Talk:Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Texas was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
To-do list for Texas: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
The current Texan Collaboration of the Month is Strand National Historic Landmark District.
Every month, a different Texas-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked.
Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Article Split

For the following reasons I think that the article on Texas should be broken up into other smaller articles. 1) the article on Texas is 66 kilobytes long and according to the Wikipedia: Article size guidelines articles should not be that large. This article could easily be broken up into the following smaller articles: 1) Texas Culture - 2) Texas Health Care & Medicine - 3) Education. If we created these 3 smaller articles and linked to them from the Texas Article this would bring the Texas article back down to about 40 Kilobytes which is the general size Wikipedia articles should be. Eric 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already has subarticles. Culture of Texas and Education in Texas already exist. Article size is recommended but not a rule. The article itself could be trimmed. I'm removing the banner. Postoak 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is a very large article and hard to navigate/load/etc, please split it. Matt K 3:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is laughable that a state should get more than one article for that stuff, a whole article on its health care and medicine? On its culture? That can be included in this article, your just taking up space in wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT - specifically Wikipedia is not paper space is not a concern. Given that Texas is bigger and more populous than many conutnries of the world, seperate articles are needed to cover these topics. Johntex\talk 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There are no pages on new york culture, or california culture. Most countries probably only have one page on them for everything, but the united states alone already has at least 50 for each specific state. I think one for each state should be enough. And while it may be more populous and "bigger i nsize" (however that is supposed to mean more culture), a whole different country is more diverse culturally than a state of a country. While texas does have its own brand of culture, having lived there and several other places I think it can still be called "american culture", which can be found anywhere. I think a section on it in this article should be able to cover the unique cultural traits of the state.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.229  (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2007 January 23   (UTC)

I support the split of the article because it does take up quite a bit more space than the average article. I believe that if any other state article has a larger than average size, then it too should split. The fact that us Texans know that it should be split because of its size is irrelevant (however true ;D). If the Texas article exceeds traditional or average size standards, it is a general rule that either the accomadator (in this case, wikipedia) should change, or the Texan attribute should modify itself slightly to fit. Other Texans are less willing than some of us Texans to change ourselves slightly to accomodate others. In this case to fit with standards, it would be much simpler and less of a hassle for the Texas article to be split than for Wikipedia to change its standards. As I said before, if New York or California (or any other state article) should have an overly large article, then they, too, should split so as to fit the standards set down by Wikipedia. Simply stated, just change the dang article and move on t' the next sitiashun!! 67.186.251.240 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Daniel "Texas" Padia (Native-Born Texan currently residing in Utah. "Dang!")

I would suggest you check out Wikipedia:Summary_style on how long articles are commonly handled. Some of the information in this article is too fine of detail for an article on Texas itself. The New York article contains less markup than Texas, which inflates the size of the Texas article (for example, see the references). The subject of Texas is far more deep than your average article. You can write many books on this subject, which is not the case with most articles. The article already attempts to break itself into smaller articles; therefore, it is already split. The only thing that might be beneficial is to remove some of the more fine details that are perfectly suitable for an article on Texas Culture, Texas Government, etc. but not so important in the grand scheme of the state. For example, Oklahoma State losing to Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl a couple of years ago most certainly does not belong here, but would be perfect for the Cotton Bowl article. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas HISTORY: split AND merge?

It's March 2007 and I just modified the History section by linking to Tejanos because there was no mention of Tejano settlers. As it existed before I modified it, there were a great many DETAILS in several sentences about Stephen Austin and his settlers, whilst not even mentioning anything at all in even ONE sentence about non-Anglo settlers...or should we try to make people believe no Tejanos existed in Texas history circa 1800 through present? ;-)

I also added a brief on their role in the Texas Revolution and a brief history leading up to the revolution -- only the pre-1800's history that is relevant to Texas' formation/secession. So long as there's still mention of these historical basics, feel free to modify. But what is a history of Texas if it doesn't include the events that led up to Texas' very EXISTENCE, and the role that a major portion of Texans, Tejanos, played?

But taking a step back from what those "history" paragraphs say and looking at the bigger picture...

1. There is also a History of Texas article. Brief history here (with a link to History of Texas), then details in History of Texas? Or merge these two articles and make people click to see the history?

2. Also, do we really need the paragraph on "education" in the HISTORY section? It opens a can of worms: why no "history of..." Texas Rangers? Texas roads? And everything else the State funds and/or reformed recently like rural electricity?? Even history of Texas music, rural electrification and co-ops (half the State wasn't even on the electriciy grid at the same time Texas reformed its education in the mid-1900's...), cowboys, indians -- and even NASA FFS -- would all be just as relevant and important as one small aspect of history like education; with a paragraph on each, like education has, just this section of the Texas article could go on forever. So maybe put "education" -- and "oil" -- in History of Texas and keep only briefs of MAJOR importance to Texas history on this page?

--Jeff

[edit] LBJ relationship?

Does anyone know if Sam Johnson is related to the Texas political family of Lyndon Johnson, whose brother, father and paternal grandfather were all named Sam or Samuel Johnson. TonyTheTiger 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEVEN flags over Texas

Frequenly omitted from the list of flags over Texas is that of the Republic of the Rio Grande, which was in existence for 283 days in 1840. For information on the Republic of the Rio Grande, see Republic of the Rio Grande. -- Loye Young, Laredo, Texas. 5 January 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.40.84.210 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

  • It's ommitted because no country afforded it diplomatic recognition of any time. There have been other micronations declared within Texas as well. Johntex\talk 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Architecture"?

If we're going to have a section on "Architecture" in Texas, then it'd better be about architecture, not just about tall buildings. Skylines arent really what architecture is about. The section makes no mention of the architectural landmarks we have all across TX (examples: [1][2][3]), or the history of architecture in TX. And the section makes no mention of any of the buildings designed by world class super architects such as Tadao Ando, Louis Kahn, and Philip Johnson (all in FW), I.M. Pei (in Dallas), or César Pelli (in Houston).--Zereshk 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems to take any interest in this issue, I take it that it's OK with y'all if I change the title of the section to a more accurate and relevant title like "skyline profile"? When I was a grad student in Architecture, the faculty rarely, if ever, included skyscrapers as works of architecture. At most maybe we would glance at a Norman Foster building because of his use of green designs. But that was about it.--Zereshk 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] illiteracy

Okay, wow what a kiss ass to texas. Did you know 1 in 3 texans is functionally illiterate. I think that deserves to be included, but the education section is so biased. There is a very high rate of unwed teenage pregnancies and poverty is abundant. It has the highest uninsurance rate in medicine. I am taking state and local government in texas and this is IN the book I have. I am thinking aobut just adding all that stuff in myself because all I have to do is hit ctrl-f and I found that the words "literacy" and "environment" were nowhere in this article. Texas is a very poor off state.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23 (UTC)

If you want to add reputable citations to the article you are welcome to help work on it. Given your tone, though, it seems you just want to be insulting. If that is your goal then you can find another place. Wikipedia is not your soapbox for insulting people you don't like. Johntex\talk 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I just find it kind of sad that this article does not contain things that texas is reputable for. It looks like people are more focused on just buttering up and even going out and dedicating more articles to such things. I will find the sources and work on that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23 (UTC)

Fantastic, we will be much pleased if you make a meaningful contribution. Johntex\talk 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
So far, your references are weak. You can't say "Some studies..." and then quote a single study. Furthermore, the reference isn't even to a study, its to a presentation by one person (Carolyn Bacon Dickson). Who is she anyway? Additions need to be backed up by reliable sources. Also, we try to avoid weasel words such as "some" and "many". Finaly, please format your additions in the same reference style as the other references in the article. Two different styles is confusing and unattractive. Thanks, Johntex\talk

I consider the department of education and government sites more than credible. I will work on it later though to improve on it. 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.164.65.229 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2007 January 23 (UTC)

If it were the whole department making the claim, probably so - but one invited speaker is not necesarily speaking on behalf of the department. In any case, "one" is not "some". Johntex\talk 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, the flow of the Education section is absolutely ruined. This is the problem when a nOOb editor thinks that he or she possesses the literary (and research) prowess necessary in encyclopedia editing. This is a common occurrence in Wikipedia, and is usually combatted by gaining consensus beforehand. Mentioning illiteracy is not a problem, but inserting borderline vandalism (because the sections seem to have been written by a functionally illiterate person, coincidentally) is a major one. My advice: give up on major articles and start creating/editing articles on niche trivia (as I do). Those articles will function perfectly with the types of sources you consider credible and the limited writing capability that you possess. Know your limitations; the rest of us picked up on them quite easily. Dirtydan667 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree those paragraphs are not appropriate as written. I am moving them here to the talk page where the new editor and everyone else can work on them a bit Johntex\talk 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :

Carolyn Bacon Dickson claims there are three major problems stated with the education system in Texas. One is the shortage of teachers; after a period of three years, one-third of the state's teacher's has left the field and in five years a full half. The second is the drop out rate of college students, with only one-fifth of ninth graders receiving a college degree in six years. The last is the drop out rate of high school students, with one million leaving school each year. Dickson claims there is one third drop out rate.[4]

Another costly problem is claimed to be the high rate of illiteracy in Texas. Out of the estimated 44 million americans unable to read, at least 6 millions of those reside in Texas. Half of the adult population in Texas is afflicted with these problems, with many not even having the literary competence to fill out a job application.[5] The urgency of this matter is reinforced by studies that suggest that Texas ranks near the bottom of the nation in the literacy of its residents. Over 50 percent is ranked in either the lowest or second lowest literacy level, which suggests an inability to fully contribute in the workplace.[6]Even worse, the state loses billions of dollars annually due to the most illiterate Texans being condemned to unemployment or low paying jobs; this leaves little room for tax revenue. [7]

[edit] Lance Armstrong

Texas Sports states that "Seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong is from Austin, Texas." This is technically incorrect. Lance was born and raised in Plano but currently lives/resides in Austin (actually Dripping Springs, Texas if I am not mistaken). --ProdigySportsman 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but this hinges on what the definition of "is" is. Or maybe the definition of "from". There are two questions here, one of time and one of proximity:
  1. How long do you have to live in a new town before you are from that new town instead of the town where you grew up? - Lance has lived in the Austin area for at least a decade. That is a pretty long time. He seems to me to have set his roots in the Austin area.
  2. The second question is one of proximity. Dripping Springs is very close to Austin. Definitely within commuting distance. Austin is much more famous than Dripping Springs. It is normal for a resident of a suburb to say they are from the closest big city.
Therefore, I think saying Lance is from Austin is a natural convention to follow. Johntex\talk 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you. --ProdigySportsman 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tejas to Texas?

Because of the difficulty of pronouncing Tejas in English the name was eventually changed to Texas, similarly to the county of Bejar to Bexar County, where San Antonio is located.

Is this true? The Spanish version of this article also calls the state Texas, and the country to the south calls itself Mexico and not Mejico (although people in Spain may spell it the latter way). 68.41.174.194 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this question. I'm not sure of the origin of the spelling changes, but I don't think it has a great deal to do with anglicizing the pronunciation. I know the vagaries of pronounciation are subject to quite a bit of mutation over time, but, at least in my lifetime, Anglo Texans have pronounced "Bexar" in a manner similar to the way they pronounce "Bayer" (the aspirin brand) or "bear." This, combined with the hard "x" sound in the English pronunciation of "Texas," makes me suspect that the spelling change didn't have much to do with accomodating the pronunciation habits of English speakers. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austin districts

Someone please address the request below. Im not qualified enough for the job, so Im pasting the request here to attract your attention:

Hi Zereshk. I have detected a temporal inconsistency in the Austin, TX article, politics section. The inconsistent phrase reads "Of Austin's six state legislative districts, three are strongly Democratic, and three are swing districts, all of which will be held by Democrats when Valinda Bolton assumes control of District 47 this January.". I am tempted to change it to something like "Of Austin's six state legislative districts, three are strongly Democratic, and three are swing districts. Currently all six are held by Democrats", but since I do not have political knowledge about the region I judged it wiser to ask someone living there. ¿Could you please take a look at it? Charles Dexter Ward 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Zereshk 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I would imagine the GA nomination will fail. Sources are almost entirely missing in the following sections: Geography, Geology, Government and politics (big one), Administrative divisions, Culture, Transportation, as well as some other sections. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


GA concerns:

  • 1b) structure
    • The Administrative divisions should be a subsection of Government and politics.
    • The Skyline profile section looks out of place. The other major sections are History, Geography, Government and politics, Economy, Demographics, Culture, Transportation. All of which are very course in their subject whereas skyline is much more fine grain. Culture is probably a good home for it. Possibly rename the section "Architecture".
    • Rename "Transportation" to "Infrastructure" and merge "Healthcare and medicine" with the new section. (I like how Dallas, Texas does this anyhow).
  • 1c) MoS
    • The lead needs improved and give an overview of the article.
  • 2a) references
    • Some sections are almost entirely missing sources: Education, Transportation, Culture, Demographics, Administrative divisions, Government and politics.
  • 2b) inline
    • * Citations are not consistent. Citations for the Handbook of Texas Online uses a template that is designed for the external links section and not designed for citing sources.
  • 3b) focused
    • A 2002 Houston Chronicle poll of Texans found that when asked "Do you support the death penalty?", 69.1 percent responded that they did, 21.9 percent did not support, and 9.1% were not sure or gave no answer. is not cited. It seems to not be particularly relevant to the law section either. And too fine of detail for the main article on Texas.
    • In the politics section, the details about the 32 congressional districts is too fine of detail for the main article on Texas.
    • The Highways section is way too long. It actually looks longer than the main article Texas state highways.
    • I don't care for the use of gallery in the skyline profile section. Or maybe use Image:Xvixionx 29 April 2006 Dallas Skyline.jpg. The gallery could be moved to tallest buildings in Texas.
  • 6c)

Minor changes that should happen:

  • "As mentioned above, Texas has 254 counties which affects the significance of this statistitc." The article should be referencing itself like this.
  • In the politics section, we're told Texas is a conservative state dominated by Republicans but Democrats controlled the majority in the House and Congressional Delegation until very recently. This seems contradictory. The reason for this is probably the Democratic party in Texas is significantly less liberal than the rest of the country's Democrats. I don't know the reason, and I don't think readers would be expected to figure this out either.
  • In the Administrative divisions section, the word weak isn't needed to describe the mayor-council system. The reader's can figure this out. I guess this would be a NPOV issue.

I'm not terribly great at grammar and spelling issues, so you should have someone look over that.

-- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two days so far and no significants changes (mostly reverting vandalism). Is anyone even working on this? -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

None of these concerns have been attended to, so the GA has failed (hopefully this list comes in handy for anyone who wants to improve this article). -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas land area

The land area in square miles and in square kilometers is shown as the same number. I'm not very good at converting english to metric but I know THAT can't be right!!!76.100.192.234 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but see...I was counting forward with...and then I divided by...denominator...d'oh! BQZip01 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

The article states: In 2007 Texas had a gross state product of $1.045 trillion I have two problemes with this. First, I believe the year 2007 is not done yet; therefore, we do not know how much Texas's gross state product (GSP) for 2007 will be. It is possible the this figure ($1.045 trillion) is an estimate. If this is the case, we need to label it such and cite a reference. Second, this "estimated" GSP is not cited anywhere. There is a link to the BEA website on which our "estimated" figure is clearly missing. [8] This website gives information about the GSPs of each state for the year of 2005. As far as I know, the BEA will release their data about the 2006 GSPs in a few months.

I don't understand how we got this "estimated" GSP for 2007. In any case, it needs to be cited properly. Please give your opinions, and whether or not you agree to change this line back to the official figure provided by the BEA. Thank you, (Eddie 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Yeah. Remove it or cite it. BQZip01 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Johntex\talk 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I was unable to find any kind of citation for this "estimate", I changed the figure back to the official 2005 BEA data. Thanks for your cooperation, (Eddie 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/x/Talk%7ETexas_5a08.html"