editors support against the general opinion of the rest of Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Since the issue here is primarily an issue for WP:MOS, and since nobody has been able to show a single source that implies that "Mexican–American War" is anywhere treated differently from other joined pairs as "U.S.–Mexico border", and since the hotly protested move to the hyphenated title has introduced conflict and inconsistency into an area that was previously stable, self-consistent, and consistent with WP:ENDASH for several years, I do therefore move that that we repair this mess by moving the article back to the previously stable en dash form. Any reasoned support or objection appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strongly oppose This proposal is bad faith; having lied stated deliberate, repeated, and evident falsehood  l about whether the  first requested move above was consensus, Dicklyon now proposes to ignore it. It would seem simpler to ban those who are only interested in jots and tittles from this article, and let those who edit in American and on American history work it out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson:
 * I don't know why you're doing this. Dicklyon is an active and widely respected editor of deep integrity. He has sought to rectify persistent abuses of process at this page – abuses that have disruptive consequences for closely related articles and categories, and much further afield. It is hard for anyone to escape the conclusion that you brought all of this chaos on. Dicklyon may be unwise to pursue a dispute here with you: but he does so in good faith, for the good of the Project. By association with you, attempting reasonable dialogue with you, through no fault of his own, he has been brought into danger and suffered great inconvenience. Others among us know the hazards of taking you on with the assumption of fair play; but Dicklyon did not.
 * He has not lied. At most, you and he have a disagreement about what constitutes consensus on Wikipedia. Established guidelines support his view, and others share that view.
 * I call on you to retract your accusation that Dicklyon has lied, along with the bad-faith accusation that he acts in bad faith.
 * N oetica Tea? 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will retract the accusation when he retracts his deliberate and repeated falsehoods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right; what he said. The proposal is in good faith.  I believe the move of this page to the hyphen form was against consensus, even if the opposition as expressed in that RM discussion was a bit weak.  Since the whole set of pages was stable and consistent for years, it would take more than PMA's RM to establish consensus to change that.  I'm sorry I missed it at the time, as we could probably have avoided this ton of trouble.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Against consensus?!? This close, which was 8-2, and closed on a clear basis of policy? Even adding Dicklyon (as is never done; move requests are supposed to be decided by semi-random samples) would make it 8-3. I would appreciate a distinction between that and "Only the handful who agree with me count"; I believe any WP:Dispute resolution also would. I set aside the equally evidence-free claim that WP:DASH was ever consensus of anybody but the same handful; we are discussing an addition to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to believe that was consensus, due to the numbers, so be it. That doesn't make my belief a lie.  The guy who closed it (User:Graeme Bartlett) says he believed it was a consensus, too, but again, based more on numbers than on any sensible logic.  He made up the novel theory of a conflict between the title policy and the MOS, though editors have seen no such conflict in all the years I've been editing wikipedia under what I thought were stable and consistent rules.  And then he finally moved it with this falsehood in the edit summary: "published sources exclusively use hyphen not dash".  I'm not saying he lied, just didn't follow the arguments, and then refused to reconsider and even started arguing against moving it back to the consistent state in the next RM.  Now are you going to strike your personal attack against me, or not? Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words: "What Dicklyon wants is consensus; it doesn't matter how many Wikipedians disagree with him. A conflict that Dicklyon doesn't notice doesn't exist." I suppose there are other explanations for that position than lying; the only one I can think of would be less civil, but I await more concrete suggestions.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon defends his truthfulness with a serious misquotation of my own post in the first RM. I did not say that there were no books to use a dash; rather I presented a list of books, not selected by me, and said that I hadn't found any endashed MAWs in it. I didn't; and far as I know, nobody has specified a book in that list which has any. The conclusion that they are vanishingly rare, which is what I actually said, awaits refutation.


 * I suppose this does offer another alternative: that Dicklyon makes positive, extensive, and false statements about conversations he hasn't read. If he wishes me to say that instead, I will strike accordingly.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate my call for reasoned support or objection. Attacking me doesn't count. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on the proposal, but I will say I think you are going to have a hard time finding an administrator willing to move the page back, given the consensus of the two move requests and the hotly debated nature of them. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean given the lack of consensus. The problem is not to find an admin, but to find consensus.  I think we've made progress, as several people have told me that my explanations have swayed them.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is to get the two of you to acknowledge consensus. For that, we may need an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was not, and still is not, consensus to move away from the site-wide rule on typography. In addition, the TITLE policy was clearly breached by moving from "one controversial title to another". You might argue that it would be breached again in this way by moving it back, but that would be just wp:pointy. The page needs to be moved back for the sake of stability and consistency. Thank you. Tony   (talk)  02:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no site-wide rule on Mexican-American War outside the imagination of this small and disruptive cabal, except the one expressed in the move request that put this page in its present position. Nobody else has agreed with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly; without a sitewide or other exception for Mexican–American War, we should use the typography specified in WP:MOS for such things. Dicklyon (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Without a site-wide exception specified in MOS, we should do something MOS doesn't specify, because Dicklyon says we should." Yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AN had suggested the 'Binding RfC'
All of you have excellent arguments for your positions on this issue. You're not going to get anywhere unless someone makes a rule that forces a solution, so why not do this 'binding RfC' (whatever that is) and allow its answer to be THE ANSWER, and then move on? -- Avanu (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I no longer believe that these editors will abide by an RFC. An RFC is merely a larger version of a poll; anybody who can claim that the first RFC was not consensus or was closed corruptly will claim anything. I therefore propose a truce; nobody who has posted in the section above will discuss dashes or hyphens on this talk-page (if asked, I would agree to except CWenger). I would make it no contributions, but I do think that the article would benefit from a little of Arthur Schlesinger's Age of Jackson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "All of you have excellent arguments for your positions on this issue." I've been asking for objections, but no such arguments have been advanced (just personal attacks on me for not seeing consensus). And MPA then adds another accusation of me misquoting him, and neglects to count the book that I've cited in evidence several times, claiming I've shown zero. I've asked what this "Binding RfC" thing is, because I've never seen such a process; who decides the binding outcome? If someone makes a definite proposal, and says what the scope is, we could consider it. But if nobody gives an argument against repairing the inconsistency caused by the contested move to hyphen soon, maybe we won't need to go there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So what book is it, and why should we believe it typical of anything save a single typographer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't read much of what I post, I guess; here it is again. Some podunk foreign printer, out in the fens, called Cambridge University Press.  Nobody is asking you to believe that it's representative of anything, it just happens to be one book (or one typographer, not necessarily one whole publisher) with an MOS sort of like ours.  I doubt that they picked it up from Oxford's guide to American usage, but you never know.  You'll have to get a copy and look inside to see if they consistently respect all of the provisions of our MOS, but I don't see why you care.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what rational beings believe on this evidence is that the book
 * is not characteristic of Cambridge University Press: here and here and here. If, like OUP, they have a MOS like ours, they don't follow it either.


 * does not (as asked one way, and demanded the other) obey all the rules this clique has foisted onto MOS; for it uses <gasp, shudder> Pose-yemu/Montezuma, not Pose-yemu–Montezuma; that the first is clearer and more customary English is the sort of argument that our Language Reformers are bound and determined to ignore.
 * represents an extreme minority of typographers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The RFC idea is a good one. We need to decide several thing:


 * 1) Where it will be? (I assume a new page in itself}
 * 2) What will it amend? (I assume the WP:MOS and WP:TITLE)
 * 3) What will the scope be (not just Mexican~American War or wars but all titles that include the short horizontal line)
 * 4) Start with a limited number of views covering the views expressed here and possibly some kind of in between (such as we don't care). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is to be binding, there would have to be a minimum franchise. If nobody cares (in itself entirely sensible), I will not be bound in a 4-3 !vote by a 4-3 !vote by these arrogant revert-warring evidence-free nouns. consisting of the present conversation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Barlett We can copy the format of a WP:RFC/U, every editor has their own statement, and people sign below to endorse. All threaded discussion is moved to the talk page to avoid creating again TLDR discussions that scare uninvolved people away. The RfC gets announced in WT:MOS, Village Pump, relevant wikiprojects, etc.


 * @Anderson, A closing admin should evaluate the RfC and close it accordingly. Of course, when you agree to a binding RfC you agree to that sort of risks. The solution is making a convincing argument that uninvolved people will feel compelled to endorse. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I will not agree to be bound, unless there is a condition involving a minimum number of outside participants. Outside comment is the point of an RFC; to continue the same conversation and call it an RFC is silly.  If outside comment is unconvinced, that's a different matter; but what if there isn't any?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The RFC is binding would mean that edits or moves outside the decision would be reverted, the user warned, and if they persisted blocked or banned. How binding it is would be determined by the text that is the consensus. There could even be statements such as it does not matter what is used, and once set it is not changed, or follow majority of books, or follow the text of MOS.  But I hope not too many fine variations of similar ideas, otherwise there will still not be agreement. To get a bigger participation it should be at a different venue, not on the talk page here, and should be broad enough to attract interest from many people.  Perhaps the Signpost could cover the issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It will (patently) need a much bigger population to arrive at any consensus; a requirement of consensus should therefore suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A real proposal
Let's write this article in American English, as almost all Americans practise it, and call the War either the Mexican War or the Mexican-American War.

Why should we abandon writing English to these two or three or four editors, who have cobbled together a system representing an extreme minority (if any) of actual written English, a small minority of style guides, and which attracts the support of no editor but themselves?

Let's see if anybody but the predictables opposes this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a language issue. We already call it Mexican–American War, we just use a better typography than most. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Better? Oh, of course, the one the three or four of you made up out of scraps of old manuals is better than the rest of the English-speaking world. How could we have missed this shining excellence?


 * If it were indeed better, somebody else would be using it. There might actually even be some explicit reasons to use it.  But of course Dicklyon likes it, so every Wikipedian must use it, whether they like it or not. What compelling logic; what sourced claims; what a basis for consensus.  I suppose we should be thankful that Dicklyon doesn't like long eʃses.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Enough editors liked it to have written it into the MOS, and many authors, editors, and publishers do use it, as I've demonstrated. It has been in the MOS since before I came to wikipedia, and has not been a problem; we didn't make it up.  And we have been very clear that no wikipedian is ever required to use it, in the sense of either typing it or recognizing it as meaning something different from the hyphen; indeed, many tell me that they don't even notice the difference in their fonts.  The reasons for it are good ones; I'm sorry they were not part of your education; if you really didn't read them yet, let me know, and I can explain it again.  Several users have written to me on my talk page to thank me for the clear explanation of how and why en dashes are used.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough editors have liked it to have written it into MOS. As we all know, that takes two, maybe three. (It does take more than one, in order to conduct a good healthy revert war against the occasional solitary editor who dissents.) Present a discussion, with widespread agreement, and that will be a different matter; but MOS doesn't usually have those. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has always been a problem. How much of a problem depends on whether MOS's idiosyncrasies can be left there - or, as now, are being imposed on the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * many authors, editors, and publishers do use it, as I've demonstrated. This is another example of the sheer fantasy underlying this dashery; some publishers do occasionally use it (which was admitted two weeks ago, at the start of this discussion); we have not seen any who use it consistently.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS states reasons for two parts of WP:ENDASH; they are the parts for which the dashes provide a genuine differentiation of meaning. By some eerie coincidence, they are also used by a significant proportion of reliable sources; much of ENDASH (and of course this arbitrary addition) have no stated reason, and are used vanishingly rarely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And finally: We have always been clear that no wikipedian is required to use it. Then the eight Wikipedians who supported the move request are entitled not to use it; and this entire discussion is pointless mischief. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not using it doesn't mean tearing apart the work of editors who choose to do what the MOS specifies. Nobody is asking you to use it, just leave it alone.  Type hyphen whenever you want, in search boxes, new text, new titles, all that; but don't fight editors that clean it up.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will always fight those who damage the project and the English language. Please stop this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it does sometimes mean disposing of the idolatry of those who prefer not even MOS, but their own interpretation of MOS, to the benefit of the reader. That is already decided for the title; the same reasons hold for the text. Please stop making this article unnecessarily unintelligible.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gold rush?
Furthermore, in doing much to extend the nation from coast to coast, the Mexican-American War helped set off economic booms (such as mining in California)

Does anybody have a source, or reasoning, for this? It's effectively a claim that if gold nuggests had been found in 1842, there wouldn't have been the Rush as we know it. Got citation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Having worked on number of articles dealing with the 19th century American west, this statement strikes me as rather speculative in nature. Opening California to large scale American exploration and settlement, an obvious consequence of the Mexican-American War, was a prerequisite for the California Gold Rush to occur as it did.  This however is not enough to establish causality.  The war did not determine where the settlers would go or what they would find.  Nor did the war force newspapers to announce the discovery of gold in California around the world.  As a result, I believe the statement should be removed. --Allen3 talk 11:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Several ways this can go
At this point, there are a few ways this can go: the three or four dissentients can continue to revert-war for the spelling they hold to be better; this will produce permanent inconsistency, contrary to their claimed desire. If this keeps up, I will consider what avenues of dispute resolution will settle this matter, and I will not hesitate to ask to have them topic banned; if they succeed in the obvious counter-request, I presume some other voice of sanity will arise.

Or they can provide sources which demonstrate that their preference is actually significantly present in American English; I will be amazed, but settle.

Or we can call this war what most English speakers actually call it, the Mexican War

Or we can actually have this uniform, as they claim to desire.

I will see what comments there are in 24 hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it was always the Mexican–American War when we studied it in school. Never heard it called the Mexican War, which seems too U.S.-centric to be descriptive anyway; do they really call it that in Canada, England, Australia, India, and China, where the majority of the English speakers are?  As one source that I cited pointed out, some are now calling it the U.S.–Mexican War, to avoid  the ambiguity inherent in the common hyphenated term that seems to refer to Mexican Americans.  Since we don't have that issue with our MOS, we might as well treat it normally, and put it back to being consistent with the rest of wikipedia.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Check even the sources to this article; or indeed the major works on the subject, from Bernard De Voto to the present; Mexican War is the standard term; it is 50 times more common than the nonce-phrase Mexican-American War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So why did you have it moved to Mexican-American War, claiming that was the most common name in sources?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I did not then realize the discrepancy was so great, and in any case, I believe in incremental change. Fixing the spelling should have been a trivial task - and, while I am not persuaded by the politically correct POV, it does exist. Move requests likely to end in stalemate between a multitude of possibilities are a waste of everybody's time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I note the proposal to reverse a consensus move decision because the proposer has engaged obstinancy and delay. That proposal should get the proposer banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By "incremental change", do you mean whittling away the role of the style guides bit by bit? Tony   (talk)  03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I mean actual change to the encyclopedia, not the role of anything in Wikipedia space. Nothing I can do can change MOS' role as contemptible laughingstock; that would require not only a concerted effort to bring it into accord with consensus and the English language, but a collective job of publicity to assure the rest of Wikipedia that it had changed.


 * Much of it does not deserve the reproach earned by its provincial follies, but those parts are ignored.


 * A public declaration that its regulars were going to quit the page might actually suffice for that, but I can't do that by myself either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss being ignored
Since the messy situation of topic banning arose, I have mostly decided to stay out of this article, but it is still in my watchlist. Since the outcome of that topic banning thing was a suggestion of a Binding RfC and apparently you all still cannot agree, I'm going to propose a new suggestion. I've listed the names of those people who appear to be a part of this hyphen/dash thing (if I am mistaken take your name out or add it). Indicate next to your name whether you would 1. support a Binding RfC - 2. agree to simply accept what a Binding RfC says - 3. want to keep arguing - 4. hate mimes

Incidentally, I would ask that the binding RfC be strongly controlled, much like the RfC/U where people get a spot for their case and have to stick within that section, and aren't allowed to comment on other's sections. I think everyone is pretty clear on what their positions are, so a controlled and carefully guided situation seems like the way to make it work best. The editors below wouldn't be allowed to decide the outcome of the controlled Binding RfC, only present their cases.

Regardless, after 3 days, I will ask an admin to implement a 1RR rule and strictly enforce WP:BRD. I'm not seeing an end in sight unless we change how this is working, so I would ask for your support of choices 1 or 2. Also, if an editor fails to respond, I would take that as an assumption that they will accept the binding RfC. If anyone has a better idea, I'm definitely open to it. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm done with this article. Good luck.  Each time I try to help, it seems like I get bitten and I'm a bit sick of it at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ChristianH -
 * CWenger - Agree with Avanu, this madness has to stop. Support 1 and 2 (are they different?). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon -
 * Enric Naval - Support 1 and 2. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Graeme Bartlett - Support 1 and 2 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Graham87 -
 * Noetica -
 * Pmanderson - 1, but not necessarily 2. (I support 4, as well ;->)
 * Tony1 -

Good idea to get that RfC going; I'm still unclear on what it means for such a thing to be "binding", as there's no process that I'm aware of for picking a "decider". And what should we do in the mean time about people who try to sneak in their widespread changes under edit summaries like "ce", and call those who revert them "vandals", when what we really have is a frustrated attempt to move away from years of consensus based on following WP:MOS? Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it is simpler to ban Dicklyon, Noetica, Tony1 and probably Kwamikagami from this article, to which they have contributed no substance. If this happens, I am perfectly prepared to agree not to tweak the punctuation myself; if I am correct that nobody else agrees with them, someone else will fix it.  Their efforts to make this article less intelligible to the reader of normal English, however marginally, are and have always been vandalism.


 * If, as is likely, this RfC attracts no attention other than those already concerned, it will not have consensus; I do not agree to be bound without consensus. I do not expect the others to be bound without consensus either, but that should not be a problem; they decline to be bound by consensus. Their bad faith has reached the point that an 8-2 move request, closed by an admin who never edited this page before, is not consensus and that the closing admin is corrupt. (Who paid him off? I certainly didn't.)


 * I regret to say that I'm not making any of this up; but they are.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say that if the binding RfC didn't attract more than 3 independent editors, it would not be binding. But regardless, I would still ask an Admin to intervene in making sure whatever the outcome, there would be a 1RR on this for a few months and strictly enforced Bold,Revert,Discuss. -- Avanu (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit that my only interest at this page has been to protect it from the anti-MOS compaign of yours. What was your first edit to it, PMAnderson?  this one?  Oh, wait, I see you editted this talk page earlier: here.  Are you saying that your interest in this article is something other than pushing on your dislike of the MOS-specified typography?  Oh, wait, you also commented here back in 2008, at which time you supported Tony's suggestion to move to the en dashed title.  Why the change?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right: I should have marked that as irony.


 * My position has not changed; MOS has at last been fixed to the point where it does not actually require this unnecessary and unEnglish en dash; it may not take that much longer to clarify to the point where two or three editors no longer strive to impose it without MOS.


 * On the substance, I do note that Dicklyon admits that he has no interest in the substance of this article, merely in making us all conform to his preferences.


 * But, like many people in that position, he has an -er- idiosyncratic use of language: I am not opposed to the Manual of Style. It is quite true that I prefer one which is backed by consensus and describes the English language to one which expresses Dicklyon's prejudices; but so do most people. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what MOS changes you refer to. It still says "When naming an article, do not use a hyphen as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title," which is exactly what your move request did.  The en dash belongs because of the roles 3 and/or 4: "To stand for to or versus" and "To stand for and between independent elements."  I believe these were adopted from reliable and distinguished manuals of style, not from my own preferences. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When naming an article, do not use a hyphen as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title A characteristically vacuous MOS statement (its tendency to resounding pieces of meaninglessness will take some time to fix yet); I am awaiting evidence that an en dash does properly belong in the title outside a warmly contested (and almost equally vague) MOS rule and the imagination of an editor or two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Avenu, you seem to be confabulating drama where currently things have died down. I don't support any of the options (and I can't understand all of them). Tony   (talk)  08:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, after 3 days, I will ask an admin to ban User:Avenu from this page as being a nuisance. Also, if an editor fails to respond, I would take that as an assumption that they are in favour of banning User:Avenu. If anyone has a better idea, I'm definitely open to it. Thanks Tony   (talk)  08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm simply in awe, Tony1. If this is a joke, and hopefully it is, I'm not seeing how it is funny. If you're serious, then it wouldn't be polite of me to comment on how wrong this is. -- Avanu (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ChristianH -
 * CWenger - Do NOT support banning Avanu. The page is obviously still a problem given the slow edit warring and needs a solution. Avanu's proposal is a fair one. I hope this proposal was in jest... –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon -
 * Enric Naval - No such banning needed. Please address the question of the binding RfC. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Graeme Bartlett - No need to ban any one at this point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Graham87 -
 * Noetica -
 * Pmanderson - I regret that Tony, a genuinely knowledgeable editor, is still engaging in posts like this; as far as I can tell, Avanu is simply in favor of having all quibblers about punctuation depart, including myself. I would agree to that without an RfC, if the others will. I would commend to any clean-up crew the solution of calling this the Mexican War, as an overwhelming majority of sources do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony1 -

Analysis
The challenge above has now been refined to: find a book which complies with all of WP:ENDASH, and uses Mexican-American War [hyphen].

There are several contributing causes:
 * Books which adhere to all of WP:ENDASH are very rare (which is the chief reason for not imitating them).
 * Of those, only a small proportion are going to mention the Mexican War. As human history goes, it's a small incident.
 * Of those, in turn, most will call it the Mexican War, and some will call it some third thing.

These three are together more than sufficient explanation for not finding any.

Let us therefore have a comparandum: how many books follow WP:DASH in its entirety, and yet use Mexican–American War? [dash]

Zero to zero proves zero. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been at zero to one for several weeks; still nobody has produced a book that uses en dashes as our MOS says, but makes an exception for Mexican–American War. Dicklyon (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody has produced a book which uses dashes exactly as MOS says. Further discussion of this point should be filed under Invisible Pink Unicorn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This one, by Cambridge University Press, looks pretty consistent with the MOS. It distinguishes between Mexican-American writers (hyphen) and the Mexican–American War (n-dash). Here is another one from CUP, and another. Here is one from Princeton University Press. I think the MOS advice on the issue is good and laudable; it is a very fastidious standard. It is true that most RS, even from university presses, use a less fastidious standard. -- JN 466  23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mexican War
I thought PMA's suggest to call it The Mexican War might have some merit, but it turns out that the evidence as it appears in his link melts away if you drill down a bit. If you look at how many recent books (since 2000) with previews available in gbs use the term "The Mexican War", you get 48 pages of hits; if you do the same with "The Mexican American War" you get 55 pages of hits (a few of those are wiki mirrors, of course). And 24 pages of hits on books using both terms. So at least in recent books, the trend appears to be away from the old American-POV term toward the more descriptive term that we use in all the WP articles. So probably not a great solution.

I had the same problem with some ngram evidence I presented re Napier inventing vs. discovering logarithms. Noetica destroyed me on that one, so I learned to count actual book hits. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Choosing previews seems arbitrary, but I should like a link: I find a similar search gets 33,000 to 7,000 Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was arbitrary, since I like to be able to look at the hits. But your 33,000 estimate reduces to 42 pages of hits if you poke at it a few times, and the 7,000 goes to 53 pages.  So the numbers appear to be against your suggestion, and I know how much you like numbers. I don't know what's behind these various hit counts and page counts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Google only loads a certain number of search results, whatever the search phrase, so you'll never get more than about 50 or 60 pages - even United States has 48; the only way to make looking at the last page meaningful is to add additional search terms until you get both estimated counts below 700 or so. I added "Monterrey" which reduced "Mexican-American War" to 20 pages; it reduced "Mexican War" to 38 pages, but that's still the artificial ceiling. (There's more on this in a link from WP:NCGN.)  Feel free to pick your own restrictor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I am an American and I had never heard the term "Mexican War" until recently on Wikipedia... –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here, as far as I can recall. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "Mexican War" is very common in texts published before the mid 1970s (go to any good sized U.S. public library and scan the shelf of books dealing with the conflict). This makes sense if you realize the majority of English language scholarship on the subject is from the United States and within an American contest "Mexican War" is unambiguous.  Wikipedia however has a more international readership that the typical U.S. publisher of the 1950s and 1960s. --Allen3 talk 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That explains why I hadn't heard it. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But this article should be in American, by policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * American orthography, sure. But not regionalisms lost on the rest of the world. We're not an American encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A meaningless distinction; gotten is equally lost on the rest of the world, indeed more so. We are not an American encyclopedia; but it is policy and practice that this be an American article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't explain my case, since I studied Texas histor in the 1960s. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In a few years, we may have Texas students doubting the notability of Thomas Jefferson. Both, whatever the reasons for the choice involved, will have been local anomalies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thomas who? Wasn't he Austin's slave?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Improperly moved contrary to WP:MOS
User:Pmanderson keeps calling me a liar for saying that this article was improperly moved. Here's why I think it was improper and ought to be restored back to the stable and consistent form.

To see what I'm summarizing, check this old RM discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican-American_War&oldid=424408005#Requested_move_.28February_2011.29

It was improperly closed as "move". PMAnderson claims an 8­–2 consensus to move, but most of these were just unreasoning echos of his ill-founded proposal, and some of us who would have argued to stick with the guideines of the MOS were not aware that he had taken his anti-MOS battle there.

The 2 against made a very good case that this move request was improper and in the wrong place, being an attack on MOS guidelines based on a novel interpretation of policy.

Nominator Septentrionalis/User:Pmanderson started with "unless there is some well-printed source which actually uses the dash, this should be strong support". I'm sorry I wasn't in on this, as I later found and showed him a bunch of examples; but it had been closed already.

The "support" includes such gems as "I think you're right about this Septentrionalis. User:Groundsquirrel13" and "per Septentrionalis. User:Jonathunder" and "Support lightly but status quo is fine User:Avanu" (with a bit of analysis that made it clear that he was pretty neutral), and "I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles where a dash has been used in place of a hyphen User:Xession" (he backed that up with an ancient style guide that didn't have en dashes in it). The ones that had a bit of substance still didn't have a clear rationale for subverting the MOS: "WP:V The hyphenated name has been verified in multiple books. The dashed name has not verified anywhere User:Enric Naval" could have been easily fixed by looking at some books, like I did.

Basically the argument is that we should abandon our WP:MOS typography guidelines if the sources on a topic to not adopt the same typographic style that we do. They cite WP:COMMONNAME, which is not really about typography at all.

There was one other logical argument for the move, by User:LtPowers: "Mexico­–America but Mexican-American" (and nominator had made a similar point about noun vs adjective forms being related by the en dash). The trouble is, there's no evidence for this logic. Books have plenty of examples of en dash connecting a pair of adjective forms, such as Mexican–American War, French­–German border, Turkish–­Armenian War (one that PMAnderson specifically said does not exist, so I looked) and lots of others. I've found books with en dash in Mexican–­American War, but no books that demonstrate a policy of en dash between equal names but still using hyphen in Mexican-American War. I've asked PMAnderson and others to look for any example to support this theory, but they haven't found one.

PMAnderson framed this move discussion as a disagreement between policy (WP:TITLE) and guideline (WP:MOS) when he wrote "Is MOS the central authority here? No. We have a policy on Article titles, which says to follow reliable sources; so does MOS, if the actual pronouncements of the oracle make any impact here." The admin who later closed the debate, after a huge discussion that clearly indicated no consensus, adopted this theory and closed it with "MOS is only a guide and the Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy overiding it," which is really quite a bizarre new theory, if you think about it (typography is covered in the MOS, not in the TITLE policy).

Noetica made an ernest appeal to discuss the issue at WP:MOS to prevent the sort of fragmentary inconsistency that we now have.

The discussion degenerated into jokes by people who didn't see it as serious or important. There was clearly no consensus, in spite of the numbers, just some people who were willing to go along with PMAnderson because they aren't tuned into how en dashes are used in the context of a style guide that specifies them. And then it got closed, by a guy who then showed up taking the side of moving other articles from en dash to hyphen.

This pattern was resisted when they tried to move the category and other articles, but then finally some random dude came along and closed the RM on Battles of the Mexican–American War as a consensus to move! He says to make it "consistent with other articles, namely Mexican-American War", the one improperly moved, even though that made it inconsistent with all the others!

The only sensible way to straighten this out is to move this article back to where it was for years, before Pmanderson brought his dislike for the MOS here to attack it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a point of accuracy, I have not called Dicklyon a liar; perhaps if I had, this self-proclaimed expert in typography would have observed how the word is spelled. I have said that he repeats falsehoods; this post is another round of the same falsehoods.


 * But at base, this is also the perpetual cry: "the only way to settle this is to do exactly what I want". No; we will not degrade the encyclopedia by surrendering to that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a point of accuracy, PMAnderson, you have called Dicklyon a liar. I asked you to retract that, and you most pusillanimously reworded your slander. In point of fact, you have continually and predictably resorted to personal attack, all through this futile epic that you yourself launched weeks ago. I don't blame Dicklyon for the odd misspelling. I too am disconcerted by your relentless disrespect and utter intransigence. In other forums you are accusing us both of bad faith (!). Do you imagine that we have time to track down all of your scattered abuse and dispatch it with the grace of Carlyle or Gibbons? Imagine again. We have lives.
 * I have posted the following for the other RM, at the other page where your pantomime is playing. It belongs here too:
 * Comment: All of this "new" argument has been gone through minutely before. This will come as no surprise to the seasoned editor. If you have not read the saga up till now, you are merely contributing variations on points long since blunted to ineffectiveness. And you have probably missed the counterpoints that dispatch them, equally indecisively. Myself, I do not and will not present argument on punctuation and style here. This is not the forum for deciding general guidelines for style or naming; it is the forum for deciding how the Project's guidelines apply for one article. If there is some special difficulty in the present case, let that difficulty be discussed. But in fact there is no special difficulty. If there are general difficulties in interpreting guidelines or policy to which we are alerted here, they ought to be referred for general treatment at WT:MOS (and perhaps also WT:TITLE). A couple of editors militantly disagree with such sound procedure. If you want to feed their appetite for chaos, by all means continue with decentralised, ever-churning discussion here (and at the next hundred articles at which the very same questions will proliferate, when those militants plant them there). Some of us have better uses for our time, and more respect for the Project's established mechanisms and protocols.


 * N oetica Tea? 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let us analyse this posting, a mass of unsupported atatements:
 *  All of this "new" argument has been gone through minutely before. No link is supplied; it is, however, true that Noetica has made these unsupported statements before. This private definition of "going through minutely" is noted and logged.
 * Myself, I do not and will not present argument on punctuation and style here "I could, if only I would." Tell it to the Marines. ]
 * "All this must be centrally discussed at WT:MOS". This statement is unsupported by MOS - or by WT:TITLE, the governing policy. But this is also suggestio falsi: This has been discussed aat WT:MOS and gotten nowhere because of similar delaying tactics; a discussion now in Archive 119 thrashed this out at some length, using this very example, and shows widespread agreement on this spelling, before the first move request was ever made; there's been one ever since.
 * But I agree there is no general problem here; there are a handful of editors who have been consistently warring against consensus for their favorite spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We might take seriously your remarks about "unsupported atatements", but your poor spelling betrays you as flustered beyond coherence. Yap as you will, PMAnderson: the caravan moves on. N oetica Tea? 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, everybody makes a typo; but Dicklyon spells that way consistently. Go back to your caravan in peace; and let the rest of us write in English for the twenty-first century, not for the end of the nineteenth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, handn't noticed that PMA was still asking for this link to where he said I "lied" (and "bad faith" in edit summary). Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New section
I have just read some of the above and realized I will have to read a lot more to get to a bottom line. What I have noticed is a lot of the wrong type of discussions. I arrived here because of comments left on Talk:Texas-Indian Wars concerning hyphens and dashes. I presented what I felt was valid reasoning for the use as is. WP:MOS does give credibility to the use and like articles use the same form. Some of them are; Someone brought up the possible title "The Mexican War" and there were comments that it was popular in the mid 1970s. I was in high school by this time and it was not referred to as such where I live. The war being discussed was between Mexico and America and it has been brought up that Wikipedia is not an "American" encyclopedia. With this in mind, the fact that two countries were involved, and considering proper weight, the evidence supports the names of both countries in the title and I am not sure why consideration would be made otherwise.
 * Spanish-American War
 * Philippine–American War
 * Mexican–American War
 * British-American War
 * Texas-Indian Wars
 * Mexican-American border

There are some that do not like hyphens or dashes and some that think they have no use. It would seem there would be preference to the shortened "Mexican-American War" than "The war between Mexico and the United States". to me Mexican American War makes it appear that there was some war between Americans of Mexican decent and some other faction. Personally I favor "Mexican - American" war, Mexico – United States border, or U.S.- Mexico border crossings but can not fathom that the concerns over usage would be enough to consume hours of comments and neglect the many articles that could use editors. I just do not see that this is of a concern it has been made out to be. There are articles I feel are incorrect such as, German-American Soccer League and German-Americans in the Civil War. President Reagan used German-American Day in 1983. I do not like to change article titles on a whim so would need something concrete. Otr500 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Otr500. We've all been waiting around for the next person who really doesn't think this is important to post a few paragraphs about it.  Yours is particular interesting reading in that it introduces a couple of new versions that we can consider: the spaced hyphen version and the spaced en dash version; oh, and the one-side-space hyphen version, which is particularly creative.  I'm sure we'll all be able to start counting the numbers of books, articles, and usage guides that support those novel approaches, and choosing up sides.  See you around.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome Dicklyon. I am honored to have a dialog with such an esteemed person. I do not mean this to be smart (maybe a little) but considering it appears you have the propensity to start salutations on an edgy note I am replying in kind. I rechecked the small space between my comment and your reply and will copy it here to refresh your memory, "...but can not fathom that the concerns over usage would be enough to consume hours of comments and neglect the many articles that could use editors. I just do not see that this is of a concern it has been made out to be.". I did not, as is plain to see, state the issue as unimportant but that there has been a lot of writing on something so simple. Other editors have gone as far as to use the word "silly:. I am also thinking there might be a little math computation problem as "a few paragraphs" is a lot less than has been dedicated to such an apparently monumental problem. I am still trying to figure out who is on first and so on but give me a little time and a "few paragraphs" (say 200 or so) and I will be up to speed. I can appreciate your perceived humor and hope you have verified the information concerning Thomas Jefferson. All jokes aside I am trying to figure out what is actually going on as I was sucked in from another article with apparently related issues. Since I can be considered as one of those "outside participants" I would think condescending antics might not be the best choice of games. I have my opinions but am willing to examine the evidence with an open mind. What I see so far, if I am in the right ball park, is arguments as to how the title should be presented. At this point the current title is supported. Looking around I see that Northern Illinois University (here) also prefers Mexican-American War. As far as I can tell there are MOS guidelines to support this as well as references and several articles using the same "typography". Now that you and I have joked and laughed I will do some digging. Since I am a member of the WP:WikiProject Military history, as well as the WP:WikiProject United States, I am sure you will be seeing me around. Otr500 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, assuming you want to actually help, take a look at the compromise proposal at WT:MOS that might allow us to get this settled, and see if you'd support that, or whether you'd like to oppose it and let us keep fighting. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out but you really should work on your manners. If I disagree and have valid grounds I do not shy away from an issue. I do not consider any work (sometimes more difficult than others) to improve Wikipedia as a "fight" (possibly just a poor chose of words) and thus do not intend to do so. If I continue involvement it will be with a goal of resolution and whatever it takes within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to accomplish this end. I am beginning to think you do not interact with people much in your line of work. Your comments, "...assuming you want to actually help...", and "...or whether you'd like to oppose it and let us keep fighting.", just does not even sound nice. I am just stating that in fairness you should have stopped at presenting the compromise proposal location as all the rest (and the beginning) is unnecessary. This may not be your intentions so I thought I would mention it. Otr500 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a good point; fortunately my manners at work are better than my manners at wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mexico City
I know I don't have any sources for this, but I don't think the invasion of a large city resulted in 0 civilian casualties. Can someone verify this, because it seems highly unlikely. Czarcalvinsk (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

More NPOV
This article would be more NPOV if the "Results" section included views of Mexican officials involved and also included an "Impact of the War in Mexico" section to parallel the "Impact of the War in the US" section. 76.166.212.133 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Non-admin closure. An uncontroversial case because there is an ArbCom injunction in place prohibiting moves due to exchange of hyphen and en dash. See current poll and discussion on that style issue: the poll; the discussion. N oetica Tea? 00:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mexican-American War → Mexican–American War – MOS:ENDASH: The proper punctuation is an n-dash, not a hyphen. The current punctuation means "War of the Mexican Americans"; to mean "War between the Mexicans and the Americans", an n-dash is necessary. — the Man in Question (in question)  20:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is currently an ArbCom injunction against moves involving hyphens and en dashes. It can be found at Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to current discussion: MQ, see extensive discussion and a poll, following that ArbCom injunction and under ArbCom scrutiny: the poll; the discussion. Perhaps you and other interested editors will join in there. N oetica Tea? 00:23, 19 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mexican Forces grossly understated.
The article describes the strength of the Mexican Army as "25,000–40,000 ". This is grossly understated. Mexico was defeated by an American force that was significantly smaller in size. America did not become a world class power until the civil war. It appears that the estimates here forfeit historical fact for alterior motives and bias. Profcje (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It was, the Mexican Army at the time was not as well equipped or as well trained as the American military. Compare the firearms and so forth of each side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.41.7 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)