Talk:Texas Ranger Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Texas Ranger Division is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Texas Ranger Division appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2006.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas Ranger Division article.
Peer review Texas Ranger Division has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a wikiproject dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

The section about the Ranger unforms appears to have been hacked to display the phrase "Chuck Norris owns you all". Amusing but needs to be removed. Tried but it is hidden in "edit page".

The section also had a section encouraging readers to join a plot to vandalise wikipedia using perl scrips. It has now been removed.

[edit] Anecdotes

Has anyone checked out the Texas Rangers' biographies at the Texas State Cemetery Honored Texans section? Many are just vital information, but a few have entertaining anecdotes. For instance:

  • A ranger forced to walk to El Paso, stops at the first house he finds, eats 27 eggs in one go before going into town for a full meal [1]
  • A man whose vigilantism earned him an invitation to join the rangers and incurred the wrath of the Wild Bunch [2]--Laura Scudder | Talk 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...officer's rank meant little to the rangers, for "They were all `generals.' When we detailed a man to go anywhere to make an arrest or do any particular work, we didn't need to send another man with him to tell him what to do." [3] This one includes many quotes, and I'm tempted to look for the mentioned autobiographies.

--Laura Scudder | Talk 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Branch Davidians

Not a big LE fan of any sort, but i did find it interesting when reading the transcript of the branch davidian trial (1994?) that texas rangers testified against FBI and BATF, even while on the stand as prosecution witnesses. as i recall, they were basically disgusted by the whole thing. would be a nice blurb for the article, if somebody is looking for things to add. could also work in the classic "one riot, one ranger" saying, or whatever it was. i don't have time, but if somebody wants a lead to the trial transcript, let me know and i'll try to track it down. haven't been able to find it for years, since the site where it was disappeared. SaltyPig 22:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Just added the "one riot, one ranger" thing. Interesting. Salty, I don't know enough about the whole Branch Davidian thing to feel comfortable treating that with any authority, but if you find yourself with some time it'd be an interesting addition I think. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
hadn't checked for a year or so. just found that the trial transcript has resurfaced. like i said, i don't have time to go through it all again right now, but i did locate a snippet here, which is mildly representative of a few exchanges re FBI and BATF:
601                       Byrnes - Direct (Mr.  Jahn)                
 3             GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE
 4       DAVID ALAN BYRNES, GOVERNMENT WITNESS, SWORN
 5              DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6 BY MR. JAHN:
10  Q  How are you employed, sir?
11  A  I'm employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a
12  Texas Ranger Captain in Garland, Texas.

            Byrnes - Cross (MR. TINKER)        634
16  Q  All right. It concerned you so much that the FBI was
17  destroying the crime scene, as far as you were concerned, that
18  you did complain to the law enforcement -- the prosecutors?
19  A  Yes, sir, I expressed my concern.
if anybody wants to research, here are two good pages to start from. SaltyPig 09:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Badge.

Took the liberty to clean it up, hope you don't mind, Kate. Shem(talk) 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it looks great! · Katefan0(scribble) 00:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV? -- Los Rinches

The reputation of the Rangers is a bit different from the Texan Chicano perspective.--demonburrito 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Since you're familiar, could you maybe work up a couple of paragraphs? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I added the following sentence to the areticle, linking to a discussion by well-known and respected folklorist Americo Paredes on the official Smithsonian Institution website, and Shauri deleted it: From the early 20th century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans called Rangers by the unaffectionate nickname "Los Rinches". AnonMoos 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In whole truth, I didn't actually delete it as such. In fact, I didn't even notice that sentence existed. All the current contents were ellaborated by myself at a Temp page, taking as model the text of the article as of its September 8th version; that is, before you posted it. When I pasted my finished version, your contribution was unintentionally removed. Now that you bring it to my attention, I'll add that information into the article, albeit not as an isolated and unrelated sentence as you originally added it but integrated within its context.
Nevertheless, I want to point out that the issue of the turbulent relation between Mexicans, Tejanos and the Rangers has been widely addressed already, especially at the Early 20th century section. I suggest that you read the article thorougly, and you'll see that it doesn't exactly praise their role in said events. Therefore, it's not like I'm trying to remove sensitive information nor whitewash the Rangers' image, like your post seems to suggest. Thanks for your contribution! - Shauri Yes babe? 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Then it should have been part of your editing procedure to take into account edits made between Sept. 8th and 18th -- when the article not only didn't bear any warning against editing it, but in fact actively solicited users to edit it to bring it up to "featured Texas article" status. AnonMoos 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith, AnonMoos.--Wiglaf 21:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
No argument about that. In fact I did take them into account, but unfortunately yours got through accidentally, mostly due to an unfortunate event with an editor who removed part of the text in a somewhat odd event. My bad a thousand times - I apollogize, and I intend to re-add your contribution asap. Are we at peace, Moos? And by the way, what's your opinion about the article itself? See any way it can be improved? Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statue of Texas Ranger in front of Capitol

Enlarge

I think we should include an image of the statue in front of the capitol. However, this is the best one I can find at the moment that does not have copyright problems. Can anyone find an image where the statue is larger? It can be a very dramatic stature if shot from the right vantage point. Johntex 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey John! Good to see your virtual face around here again. I agree it'd be a nice addition. I don't have anything better myself; looked through all my shots of the Capitol and unfortunately that was one I missed. I have a few friends who live in Austin, I'll see if one of them can get a shot of it with a digital camera. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Kate! Thanks for the welcome. I vanished unexpectedly for a while - just too much work outside of Wikipedia. Hopefully I can contribute steadily for a while... About the statue, my memory is that it has a quotation from Teddy Roosevelt on the base, something about feeling secure knowing that a group of Texas Rangers was protecting his flank on San Juan Hill - but I can't find the quoation either. I did find who made the statue by consulting The Handbook of Texas Online [4], "Pompeo Coppini...also modeled the equestrian monument to Terry's Texas Rangers (the Eighth Texas Cavalryqv) on the Capitol grounds (1905-07)" I see Coppini has no article yet, so I'll make a stub for him. Johntex 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Understand totally. I'm actually about to take a break myself (going to Costa Rica in about a week). I wonder if there's any way to get the state to license the Handbook to Wikipedia under GFDL or fair use; it'd be great to wholesale import that information into stubs. As an aside, one of my dad's ancestors was a Rough Rider; Troop M. At the time he mustered out he listed his home as Indian Territory; must've been a tough customer. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think I'm done here

Well, my friends, I've done my best to improve this article, and I honestly don't think what else to add or expand besides from filling its red links. Also, its current size is 44k, so I believe expanding it further wouldn't be for the better either. I'll try and polish its wording and do other minor enhancements, and please feel free to edit it if you consider it necessary. Thanks, and *hugs*! - Shauri Yes babe? 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] do not edit sign

This is at odds with the notice at the top of this discussion page. It will irritate people. I don't think it serves any useful purpose. Tony 15:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I placed the {{inuse}} tag because I was in the midst of a copyedit of the entire article. It's a common thing to do when making fairly major changes throughout an article that might take a bit of time. If I do a major copyedit of the article and someone changes one word while I'm doing it, then when I save my copyedit it will tell me there's been an edit conflict, and all my work will have been essentially lost. It's just a courtesy to remind people that there is someone working on the page and to please not edit it or their work will be lost. As you can see, I've removed it. It was there for a total of maybe 15 or 20 minutes. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, there's been an edit clash; I've used my version, which covers down to but not including the M-A war. I'm sorry if this causes inconvenience.

I suspect there may be objections at FAC on the basis of racial treatment; extreme sensitivity may be required.

I wonder why you don't delink all the low-value simple years and centuries—no one will hit them, and they make it slightly harder to read. I'll leave this up to the contributors to decide. Tony 15:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's why you either don't edit when someone has placed an inuse tag, or make sure to use the inuse tag yourself when you are making major changes. (Not sure who started editing before whom, but it's largely pointless). This answers why you seem to have reverted some of my copyediting changes. I'll make them again. I'm about to place another inuse tag; are you editing right now? · Katefan0(scribble) 15:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Tony, a few style points, and some of this may not be from your edits: "president" and other titles or honorifics are never capitalized unless placed directly before someone's name. I.e. "President Sam Houston" (correct); "Sam Houston, the President" (not correct). ndash should not be used when grammatically a hyphen is called for (Mexican&ndashAmerican War is not ok. Mexican-American War is proper). Please remember periods. (US Army -> U.S. Army). Do not use ASCII characters -- please use mdash for dashes, don't copy and paste an ASCII character. I'll be going back through and copyediting for these style issues as well as general precis -- there are too many articles that aren't needed (the Anglos, the Rangers). Best · Katefan0(scribble) 03:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Kate, and I must take responsibility for a few of the mistakes you point out. Be sure I won't commit them twice :) Shauri Yes babe? 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was going to stay there for days, and didn't realise it referred to that particular point of time. Sorry for the inconvenience. A number of points:

  • I'm slightly less disinterested in the topic now that I've read more; you might consider engaging the readers more at the top, by mentioning that the Rangers played a key role in a part of American history that has now been mythologised: the wild west.
Good idea; I'll add a paragraph mentioning this at the lead section. Shauri Yes babe? 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A map is urgently required, preferably marking the sites of battles and other locations that are mentioned in the text; there are Wikipedians who might assist.
I think this may be a little harder, although not impossible. A map of Texas including all the mentioned locations means a huge number of references, thus requiring a very large map. The time span of the article is also very long (180 years), in which the frontiers have changed repeatedly. Shauri Yes babe? 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The map: exclude the less important locations and borders so that it's not overly cluttered. It does need to be larger than most of the existing pics. A large number of references for the map—why? Just reference the first one, and then the reader knows to look. Or you could use numerals on the map to reduce clutter, and reference every location with the corresponding numeral in, say, square brackets. Tony 13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like an idea. I'm not familiar with any users with expertise in making maps, tho. Any chance that you know anyone who might help us? Shauri Yes babe? 14:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • References also urgently required. It's a matter of determining their density; the fewer you can get away with, the better, because the superscript numbers are a little intrusive; but you need to reinforce the credibility of the text by spreading some numbers throughout the article at strategic points. (Otherwise, this will kill it at the FAC stage.)
I'll address this asap. Personally, I love Footnotes and References, so I'll hold myself and add only a few selected ones at particularly sensitive and important points. Shauri Yes babe? 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Can someone check through the copyright of all of the images? I know someone who might assist if there's any doubt (otherwise, he loves to kill off FACs).
To the best of my knowledge, currently all of them qualify to be used properly. Please help me determine if I'm mistaken. Here's the copyright status of the images:
  • Image:Rangertx.jpg: taken by a particular Texan user and available at Commons. I first spotted this picture at Yahoo! Groups: Terry's Texas Rangers and contacted the person who had posted it. At my request, he was kind enough to send me a high resolution version, and later he uploaded it into Commons himself. Just in case, all this information is easily verifiable if needed.
  • Image:Texrangers.jpg: PD (around 1845). This image, along with more unused material was also provided to me by the same Yahoo! user. I've just done a small research on its sources and I've discovered that it's available at several webpages like these: [5] [6], and it's part of the Culver Pictures collection. Therefore, I've taken the liberty of adding this information to its description.
  • Image:Hays.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like [7].
  • Image:Ripford.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like [8]. Also used as cover illustration for Ford's autobiography Rip Ford's Texas [9].
  • Image:Txrangers.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like [10] [11].
  • Image:McNelly.jpg: PD. Its availability on the web is limited to the credited website and many of its subpages, but it has also been used as cover illustration for books like Captain L.H. McNelly - Texas Ranger: The Life and Times of a Fighting Man by Chuck Parsons and Marianne Hall Little [12].
  • Image:Rangers1915.JPG and Image:Brownsville1920.jpg: Copyrighted by Center for American History, The University of Texas, with properly credited source. The copyright owners allow the use of the image providing that they are credited, as they are in the images' description pages. See Restriction of use.
  • Image:LoneWolf.jpg: great, all the web sources for this image have gone offline :( The picture seems to have been originally included in the book Lone Wolf Gonzaullas: Texas Ranger by Brownson Malsch [13], but without other sources, it could only be used under Fair Use rationale (it's around 60 years old); or perhaps it could be changed by another uncopyrighted picture of Gonzaullas, of which some exist.
  • Image:Coffman.jpg: Fair use. Press release image of the DPS upon the appointment of Captain Coffman as Chief of the Texas Rangers. Not sure if I've tagged it correctly tho.
  • Image:Txrangercallicot.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like [14] [15] [16].
  • Image:Txrangers3.jpg: PD since it's some 110 years old, albeit its current source is the only place where I've been able to locate it so far.
  • Image:Sambass.jpg and Image:Barrowparker.jpg: PD. Widely known and published pictures, available at a huge number of websites.
  • Image:Txrangerbadge.png: Uploaded by Shem Daimwood under GNU Free Documentation License.
Your input in doublechecking the status of these images and making suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Shauri Yes babe? 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
For the most part, the images look good. However,
  • Image:Brownsville1920.jpg and Image:Rangers1915.JPG are not copyrighted-free-use. The "restrictions" page you link to says that they may be used under fair use for educational and scholarly purposes. However, the images were created in 1920 and 1915 respectively, so if they were published before 1923, they are in the public domain. If not, they might not go into the public domain until as late as 2048. Probably the best thing to do is to tag them as "fair use", and link to the copyright statement at [17].
  • Image:LoneWolf.jpg needs a source indicated, and the copyright status verified. If it isn't public-domain, and there are public domain images of him, it should be replaced.
  • Image:Coffman.jpg: Fair use, and correctly tagged. Needs a rationale, though.
--Carnildo 05:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the input, Carnildo. I'll put your advices to good use :) - Shauri Yes babe? 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Where you mention elections, can you add just a little about the limited sufferage? (Male adult property owners?)
  • Middle-name initials are an artefact of the 20th century (US social security registration). It would be much nicer to have just first and last names in all cases, unless disambiguation or common usage are at issue.
We typically call people what they called themselves. Michael J. Fox prefers to be called Michael J. Fox, and indeed, the main article is Michael J. Fox, not Michael Fox. This is just one example but I'm sure there are others. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
My own personal belief is that middle-name initials were commonly used at the time; or at least, by people related to the article, and generally in the United States. As examples, I'd like to point out the following documents of the Texas State Library:
  • Letter to Texas Ranger Capt. John Salmon Ford, addressed as "John S. Ford" [18]
  • Letter signed by Ford, same usage [19]
  • Letter mentioning John Robert Baylor (Indian fighter, 1859) as "John R. Baylor" [20]
  • Letter to James Webb Throckmorton (Texas governor, 1866), addressed as "James W. Throckmorton" [21].
  • Letter to Branch Tanner Archer (secretary of war of the Republic of Texas, 1840), addressed as "Branch T. Archer" [22] and a scrap from the Texas Sentinel making the same use [23].
These are just a few examples. Many other cases (in fact, a large quantity of them) can be observed by browsing through contemporary documents. Just my two cents. Shauri Yes babe? 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the dots from 'U dot S dot' because no one but Americans use them, and even in the US, the more attractive, easier to read 'US' is becoming more common (see even the Wikipedia copyright tag for US Government images). Tony 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I find "no one but Americans use them" to be a strange argument. This is about an American institution, and Wikipedia style says that articles about American things should use American English. Similarly, the London Underground article should use British English. Beyond which, the Wikipedia:Manual of style says this: When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. The style should be changed back. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Just one final pseudo-point -- Tony's other points are well considered and we should think about how to deal with them going forward. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at United States to see 'US' without the dots. Also please note that the CIA's World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) uses 'US' without the dots; you can't get more central to US usage than that, surely. Wikipedia's MoS is only a guideline, and you'll see some robust discussion over the last few months over the issue, which is as yet unresolved. Michael J Fox is from the 20th century; I'm talking about the 19th-century people in the article, who'd have have found the usage unusual.

Well, Wikipedia isn't consistent unfortunately. That another article uses mistaken usage really shouldn't bear here. The MOS clearly states what the style should be. Though it's disputed, it's not yet been so disputed that the MOS has changed. Therefore I see no reason not to follow it. Saying it's a guideline and not a policy is hardly a reason not to follow the manual of style, nor is pointing out other articles that use the incorrect style. I fail to see how the CIA Factbook should be seen as some sort of definitive yardstick -- the Associated Press stylebook uses U.S. in all cases. If you want a nationwide style yardstick outside of Wikipedia, I'd think that is more appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that your label of 'incorrect/correct' reflects reality. American usage is inconsistent, both in and outside Wikipedia. All the more reason to be on the leading rather than following side of the issue, taking the psychology and aesthetics of reading as your yardstick: removing the dots makes the text slightly easier to read and looks better on the page—those are the reasons for this change in usage over the past few decades. I don't want to argue about it any more; I've put my case. Tony 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the MOS is quite clear, as is AP style, regardless of what you personally think is more readable. We can agree to disagree as you like, perhaps we should open an RFC on the matter. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to quote chapter and verse from MoS manuals, note that all of the major ones specify no spaces either side of m dashes. Tony 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest? Yes

I'm sure Texans are suitably proud of this force, but the article on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary states that they were created in 1729. However, the RNC website has Est. 1871 as part of its banner, and its history section only says that it dates back to the "early 1800s". This last statement would suggest that the Texas Rangers article's boast might not be completely safe. Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, but the claims of a longer history seem doubtful from my (very) basic knowledge. As far as I know, although their roots did preceed the Texas Rangers, the RNC as such only exists after 1871, an information that matches the date at their banner. A very small research has led me to the History page of the official RNC Association website, where this idea is confirmed. The following excerpt from that page appears clear to close the issue, in my humble opinion: The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) is the oldest police force in Canada, which has roots dating to 1729, and was reorganized in 1871 to become the Newfoundland Constabulary. However, I must thank you for bringing up a very interesting point. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The date of 1729 reported in the current version of the article is from a time when Newfoundland was still being periodically swapped between French and British control, the British taking permanent control after the French and Indian War. In addition, the editor that originally added the claim that the RNC were the oldest only claimed a date of 1833 for the initial formation and 1871 for official creation.[24] Until some source can be provided that a single police force could survive a couple of military invasions, I would tend to side with the Texas Rangers in this dispute. --Allen3 talk 02:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been lucky enough to speedy contact user Jcmurphy, who happens to have deeper knowledge of the issue. After an exchange of information, we've agreed upon the fact that the Texas Rangers are indeed the oldest law enforcement agency in North America, while the RNC began to function as a modern civil police force earlier (at its foundation in 1871). The TRs retained their profile of a semi-military force for some years past that date, and didn't acquire full police functions until the 1901 law. Jcmurphy has also modified the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary article to reflect this distinction.
Conclusion:
  • the TRs are the oldest law enforcement agency in North America
  • the RNC are the oldest police force and the second oldest law enforcement agency in North America
Hope this clears the matter. Shauri Yes babe? 14:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A small point, about Halifax Nova Scotia. The area has been policed from 1749. The Halifax Police Department was formally established on October 28, 1864 142.177.141.226 12:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)harleymcc

What about the United States Marshals Service? "The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshals were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789", "United States's oldest federal law enforcement agency." That would seem to clearly show that the Rangers are not North America's oldest law enforcement agency. Rillian 12:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I always thought of the USPS's Postal Inspectors as the oldest federal law enforcement agency. Then again maybe federal is the key word there. Their web page - Postal Inspectors About Us Page - lists them as "one of the oldest" law enforcement agencies. It also mentions that they were founded by Benjamin Franklin who died in 1790 (long before Austin's Rangers were created and even before Stephen F. Austin was born in 1793). I'm not sure where RNC fits into the whole thing. But reguardless, the claim that the Ranger Division is the de facto oldest should be changed. -Uncle Bex (from work)
Gentlemen, can I point you to the same discussion that is being held at this very thread, a few points below? Indeed, the matter is subject of a serious debate, depending of one's conception of "agency" and the federal, statewide or local jurisdiction of each organisation. I was under the impression, however, that all mention of the TRs as the oldest law enforcement agency in North America had been removed, in order to keep the disputed claim out of the main article - if it's still there (haven't checked today) the article would simply be better off without it. Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ tell me 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, all mention to the disputed fact is already gone, and thus I think the point should not be re added for the moment, due to the inherent debatable nature of the assertion. Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ tell me 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranger "Volunteers"

Shauri, in the section on the Mexican Revolution, I believe those new Ranger units you mentioned at the time were known as "Ranger Volunteers" because they were supposedly made up in large part of "Volunteer" militiamen. In reality they consisted in large part of thugs and even criminals, which resulted in the attrocities you recount and a stain upon the Texas Rangers' reputation as a whole. In fact, there is a debate now about whether these "Volunteers" should be considered real Rangers at all. Some even go so far as to say their actions helped provoke Poncho Villa's raids, or that some of the crimes blamed on him might have been really been the work of the "Volunteers" themselves. This is speculation, of course (With perhaps a bit of good old Historical Revisionism mixed in :). But the fact remains, these were some rough, nasty hombres. Only wish I could recall where I heard/read about them. I know it was also mentioned in a show on the History Channel here in the States a few months ago. But I'm loathe to cite such things as references. Did find this rather interesting looking book, though- Review: Captain L.H. McNelly, Texas Ranger *HUGS* to you my friend, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent info, my dear Ghost, which I will get to check asap. It sounds rather consistent with the historical facts, so it wouldn't suprise me in the least to find a mention in some sources. As you say, it'll be important to have reliable references for such a sensitive topic, especially if we intend to present this article to FAC. Regarding that book on McNelly, yes; I've also read that review, and I wish I could get my hands on it ;) I find the figure of McNelly somewhat fascinating (not as much as Hays tho). I hope to eventually turn Leander H. McNelly into a wider article with merits of its own. Feel like helping in the task? ;) Hugs, and thank you so much for your kind support at my RfA! Shauri Yes babe? 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Why it would be my honor and pleasure to collaborate with you, sweet Shauri! Though I must admit, I have yet to see that Texas Ranger movie about McNelly. I should now, though..for "Research' purposes ;) But we both need to find/make the time. You are giving SHJ a rewrite and I've got the whole WikiProject:battles thing going on now (Where Spawn Man has dragged me into WWI...MEEEEDIC! :). But somehow I'm sure we will. Let me know when you are ready and I'll offer you whatever info,ideas and general support I can muster. In the meantime I offer you *HUGS* from your DooD Ex Machina --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commas

This article uses too many commas. Can I fix it? --216.191.200.1 16:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure! Be our guest! Feel free to improve it any way you deem necessary. I recommend that you create an account, and you're welcome aboard. And remember: edit like the wind (as my friend Katefan0 says) and be bold! Shauri smile! 20:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loyalty Rangers, Los Rinches

The article is great as it is but I feel it could be greatly expanded. For example there is only the smallest reference to the so called "Loyalty Rangers." These "rangers" were groups of men deputized by Texas Rangers that were often responsible for many of the atrocities that the Texas Rangers are blamed for during the Mexican Revolution.

Also opinion of the rangers by border dwellers in general, including Mexican Americans, could stand to be expanded upon. Many inhabitants of the border were disgusted by the acts of certain ranger units.

Jovita Idar's well documented experience with a group of "outlaw" Texas Rangers could also be included along with some of the more "interesting" atrocities that the Texas Rangers are blamed for. If there is space for famous Texas Ranger cases, why isn't there space for these incidents?

I am in the process of gathering sources about this time period in the history of the rangers but I don't doubt that some of these are in Spanish and taking notes from those books could take some time. Is anyone else in the process of doing something similar? Mosquito-001 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it could use some balance in that area. It's not a subject I have any special knowledge of, but if you do please feel free to contribute. also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages; you can do this quickly by typing four tiles in a row (~~~~) For me, I type four tildes and it spits out this: · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article too large?

When I edit, I get the little notice that this article is larger than usually deemed appropriate. I wouldn't mention it but then I notice people in the Talk here complaining about edit clashes — that's yet another good reason to break the article up a little, eh? wknight94 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Parker

It is also long since time to call Frank Hamer's murder of Bonnie Parker. She was not wanted anywhere for any capital offense, had not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, even fired a shot at anyone, and ther was NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR HER EXECUTION BY FRANK HAMER, who cold bloodedly murdered her by shooting her to pieces whiel she screamed in agony. And for this, congres gave him a citation. We are sure a great country, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldwindybear (talk • contribs).

This is a signed explanation by oldwindybear who challanges the revert, respectfully, and asks this encylclopedia to take the bold step of printing fact instead of legend, law instead of propaganda for a sickening murder. Hi Kat, this is oldwindybear and let me explain the lack of legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker, and you can then decide whether your revert was right. I am a certified paralegal, with 2 degrees in history, one in paralegal studies, and another I am finishing in law and ethics. I went to the library of congress, and studied the laws of the states of Texas and Louisiana, and the United States Code, during the period in question, 1932-1934. There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture. Unlike today, they did not have accessory in the first or second degree, nor conspiracy to committ murder, as we do today. Further, I went to Louisiana, and had previously checked the extensive library at teh University of Houston, where i graduated from, and the University of Texas library on the Department of Corrections -- and there were no warrants in effect in any jurisdiction for Bonnie Parker for Murder, or any charge which could have possibly justified use of lethal force. Further, no historian has ever alleged she fired a shot at anyone. No one --no offense to you -- wants to accept what this means, and bell the cat. 1) If she had no charges pending which allowed the use of lethal force; 2) had committed no act which could have resulted in such charges; then 3) the killing of her was unlawful homicide under the laws of all three jurisdictions, both then, and now. Politics ruled the day then, and she was swept into history as just another victim of a society which has one set of rules for the rich and powerful, and another for poor kids from the Dallas Viaduct. My research is without flaw, and seriously, IN 72 YEARS NO ONE HAS ALLEGED OTHERWISE. Isn't it time for wikipedia to tell the truth? I ask you to allow me to put in the flat facts that exist, not the phony story the government pawned off to justify this girl's murder. Are we here for facts? If we are not, I will stop writing for the encyclopedia, because there is no point. No matter how much proof you bring, you chose to print the legend, not the facts. Please take the right step, and print the truth,oldwindybear2:34 1/5 (I live outside dc, email me at j1994r89@hotmail.com to discuss this, please -- isn't it time someone told the truth? I reverted part of your revert, telling only what i can factually and legally prove. Are you interested at all in the truth? oldiwndybear 1/4 9am

Hi bear, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, I had to revert your changes again. It's not that the question of whether there was a legal basis to kill Parker can't be included in the article. It's that such assertions must be properly sourced to something that's already been published. While I greatly respect the amount of research you've done, and read with interest your findings, unless that research has been published somewhere in some reputable publication, we can't use it. It's simply against Wikipedia's policies. I mean you no disrespect in saying this, so I hope you won't take it as such. You inserted: There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture. The way to properly insert and attribute this statement would be to say "In the book TITLE, AUTHOR argues that there was no legal basis for the use of lethal force against Parker. (link to citation)".
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies that prohibit original research, require all assertions of fact or opinion to be sourced to published material and require those sources to be considered reliable, as well as Wikipedia's policies requiring articles be presented from a neutral point of view. Opinions such as "While Clyde died instantly from a head shot, posse members report Bonnie screaming in agony. For this, Congress awarded Hamer a citation!" are simply not appropriate for Wikipedia in any shape or form. If you have a source for someone criticizing Hamer, that can be properly summarized within the article. But we can't just have the article making a statement of opinion like that without it being attributed to a published source.
This may seem counterintuitive, but Wikipedia does not strive to "tell the truth." It strives to present all sides of a debate by summarizing published material. The hurdle here is verifiability, not "truth," because "truth" is inherently subjective and a Wikipedia article should take no sides in a dispute. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.
Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~). This will make it much easier for you and everybody who reads your comments. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

>(scribble)</ this is oldwindybear the trouble is that there is NO BOOK that says this -- what there is consists of the laws of the states involved, the US Code, and the legal record, including warrants. I understand your point, and to a certain extent, sympathize with it. But what you are saying is that because no author saw a profit in exposing the corruption active in Texas at the time (and as a texas resident, as I was, you know that existed!) that the law does not matter, the library of congress does not matter, nothing matters, because a fiction writer did not write it in a novel. That is NOT the way an encyclopedia is run! All I can do is resign in protest, retract the contribution I was going to give, and urge my fellow veterans on our websites, (Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars) that wikidpedia is not interested in the truth, won't accept facts, but demands that someone write them in a book! Why not cite me? I wrote a paper for college called "The True Story of BONNIE and CLYDE, Murdered by the Government, May 23,1934" for the University of Maryland! Kate, you seem sincere -- don't you see the dicotomy in what you are saying? You admit that my research is probably valid (and you know reasonably it is, or someone in the last 72 years would have found a warrant for Bonnie, or cited a statue she violated somewhere that justified lethal force apprehension! Instead, you say, damn the facts, we publish the legend, That makes wikipedia a joke, i am sorry to say. i won't try to tell the truth anymore in wikipedia, because wikipedia is not interested in giving students or others seeking knowledge the truth, it is interested in being policitcally correct, and that is sad, I bow out, I am not interested at my age in political correctness, but the facts, Ma'am. just the facts...oldwindybear

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia's policies are not bendable. I wish you all the best of luck. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to insult you; You seem nice, though I see you as a bureaucrat who is acting within a framework that is NOT THAT of an encylopedia! Sorry, but review the standards for Collier's, or other encyclopedias. Their ultimate goal is the presentation of the facts as they are best known. This is NOT the goal of wikipedia. I don't mean this against you personally -- quite the opposite, you seem quite pleasant. I believe the entire structure is geared not towards producing a fact based encyclopedia "encyclopedia as defined by dictionary:Dictionary en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (ĕn-sī'klə-pē'dē-ə)A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically"With all respect, wikipedia does not come close to that, editing facts you know are ture out because instead of relying on statatory law, and newspaper records, you say it has to written in a non-existent book?" You cannot be serious, this is merely a power play based on politocal correctness. This is the time and place to change "rules" which have no basis on running an encyclopedia, prevent a "comprehensive reference work" and exist only to serve political purposes. oldwindybear

Bear and I have had some good talks lately and I think he understands better now why [[WP:NOR}] and WP:V exist. See his talk page for details. Thanks salty, good to see you around. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article contradicts with police

This article contradicts with police, which says the Virginia Capitol Police is the oldest police department. BlueGoose 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed. There's no case for it being older than either the Virginia Capitol Police or the US Postal Inspection Service. -Will 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, both of you are wrong, my friends - The Virginia Capitol Police article clearly states that it is the "oldest police department", and the United States Postal Inspection Service claims it is the "oldest federal law enforcement agency". This article asserts that the Rangers are the "oldest law enforcement agency", and hence there exists no contradiction. I believe you're mistaking the very different nature of each organisation, which is depicted accurately in terms of jurisdiction and functions at each of the above statements. Let's ellaborate.
BlueGoose, the Virginia Capitol Police, while tracing its origins back to 1618, was effectively dissolved in times it was still being called the Virginia Public Guard. It was disbanded in 1869 and reconstituted again in 1884, thus rendering the claim at the VCP article invalid in terms of "being the oldest law enforcement agency". The assertion of being the oldest "police department", (which is entirely different due to the inherent quasi military nature of the Texas Rangers until the beginning of the XX Century, and the federal status of the US Postal Inspection Service) can be debated at the proper article's Talk page. Reference: Virginia Historical Society.
A small research leads me to believe you are also wrong, Will. While the United States Postal Inspection Service has an origin in the appointment in 1772 of a single agent (and thus not an "agency"), it wasn't constituted until 1830 as the "Office of Instructions and Mail Depredations" (see the chronology of the USPS at its official page). This official website also sustains that the USPS is "one of the oldest law enforcement agencies in America", which is very different from asserting that it's the oldest one. This is consistent with the contents of its article at Wikipedia, which states that is the oldest "federal" law enforcement agency.
However, I have not reinserted the disputed paragraph, given the fact that the Texas Rangers were "unofficially" constituted in 1823 (despite that Texans usually consider it its foundation day) and formally created in 1835, the point still remains debatable. - Phædriel ♥ tell me 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Debatable, yes, but the article is probably better off without the assertion, since it lies all in one's definitions of "law enforcement" and "agency." -Will 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Will, I agree with you that most people without technical knowledge of the difference (which is very big) can see a contradiction where in fact there is none. The only debatable point comes in fact whether we accept the 1823 foundation date as the effective creation of the Texas Rangers or not. Yet I concur with you that, for clarity purposes in the eye of non-expert readers, the article is better off without that sentence - and that's exactly why I preferred not to reinsert it. Keep in mind that, being a member of a law enforcement agency myself, I can't help but to notice the difference ;-) Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ tell me 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clarify?

Just something I noticed, but you can't "officially" dissolve something if it hasn't technically been "officially" created. Any chance of a date of officialism or something? --RBlowes 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I haven't yet learned how to speak spanish but...

I said earlier that more viewpoints of the rangers needed to represented in this article. I've found a few spanish books that deal with ranger atrocities but I did find one very good site with something to say about the rangers' less than savory past. Quoting from http://www.houstonculture.org/hispanic/conquest3.html

"No history of the U.S. conquest of Mexico is complete without an account of the atrocities committed by the notorious Texas Ranger companies, dubbed Los Diablos Tejanos by the Mexicans they terrorized. These paramilitary gangs conducted a campaign of death and destruction in the Mexican countryside which left a legacy of hate that survives to this day. The vast majority of the 700 Rangers who volunteered for service in Mexico were jobless desperados from the Texas frontier who would do anything for money. They were recruited and led by Texans who were seeking revenge for what they considered wrongs committed by Mexicans at the Alamo, Goliad, Santa Fe, and Mier.

Los Diablos killed and pillaged indiscriminately. Armed with the latest rifles and revolvers, and wielding vicious Bowie knives, the Rangers operated beyond the control of the U.S. Army from the day they reported for duty. Dispatched as scouts in northern Mexico by General Taylor, the Texas mercenaries roamed the countryside, raiding villages, plundering farms, and shooting or hanging unarmed Mexican citizens.

On July 9, 1846, George Gordon Meade, a young army officer who, like Grant and Lee, served as a general during the U.S. Civil War, wrote a scathing report on Ranger misconduct in his area of responsibility:

They have killed five or six innocent people walking in the street, for no other object than their own amusement.... They rob and steal the cattle and corn of the poor farmers, and in fact act more like a body of hostile Indians than civilized Whites. Their officers have no command or control over them." This is a beautiful wiki article so I would feel bad just going digging into it and mucking it up but surely there's a way to include this new information. Mosquito-001 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay added some stuff in. Feel free to edit it but I don't think it should be deleted. It's an important part of Texas Ranger history.Mosquito-001 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the section, the other day, as an unsupported statement. This was called 'vandalism' on my part.... So I will be more gentle and tag it as TotallyDisputed-section. After some time we will see if anybody can back up this section with proof and a citation to a verifiable, primary source. If it can't be verified, it should go.
Mytwocents 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean the source on the bottom? I noticed you deleted the section yet left the source up. I also called it vandalism because you did it without discussing it on the talk page even though that section was discussed on this page and has survived numerous edits. Please try to be more courteous in the future Mosquito-001 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the source on the bottom. It doesn't list where the original information came from. Please leave the tag, so other editors can see it and act on it. You may not be aware that accusing another editor of vandalism is bad form, and goes against the wikipolicy to assume good faith
Mytwocents 05:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the tags. The claimes of TR atrocities and bad actors need more than an apparantly self-published article by Richard D. Vogel titled Stolen Birthright: The U.S. Conquest and Exploitation of the Mexican People[25]. I've read the article, and it makes claims I can't find anywhere else. "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." If some elements of the Texas Rangers committed atrocities there should be a multiple sites that tell the tale. Are these stories factual? Can someone find a WP:RS to back up these claims? Mytwocents 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I must agree that the Vogel article does not qualify as a reliable source. The claim in the opening sentence that the Mexican–American War was "the first U.S. war of aggression against a sovereign nation", ignoring the border disputes arising from the American annexation of the Republic of Texas, makes it quite clear that the article is at best a partisan source. Without independent confirmation of the claims from non-partisan sources the disputed section should be removed. --Allen3 talk 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As no one has disputed the assertion that the Vogel article does not qualify as a reliable source, I have removed the section of text. --Allen3 talk 01:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre?

From "Christopher Carson" by John S.C. Abbot, published 1874 by Dodd & Mead:

When about half-way across the plains, they struck the great Santa Fe trail. Here Carson and his companions came upon an encampment of Captain Cook, with four companies of U.S. Dragoons. They were escorting a train of Mexican wagons, as far as the boundary line between the United States and New Mexico. The region was infested with robber bands and it was deemed important that the richly freighted caravan should not encounter harm within the limits of the United States.

The Mexicans, were apprehensive that, as soon as they should separate from their American protectors, they should be attacked upon entering Texas, by a large body of Texan Rangers, who, it was reported, were waiting for them. They therefore offered Kit Carson, with whose energetic character they were well acquainted, three hundred dollars, if he would carry a letter to Armijo the governor of New Mexico, who resided at Santa Fe. This letter contained an application to the governor to send them an escort. To convey the letter required a journey of between three and four hundred miles through a wilderness, filled with hostile Indian bands.

. . . he reached Taos, much exhausted by his impetuous ride. He immediately called upon the mayor of the town, to whom he delivered the dispatches, and he at once sent an agent with them, down south a distance of about thirty miles to the governor at Santa Fe. He waited at Taos the return of the messenger to recruit himself and horses in preparation for his ride back. The response was that Governor Armijo had sent a hundred Mexican dragoons to seek the caravan, and that he was about to follow with six hundred more. We may mention in passing, that this company of one hundred men, were attacked after a few days' march, by a large body of Texan rangers, and were all massacred except one, who escaped on a fleet horse.

Governor Armijo and his dragoons, as they were on their way, learned of this massacre, and hearing exaggerated reports of the strength of the Texan Rangers, retreated rapidly to their fortification at Santa Fe. The governor, in the meantime, entrusted dispatches to Carson, thinking that he, by riding express, could reach the caravan before the governmental troops could come to their aid.

If you put this edit inside the article, I'd be willing to support it against the edit warring that seems to have shaped the content of this article. This article has a bit too much pov to the point where it should be called "myths of the texas rangers." Mosquito-001 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your concerns that the use of a 19th Century dime novel as a reliable source will be challenged are well founded. The nature of the genre was to sensationalize the primary subject of the publication and the lines between truth and fiction are frequently blurred. You may read the full text of the cited work at Project Gutenburg if you wish to read the work yourself. --Allen3 talk 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that a well respected museum was challenged for not supporting the myths of the texas rangers, why not this book. Do you have any evidence that this is a dime novel or are you inserting your own assumptions? Right now this article's extreme pov is being shaped by any source that supports texas ranger myths, regardless of the reliability of the source. I do not see the harm in allowing such leeway for the opposition. Mosquito-001 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not have evidence that the text was published in an orange cover and sold for a dime. That being said, I have read enough of the text to see that it does not come close to being an unbiased text and contains numerous sections that defy credibility (I did like the part in the fifth chapter where Carson fights off two Grizzly Bears with a club at night although there is no explanation of why two naturally solitary animals were doing joining forces to attack Carson). You might also wish to consider that Texians killing a company of one hundred Mexican dragoons entering territory held by the Republic of Texas under the terms of the Treaties of Velasco could be described as repelling a military invasion instead of a massacre. --Allen3 talk 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That last statement of your's sounds like it could be the root of some of the pov in your edits. From the mexicans pov, the dragoons might have been entering Mexican territory under threat of invasion from U.S. The massacre also matches up with other atrocities that the Texas Rangers were known to have committed at the time(which are curiously absent from this article, I wonder why). Of course the whole story from the Abbot book can't be included in wikipedia due to the fact that many "non-fiction" books did tend to exaggerate for the sake of entertainment. However I wonder if this Texas Ranger story can't be included, why do the editors insist on including the "Diablos" story in the article? The Texas Rangers were called "Diablos Tejanos" by Mexicans as a term of derision but only the myth regarding the title was included in the article and the only source was a jingoistic reporter who wrote it near the time of the Mexican-American war. That's my point: You can't place limits on only those edits that don't meet the "myths of the texas ranger" criteria. Mosquito-001 20:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If the recognition that the Texians might have a different slant on things than the Mexicans during a time period that Mexico refused to recognize Texas' independence and territorial claims indicates a POV, then so be it. Such a POV does not change the fact that there is no way to know how much embellishment was added to the section. In addition, if your goal is to document atrocities committed by the Texas Rangers you should be looking into why Zachary Taylor dismissed the Rangers that were protecting his supply lines during the U.S. campaign into northern Mexico. --Allen3 talk 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Houston Institute of Culture, in a section that was deleted off this page(supposedly for not buying into the Texas Ranger myth), Taylor dismissed his rangers and even tried to have them arrested. Taylor did this after hearing of the atrocities Texas Rangers committed at a nearby mexican village. Mosquito-001 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered that what you refer to as "buying into the Texas Ranger myth" is nothing more than a desire to ensure that this article only uses material that is verifiable via reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner without resorting to original research? --Allen3 talk 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I did...and then I read the article...and then I reviewed the edits and the reasons they were made. Finally I went to the talk page and shared my concerns. I now am seriously considering that the page was tailor made to suit a particular pov which is that of the texas ranger mythology rather than the historical agency. Please prove me wrong by seriously considering reverting some of the more obviously pov edits or letting others do so. Mosquito-001 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The Abbot book, published in 1874, seems to be a popular work of non-fiction intended for a general audience, who apparently would not be surprised by the use of the term "massacre" to describe this action on the part of the Texas Rangers. It's probably closer in time to the actual events than any of the other sources cited in this article. It seems unfair to apply 21st century standards of historical style to a work published in 1874. It's certainly pertinent as it relates to late 19th century perceptions of the Rangers. There's no reason to believe Abbot holds any particular bias on this subject. --Kstern999 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is unfair to expect 21st century standards of a 19th century text. It is equally unfair to pull the 19th century text into a 21st century context without pulling appropriate background along with the text. --Allen3 talk 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Rangers' badges and uniforms

"Modern-day Rangers (as well as their predecessors) do not have a prescribed uniform; rather, they wear what they please."

The above statement is not true. The Rangers do have a dress code when they are on duty. The following is from the DPS/Texas Ranger Manual:

"The appropriate clothing is deemed to be conservative western attire. Other than western attire may be acceptable if such is of a conservative nature and blends with the expected western clothing. To be dressed appropriately, Rangers are required to wear a western hat, a dress shirt, a tie, a dress coat, appropriate pants, western boots, and the official Texas Ranger badge pinned above the left shirt pocket. An approved handgun should be worn in the waist area at all times."

The only time this differs is if they are conducting a manhunt, crime scene search, surveillance or tactical training which would require a more military-style outfit (shirt, camoflauge pants, boots, etc.), aka BDU's.

Just an FYI.

204.65.230.109 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)tejanita1

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/x/Talk%7ETexas_Ranger_Division_8865.html"