Talk:History of Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
History of Texas was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 7, 2006

Contents

[edit] GA failed

Reasons given are :

  • Why is there a subsection on important dates? Is is useful to the section? I'd rather see it as a prosed subsection that can be added to the current sections.
  • Still on the important dates subject ... why does the Spanish Texas section gives info about the period of 1690-1821 and the important dates give information beyond these boundaries (e.g.:1519, 1528-1534, 1685)?
  • A footnote to go with that statement : The Rio Grande and South Texas areas have had a long and turbulent history of independence movements by the local Mexican population, on account of unitary and perceived dictatorial and unconstitutional practices by the central Mexican government, would be appreciated.
  • Why did their name change from the Texians to the Texans?
  • Choose the style of US (or U.S.).
  • The section Texas Modernizes: 1945–2006 should be expanded and be different from the Texas' section too.
  • The article should be expanded and the main Texas article's history section should be shortened. Lincher 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican-American War

Is there some reason this article doesn't even have a link to this subject? Am I missing something?--Lord Kinbote 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong date or wrong president?

The article says President Polk signed the bill on March 1 to authorize admitting Texas. He didn't take office until March 4. You guys need a Canadian to tell you this? (grin) I don't know which part is right, so I've flagged it "contradiction".

66.96.28.244 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the error. It was the wrong president. Tyler did it. Rjensen 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment

yall need to add more history about the state because what yall have on here is not helping me too much and it sure wont help anyone else if it aint helping me...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.206 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Repeated Reversions without explanation or proof of necessity is FORBIDDEN

Wikipedia frowns on "revisions to earlier versions of an article" without any explanation as to why.

According to Wikipedia: - Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. 'The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page.

The revisions I made re: the birth of Texas are drawn straight from the Handbook of Texas online - a creation of the Texas historical society. They are NOT my opinions.

They are a summary of what is said "factually" in those documents.

If you have a problem with what is said in that publication, and various other historical texts, take it up with the University of Texas.

I am just tired of the whitewashing of Texas heritage to make it seem like it was a product of kindly folk, desirous of living a free life forced to take up arms against a murderous, oppressive Gov't.

The truth as the "handbook of Texas Online" a publication of the Texas Historical Society makes it abundantly clear that the original Texans were not saints, nor visionary's.

This is truth based on the endess array of "historical papers both American, Texan and Mexican." Again it is NOT my opinion.

For example, stating The Republic of Texas was borne out of the desire to own slaves is FACT, not fiction. To say that some of the original Texans were in fact illegal American immigrants into Mexico who disrespected the laws and refused to learn Spanish is FACT, not opinion. The Republic of Freedonia a historical fact, is in truth what so many Americans feel could be the eventual result of uncontrolled illegal mexicans coming over our present border.

History repeats itself. To learn from history, one must respect that history often has information we do not like. Perhaps the Texas fanboy who is covering this article (I do not know who, because in typical fashion he did a blind reversion) only wants a sanatized version of Texas History on Wikipedia in order to burnish the myth of Texas.

I prefer factual history, and the fact that one of if not the BIGGEST dispute between Texas settlers and Mexico was the legality of Slavery is BEYOND DISPUTE. It is recorded in numourous places. Why this is so, is not so relevent, but I do note this.

If you have a problem with my edit, then prove it wrong or incorrect. As the Wiki guidelines are clear on repeated reversions with out explanation - they are FORBIDDEN.

Wikipedia frowns on people who feel they can force facts to conform to their view.

I have not done that. Read the Texas Handbook Online - the historical sections and you will see NOTHING I wrote is speculative, but drawn directly from there a publication of the Texas Historical Society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmorales@hot.rr.com (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

You seem to be have some sort of chip on your shoulder coming in. I think you'll find that most of the editors here are quite neutral, but you'll still need to remain civil and learn to work with others. So far all I've seen is the addition of some sort of diatribe inserted before the lead section of the article. If you have issue with parts of the article itself, please feel free to correct those with citations, but a separate "counterpoint" section which seems to have a great deal of personal conclusions in it before the lead is not appropriate. I would suggest perhaps discussing your changes here so that we can help you correct the errors you are finding in the text. For the record, you may also look at the 'history' tab of the article to find out why people are 'blindly' reverting your edits. Most people will leave an explanation there. Kuru talk 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I re-read the Handbook of Texas articles and they explictly conclude that slavery was NOT one of the main reasons. Johnmorales@hot.rr.com has simply misread the experts. Rjensen 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Comment

You also need to say about clothes years ago, style of buildings, lifesyle because none of this helps im researching texas 100 years ago please experiment with my idea it would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.83.103 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Claire Age 12 :)

[edit] Department of Texas

What is "Department of Texas" in the context of the American Civil War? (see eg. this.) I could not find the answer in the article. Qblik talk 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30 flags over Texas?

Is it true the state was offered the option of splitting in 5 at statehood? What were the divisions? Trekphiler 12:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no divisions were ever created. The state was just given the option to split (in case governing such a large area proved to be difficult). ►Tennis Dynamite◄ 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've always thought the main reason for the option of splitting into 5 states was because Texas was admitted to the Union as a slave state in the era when the balance of power between slave and free states in Congress (the Senate especially) was of vital concern. Most states of the time were admitted in pairs, slave and free, in order to maintain the balance of power. There was a desire to create relatively small states so that a larger territorial region could churn out more free or slaves states, for purposes of Congressional power. That Texas was so big was, as I understand it, a major concern for the Congressional slave-faction. The free states being admitted at the time were much smaller, leaving open the possibility of free states eventually outnumbering slave states, with dire consequences in the Senate for the slave-faction. That, as I understand it, was the main reason for the odd Texas right of splitting into multiple states. I can try to dig up a reference if it is needed... ~~
If you can track down any source, I'd be greatful. (I'm working on an SF story that could use a "5xTexas"...) Trekphiler 15:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulties With The Indians

The 2nd paragraph, 2nd line has "better enemies." You might have meant bitter enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiosputnik (talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Kuru talk 12:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the title of this section violates the Neutral Point of View policy. By use of the negative word "difficulties" it is clear that the point of view is the settlers and missionaries. Why not change to "Reaction from Native Americans" or something like that? Opinions anyone? Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Indians would likely think the Spanish were being difficult too. I'd support a reworded section heading that would show that both sides were upset and acting out, but I'm not sure what that title would be. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a title change. But I’m not sure what it should be.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What, exactly, is an Indian, in this context?

Respectfully, I'm having a little trouble with that wording. Perhaps someone can clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernscribe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In this article, Indians were Native Americans in the United States. In Texas, tribes included Caddo, Karankawa, Apache, Comanche, and Tonkawa. All of the tribe names are listed in the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of the least?

The article says, " In 1860 30% of the population of state total of 604,215 were enslaved." Now, I'm guessing this means the slave pop was 600K & change, but it's not really clear; it could as easily mean total state pop is. Which is it? Trekphiler (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the total state pop; 421549 free, 182566 slaves. The cite does not work at the moment for me, but here's another [1] from the state archives. Kuru talk 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)