Talk:Mexican standoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Examples

Do there really need to be this many examples? This list is potentially endless. I suggest that only notable and well-known depictions be included. The only problem is what constitutes notable. CenozoicEra 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, most of those video games can go. And where's The Godfather? --Froth 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Okay, I know: if you are going to bitch about something, why not just make it better, but I don't have time for that, and as it stands one can get the gist of the definition of a mexican standoff; it gets the job done. Plus, I'm tired. But, whoever said that a Mexican Standoff had to have three or more participants?

"A Mexican standoff is a slang term for a situation where three or more opponents have guns aimed directly at each other in a circular way, so that none can attack another without being shot themselves by a third party...Sometimes the term is used for a confrontation of merely two gunners."

Firstly, it states, "three or more opponents," and then later "somtimes... two gunners." So, then not three or more. Two or more.

Secondly, guns? Shit, I've had a Mexican Standoff with vaccum cleaners before.

Thirdly, does it have to be "in a circular way?" So, it's not a Mexican Standoff if four people face each other with guns, or somethig else, making a rhombus. And, by definition, three people couldn't stand "in a circular way."

--Joe Volcano 10:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I was always brought up with the understanding that there only needed to be two people involved, but frequently there are more. A little snooping on Google confirms that this does seem to be the case. The main dissenting links cite or are copied from - you guessed it - this article. Then I checked my handy and huge Random House dictionary (it's from 1987 and so safely immune to Wiki influence). Here's the entire definition:

Informal (sometimes offensive), a stalemate or impasse; a confrontation that neither side can win. (1890-1895).

Checking the article edit log, I would say that Ace-o-aces is determined that a triad be involved. That definition MUST be discarded. CenozoicEra 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I've always understood a Mexican standoff as involving two or more people. --Coolcaesar 00:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a Mexican standoff involves two or more people, but the most common contemporary use of the Mexican standoff, at least in film, is of three people. While I can't speak for the general population, I would argue that the layman who looks at two people pointing guns at each other would think of that as a standoff, while a layman looking at three people pointing guns at each other would think of that as a Mexican standoff. If there is a strict definition that points to just requiring two people, that's fine and can be mentioned in the text; however, a Mexican standoff is commonly seen as involving three or more people, so I believe the most common perception should be the one illustrated. --Deathphoenix H<vcd> 14:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I could be completly wrong, but it seems like mutually assured destruction is what makes it a Mexican standoff. When two people are pointing guns at one another, there is an easy way to win -- pull the trigger. If both needed something from the other, or if three had guns pointed, each at the next, it seems to in =voke a Mexican standoff better.

My understanding of the original meaning of mexican standoff is the classic situation where a smaller force is holed-up in a fort, or up an gully or in a cave, etc., or in some defensible position (usually higher ground), surrounded or otherwise blocked from escape by far superior forces. The idea is that, while the smaller force cannot leave, the superior forces cannot enter to defeat them in their superior position.
A standoff ensues.
An additional proviso is that this situation can continue on indefinitely for either party -- i.e. not allowing the besieging party the advantage of simply waiting out the hold-outs, for some reason.
I also understood that this particular name for this age-old situation refers to either true events in one of the mexican revolutions, or occurences during the general periods of instability in the settling of the west of North America by various forces struggling for control.
And to my knowledge, the endless Hollywood variants referenced here in the article are only dramatized -- and far later -- grandstanding versions of that basic situation.
Pazouzou 06:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I have a comment on this - but I'm not sure if it belongs in the article as it's a bit non-PC, so I thought I'd put it here instead. It concerns the alleged derogatory nature of the expression.

I lived in Texas a while ago, and many Texans jokingly characterised Mexicans as cowardly; the reason the adjective "Mexican" is applied to these kind of stand-offs is (according to such Texans) because all parties are too chicken to act. Eliot


Is there any relation between the Mexican standoff cliche and the body shield cliche of the bad guy holding the love interest/other good guy hostage while the good guy aims his gun at him. Subverted to excellent effect in Speed (film), Cowboy Bebop (episode five) and Firefly (pilot episode). 70.30.70.249 01:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image no standoff

following the given definition that image provided from Reservoir Dogs is no Mexican standoff, as the three involved persons don't point at each other but rather only on two persons. --Abdull 10:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] MAD (mutually assured destruction) Theory

Should a reference to this theory be made? After all, the concept is the same. Please get back to me on that.--The1exile 17:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks--The1exile 13:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Some elements of MAD may be worth discussing here. However, I think that the defining element in a Mexican standoff is that all parties have weapons drawn simultaneously with the pressing need to use them at any second, so there is an aspect of intense tenseness which is missing from MAD in general. That said, the Cuban missile crisis may warrant a mention here. CenozoicEra 07:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video games

How can a video game have a Mexican standoff? Or rather, how can't a video game have a Mexican standoff. Aren't there too many variables in play to say that some video games "have" one and presumably others do not. -Acjelen 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be done very easily through scripted sequences. 72.200.136.66 14:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image appears to be wrong

The image in this article doesn't illustrate a Mexican standoff. Since this is a screenshot from Reservoir Dogs, I think it's just a simple mistake, and should actually be Image:White joe eddie standoff.jpg. I'm making the changes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed (above), and consensus has been reached. There only need to be two parties to have a Mexican standoff. If you can cite a specific source (preferably in print rather than Internet) which explicitly contradicts this, then there's reason to re-open discussion. Until then, let's let the consensus rule. CenozoicEra 02:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be consensus, just that people have nothing new to add. That being said, I'll add my opinion to the above. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2 or more?

I was under the impression that for such a standoff described on this page to be a "Mexican standoff", there had to be at least 3 sides in the conflict (e.g. 3 people, each pointing guns at the other two), but here any standoff with 2 or more people is called a Mexican standoff. Now I don't know where I got this idea, but would someone care to reassure me that it's false? Thanks. -- Supermorff 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with ya. I've always been under the impression that it was at least three people involved as well. Otherwise, isn't it just a stalemate?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drcwright (talk • contribs) 08:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Three people

I'm pretty sure it does have to be three people, because that's what makes it different than a regular stand-off. I understand that the term might be used differently at different times, perhaps we can allow for different sections allowing both interpretations of the phrase equal shine? JesseRafe 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Woo

Should there also be a reference to the Hong Kong films by John Woo?

[edit] Fat guy

GROSS! Do we really need to see a photoshop of some fat dude acting all hardcore in his basement? Do we really need to see Dr. Cool with his Too-Cool shades and supercool black spandex tent covering his enormous gut? Do we really need to see those thunderthighs, barely concealed by a pair of Sears denim shorts?

Can it really be that the only existing image of a three-person Mexican standoff is some gross geek showing off his guns in the laundry room? FUCKIN GROSS!

There is nothing wrong with the photomanipulation, it is a good example of a mexican standoff. I don't know what rock you've been hiding under but Final Fantasy X-2 was a very popular video game. Also it would be nice if you would sign your posts. --ColaDude 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this image is rather unbecoming and really has no place on a encyclopedia page. I'd like to think the Wikipedia standard is much higher than this.
Why is it that so many people think fat equals gross? I certainly would have hoped that the wikipedian community would not have such a narrow world view in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.121.62 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Being fat is a serious health problem, not some 'way of life' that normal people should be forced to accept. Most people would agree that fat people are unattractive, and it's hardly 'narrow minded' to think so. Again, I find it very hard to believe that there is no other free image available anywhere that could replace this awful photoshop of a gross fat guy in his basement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.160.4 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That's just your opinion, man. Cooldood246 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Not gross, just physically unattractive. And sickening to look at. A pathetic example of how many people lack self control. But I digress...I see no problem with the photoshop image, right now there's no image at all; the fat guy is a step up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.10.20 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy X-2

"Two years prior to the events of Final Fantasy X-2, just prior to the failed Mi'ihen Operation, Nooj, Baralai and Gippal put guns to each others heads in the Den of Woe as Nooj's body was taken over by the spirit of Shuyin. Nooj shot Baralai, Gippal and Paine and left them to die, an act for which they would hold a grudge against Nooj. Later, in Bevelle, during another mexican standoff between Nooj, Baralai and Gippal, Shuyin's spirit left Nooj and entered Baralai. When Yuna, Rikku and Paine entered the Den of Woe, Shuyin possessed them, making them put guns, daggers and a sword to each others heads."

Not only is this entry in "popular culture" way too long and overdetailed, but doesn't popular culture insinuate that the average person has probably heard of it?

[edit] Matrix example

The reference to the standoff in the matrix is incorrect.. it states everyone in the room has a gun pointed at them by another.. unless I'm mistaken, Trinity, Morpheus and Seraph have guns pointed at others.. Trinity is only holding one gun, if the other two have two each that would make 5 people with guns pointed at them, plus the trio themselves which makes a maximum of 8 people in the room with guns pointed at them. The scene depicts a party on two floors, even if we discount the lower stage of the room, there is a large number of people surrounding the trio, and most of them do not have guns pointed at them. 90.201.177.226 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Fireflies

[edit] Poor quality image

I've removed the image from this article because it does not follow the image use policy:

“ Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). ”

(emphasis added, taken from WP:IMAGE). In addition:

“ Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central). ”

(Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content). The image unclearly and unnotably depicts the subject and has an unprofessional background unfit for an encyclopedia. 高 18:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All you did here was restate policy without explaining how it applies to this specific picture. Until you learn how to form a valid argument the picture will remain.

The image unclearly and unnotably depicts the subject and has an unprofessional background unfit for an encyclopedia. Don't turn this into an edit war. 高 00:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image inclusion

Need assistance resolving dispute on inclusion of Image:Mexicanstandoff.jpg in this and the truel article. My opinion and reasoning can be found in the previous section. 高 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • RFC Response I think a screenshot from the scene in Reservoir dogs would be nice.--victor falk 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • RFC Response I don't like the image - but it's clearly published under the GFDL, where anything from Reservoir Dogs is not. We can hardly claim fair use for a Reservoir Dogs screenshot when a free alternative is clearly available. No, the only real solution is for someone to make a better image (or find one with a GDFL or CC license, in the public domain, etc.) I really think Reservoir Dogs, or any other Hollywood screenshot, is off the table for policy reasons: the question now is whether, for the time being, we'd rather have this picture or no picture at all. --Hyperbole 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The solution is obvious then: do a reenactement of the scene and take a picture. Props needed: black suits, thin ties, guns.--victor falk 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on copyright law, but I'm pretty sure that would be fine. All we need now is a volunteer :) --Hyperbole 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd create a reenactment, but don't have the props. Although until one is created, I'd prefer there be no image in the article rather than the previously used one. It really pulls the formality of the article down and makes wikipedia seem ... amateurish. 高 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, your new image isn't exactly ideal, but I agree with you that it looks better than a guy in his laundry room pointing guns at himself. Nice work. --Hyperbole 05:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't mean for it to be used permanently, just a placeholder until something more suitable is created or found. Although if others think it would be better to have no image at all until that time, my feelings won't be hurt. 高 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • RFC Response It seems best to not have an image at all, for the moment. The one I'm seeing now just looks odd, and doesn't really illustrate things well. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC Response It's better to have a picture than not, and I'm sure the only reason why you guys don't like it is because you are pregidous against fat people. Like the discussion above. Drunkboxer 19:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a WP:AGF violation there. The reason I don't like the picture is that it's taken in a guy's laundry room and involves three of the same person. That does not in any way reflect the concept of a Mexican standoff in pop culture - no matter whether that person is an overweight guy, a skinny teenager, or a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader. I'm not going to edit war with you, but I would like to seek a clearer consensus: what's better - the picture of the guy in the laundry room, or no picture at all? Sxeptomaniac and I agree that no picture at all is better - how about you, victor and 高?--Hyperbole 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing against 'fat people'. I'll go ahead and repeat myself. Apparently data redundancy is a good thing:
I don't think the image is suitable for this article primarily because of its background-- a laundry room-- which distracts from what the image is intended to display. In addition, the image isn't of "sufficient notability".
If this were an image of an actual mexican standoff rather than a photo manipulation, this wouldn't be an issue. Granted, there are exceptions for images that are diagraphical in nature, but I think a precondition to that would be for the image being a bit more professional in quality. I'm going to assume good faith and not question the sovereignty of you and Roboscreech despite both of you reverting the same image only five minutes apart [1] [2]. Coincidence? I'm sure. 高 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take note of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR

Wikipedia is not a place to debate what we each think constitutes a "Mexican Standoff" - Urban Dictionary is the place for that.

Each and every reliable dictionary I can find defines "Mexican Standoff" as a general stalemate or an unwinnable situation - whether or not firearms are involved - and various articles use it in exactly that way. See, e.g., "Mexican Standoff" referring to corporate mergers or "Mexican Standoff" referring to dispute between cable companies and content providers.

Right now, as far as I can see, this entire article is composed of original research - various editors' personal thoughts on what "Mexican Standoff" means to them. As such, one of two things needs to happen: 1) it needs to be scrapped and replaced with actual cited material; or 2) it needs to be put up for AfD and deleted.

I'd incline toward the second option, since this article, written properly, will probably never be much more than a dicdef, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hyperbole 08:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not usually a 'plot device' by the way; in fact hardly ever since by definition a Mexican standoff hardly ever advances the plot. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)