Talk:History of Texas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Texas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Texas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Top-importance). History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	History of Texas was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ya what's up with that?76.94.163.118 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Paragon 13055[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Everyone take take a deep breath. I'm adding an undue weight; POV tag.

A quote from this discussion above: "If you have a problem with my edit, then prove it wrong or incorrect." It is not incumbent upon an editor to prove that material does not belong or that it provides undue weight as a Point-of-view violation. One cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent upon an editor to provide material that is of balanced weight, and of a balanced point of view; and when challenged, the burden of proof is on the contributer of that material.

Quoting the above: "The revisions I made re: the birth of Texas are drawn straight from the Handbook of Texas online..." Yes, but they are cherry-picked and references to 1860's concerning matters of the 1820's and 1830's are anachronistic. I see no primary sources referenced. Assigning secret (when unstated by the person accused or even expressly contradicted by the person accused) motives to persons is likely to bring about suspicion of bias.

Quoting again, "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. " That statement, is the proof of a violation of the neutral point-of-view, it explains the cherry-picking and the lack of references to primary source documents. The material is that of an agenda and so now the burden of proof is on the contributer.

Going to primary source documents, one will find that what little discussion of the slavery issue took place AS REGARDS the revolution was of a tone that the issue would not serve the immediate needs of the issues which provoked men to revolution, so slavery was not a cause of the revolution-- intentionally ignored because of its potential for divisiveness.

That slavery was not an issue in the revolution but should have been might be submitted as a forked article, but the chances of such an article surviving would seem slim for the very reasons given above. Sometimes the truth is not a "whitewash." Sometimes "kindly folk" do wonderful things. Read Noah Smithwick's (Evolution of a State) account of that Revolution veteran leaving Texas (with many others) so as to avoid fighting for the Confederacy. He served with about thirty men in the Revolution as one of Tumlinson's Rangers. There appears to have been one member of that unit who owned a single slave, and that was Captain Tumlinson. Hopefully, that provides some perspective. The vast majority of Texans did not own slaves and that is so of the vast majority who volunteered to fight Santa Anna. --cregil 19:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that responded, I point out that the contributor of the disputed material is long gone-- no longer has an account, and therefore the issue seems moot. Recommend deletion of the provocative material. --cregil 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

---

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)[reply]

Claire Age 12 :)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 12:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

El Paso is a major part of Texas. It needs some history. When was it established and by whom.

It was part of New Mexico or Chihuahua until 1850. 70.115.171.76 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need info on Czech Texans. If you have been to the town of West, Texas or halletsville you have been to a Czech community. they came major waves of immigrations like the Germans.

Should it be mentioned that the Germans were largely anti-slavery and were persecuted during the Civil War. There was a massacre of Germans trying to leave for Mexico to avoid Confederate conscription.Skimaniac (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit made big changes to this page

• Karanacs and I got overzealous while trying to expand the general Texas page when it came to the revolution. our new text was far larger and more than what is found on this page. so we decided to merge our work into this page.

• To do this I created a revolution section, and gutted the main components of Mexican Texas, and the republic sections into the revolution page, and than added it into with our stuff.
• Added our new references into the reference section
• Trim some stuff, like the first declaration if independence because there weren't any sources to them.

But while editing and pressing preview, I also made some non related changes:

• Moved the important dates page into the Republic of Texas page
• Added the word "Spanish" to "Legacy".
• Removed the category link for texas in the civil war.
• Removed the Texas embassy in England. might be in Republic of Texas page, not this one.

Oldag07 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Texas seceded from two federal systems when doing so would allow its slave owners to hold their property in slavery. It was only after 1830, when slaves in Mexico were declared to be freed, that Texas seceded from Mexico. Then within a score of years, the impetus for Texas and other slave states to secede from the United States was the election of the abolitionist Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

The history of freedom's development is complex. By succeeding from Mexico, Texans became free to adopt the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus and other treasures of the common law of England, and the Republic of Texas promptly did so in its first legislative sessions. And the Republic of Texas immediately adapted and adopted a new constitution modeled on the constitution of the United States, another treasure of freedom under law.

But the freedom won by the secession of Texas from Mexico was freedom for whites only -- similar to the "whites only" freedom won in the secession of the original British American colonies from England. And unfortunately, a key freedom craved so urgently as to justify the risks of Texas' repeated armed insurrection was the freedom of whites to keep owning black slaves.

The Mexican-born settlers in Texas were soon vastly outnumbered by people born in the United States. To address this situation, President Anastasio Bustamante implemented several measures on April 6, 1830. Chief among these was a prohibition against further immigration to Texas from the United States, although American citizens would be allowed to settle in other parts of Mexico. Furthermore, the property tax law, intended to exempt immigrants from paying taxes for ten years, was rescinded, and tariffs were increased on goods shipped from the United States. Bustamante also ordered Texas settlers to comply with the federal prohibition against slavery or face military intervation.[6] These measures did not have the intended effect. Settlers simply circumvented or ignored the laws. By 1834, it was estimated that over 30,000 Anglos lived in Texas,[7] compared to only 7800 Mexican-born citizens.[8] By 1836, there were approximately 5,000 slaves in Texas.[9]

FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background on Feb 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.102 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dissolution of the 1824 Constitution, lack of access to courts, the militarization of the region's government (e.g., response to Saltillo-Monclova problem) and self-defense issues resulting in the confrontation in Gonzales all have primacy as causes of the revolution. Slavery was an issue but tertiary to those which contributed to the Revolution with, however, the conflict in Anahuac being perhaps the most salient example. The prologue implies slavery was the primary issue as it jumps from a discussion on slavery to "Angry at the government in Mexico City, the Texian forces fought and won the Texas Revolution in 1835–36." Perhaps we can encompass a bit more of the contributing dynamics? cregil 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

I have added an POV flag concerning this material. At present, this article begins by implying that slavery was the (or at least, a) primary issue in the Texas Revolution. Simply put, slavery was not an issue, at all, in the war for independence. Maybe it should have been an important issue, but it was not. There are no primary academic sources claiming otherwise. Contemporary writings by Texans rarely mention slavery and then only in passing.

Furthermore, Mexico's skirts were not clean in matters of slavery because life-long indenture (although not called that) was legal but only being born into that indenture was forbidden. Racism did then, as it does now, play a role in Mexican society-- mostly directed at Anglo's, but at all who were primarily of any other race or foreign descent. Even so, indentured servitude was not an issue for the Mexicans who had immigrated from the United States and who had Anglo roots. That rather rather makes the point: The typical pioneer of Scotch-Irish ancestry who immigrated from Tennessee were Mexicans-- they had legal status and participated as citizens of Mexico, not of the U.S.. and the vast majority of them did not own slaves nor indenture others. The horrible exceptions (like Groce on the Brazos who immigrated with 100 slaves)remained horrible exceptions. The war was not about slavery. --cregil 15:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This article really glosses over the last quarter of the 19th century as though it didn't really matter. In reality this was a very important period for Texas. Basically it was during this period that the state emerged on the national and international scene becoming the world's dominant cotton supplier and the port of Galveston becoming one of the nation's busiest ports. There were many firsts during this time in terms of cultural and urban development (particularly in Galveston, of course). Railroad construction exploded after the civil war.

The article currently has a section covering the period up to 1876 and then skips right to the 20th century. It basically just mentions quickly the mistreatment of blacks in the latter 19th century and that's it. This seems to me a major hole in its coverage.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the discussion of the 20th century has a lot of holes. Among other things it seems to imply that mostly the only important thing that happened in Texas after 1945 was the Kennedy assassination. The diversification of the economy (the establishment of NASA), the growth of the international communities, population growth due to Sun Belt migration, the growth of gambling empires in Dallas and Galveston, etc., etc. should all be discussed.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the latter part of this article is sub-standard (and I think the Republic of Texas coverage is also woefully inadequate). I've been slowly working on improving Texas history coverage, and I'm currently working on the Texas Revolution/Mexican Texas era. I will likely work on the Republic of Texas articles after that, but at the rate I'm going that will be several years. I'm not nearly as interested in more modern Texas history but would be willing to help anyone else who wants to research that topic. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might find some interest in the near future. I'm playing with a couple of things right now, particularly the Texas oil boom but I might branch off and take a stab here if nobody else is going to.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't if I'm the only one that cares but the article goes back and forth between using "Native American" and "Indian" as an ethnic reference. At minimum the article should adopt a uniform convention (though, of course, organizational names, established names of events, and quotes would be exceptions).

As a point of reference, I took a look at Native Americans in the United States and it looks like that article exclusively uses "Native American" (except in quotes, etc.). Though I don't want to be overly politically correct I tend to think that is a better term to use in modern writing.--Mcorazao (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being overly PC. It is a whole can of worms, but in actual English "Native American" and "Indian" are synonyms. Synonyms can (and frequently should) be employed to stave off monotony. (One good reason to occasionally avoid Indian for the the clunkier but less ambiguous Amerind or Amerindian is when you're worried about confusion with Desis, but that's not an issue here.) Wiki should avoid POV problems, but "Indian" isn't a racial slur or even pejorative, and you don't need to be offended on someone else's behalf.

Fwiw, if this becomes a consensus issue, I'll note I find Native American to be the clunkier and more objectionable term, and especially inappropriate when describing Texan Indians, almost all of whom entered the area in the historical period and after the Spanish. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Scholars estimate that humans have lived in Texas for approximately 11200 years," which someone claimed to have pulled out of the TSHA article on Texas prehistory. The article gives at least 11200, which means something else entirely. Moreover, it's very bad even as a rough date, since at the Gault site and elsewhere Texas has abundant Clovis culture sites (in fact, the richest so far discovered in the Americas,) and the entire culture was already gone by 9200 BC. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and I very much like the point of view Hämäläinen offers in his book; but the one and only footnote will not do (page 2) as it does not adequately support what has been provided. Hämäläinen cites his own sources-- and those ought to be consulted as primary. Can someone help as I do not own that book?

By the way, and not related to anything currently in this section, but because this article faces many points of view which are increasingly in conflict:

Hämäläinen's description of the 1840 Battle of Plum Creek following the Council House Fight mentions the Rangers being armed with Colt Revolvers (page 216)-- seven years before Walker brought the first ones. In understanding the significance of how that battle was waged, and how it changed subsequent tactics, it is not a small error which he has now introduced into modern scholarship. That is a great example as to why we always seek to use primary sources-- especially from a source sometimes considered "revisionist" as Hämäläinen has been claimed by some scholars to be.

Likewise, what we emphasize, as good historians, needs to be balanced: Anglos will mention the Council House Fight, pointing out that the Comanche had reneged by bringing in only one white captive, and she (the fifteen year old Lockhart girl) was in terrible shape, her nose burned off to the bone; but rarely mention that Hispanic captives had also been brought. Comanche, in turn, will leave off mention of the condition of the Lockhart girl, and focus on the Anglo demanding captives be brought by a tribe which did not hold those captives. See Utley's good piece on this in his Lone Star Justice. -cregil (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this...

The following had been added by user Tex-mex1618 and subsequently removed by another editor:

To free up jobs for "real Americans," during 1929 to 1939, up to 2 million people were sent to Mexico under the Mexican repatriations. Any person assumed to be of Mexican descent, regardless if American citizens or not, was sent on a train to Mexico or was pressured to leave the United States voluntarily. [ref]^ a b Johnson, Kevin (Fall 2005). "The Forgotten "Repatriation" of Persons of Mexican Ancestry and Lessons for the "War on Terror"". Davis, California: Pace Law Review.[ref]

Mexican Americans were the chosen target because of "the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios." [ref]^ Ruiz, Vicki L. (1998). From Out of the Shadows: Mexican Women in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513099-5.[ref]

The Mexican repatriations were authorized by President Hoover. For President Hoover, Spanish speaking Americans with bronze skin were the ideal scapegoats. Blame placed on Mexican immigrants would keep his administration from being criticized for the high unemployment numbers. [ref]^ Hoffman, Abraham (1974). Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression:Repatriation Pressures, 1929-1939. Tucson University Press.[ref]

This subject needs to be included as it relates to specifically Texas history. Now, "How to do it?" --cregil (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very heavy POV section with serious exaggeration. For example, nationwide "Over the course of the decade, anywhere from 400,000 to 2 million Mexicans were deported or voluntarily returned to Mexico" says Latino Issues: A Reference Handbook by Rogelio Saenz, Aurelia Lorena Murga (2011) - Page 165....that somehow becomes two million all involuntary from Texas alone???? Hoffman says nationwide that about a half million left the US in the decade 1929-39 --and that the American citizens among them were almost always their own children. see Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression: Repatriation Pressures, 1929-1939 by Abraham Hoffman (1974) pp 2-3. The statement that For President Hoover, Spanish speaking Americans with bronze skin were the ideal scapegoats. Blame placed on Mexican immigrants would keep his administration from being criticized for the high unemployment numbers. is false and is not in Hoffman--it's sheer POV Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the PV violations just mentioned. So this...

• I want to know to what extent the Hoover Administration's Mexican_Repatriation involved Texas and Texans. This is not the place to reproduce the existing article on the subject-- or even to highlight it; instead, we need specifics concerning Texas.

• While the subject is unquestionably going to be linked by many in the current political environment, this is a Texas History article and so we ought to include the historical context apart from our modern issues.

• "Scapegoats" is a weasel word in this regard. We need to tone that down. I'm not an expert in this matter-- but from what little I know, it appears that the those of Mexican descent were not being blamed (operative word in reference to "scapegoat") for the Great Depression.

• Lastly, the term Mexican descent is long overdue for an overhaul. It is used incorrectly and as a false euphemism when it excludes persons of Mexican nationality (former, or current) who are of European descent. Keep in mind, that the nation of Mexico-- before, during, and since the Texas Revolution-- has treated the people indigenous to the region as second class citizens. In our current time, it is politically correct to ignore the racism stemming from Iberian sources in Mexico and in Texas while focusing on the so called, Anglo racism.

That needs to stop.

Just as The British are considered "Imperialist" in 20th Century Palestinian history, but the Ottomans are rarely branded as such. I'm an Anglo whose family had settled in Mexico-- so I get to protest being tarred while the Spanish Mexican are white-washed.--cregil (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the people who returned were all Mexican citizens (and their children, who sometimes were US citizens). The idea that adult US citizens were forced to go to Mexico is not true. Most were unemployed (says Hoffman), and many wanted to go back to their villages where the cost of living was much lower. The repatriation program provided one-way bus fares. Rjensen (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, that needs to be included in any mention we present in the article concerning Mexican Repatriation.

I think the subject is fit for mention in the Great Depression Section; but I will oppose it if it presented as racism when it is legal, non-racist, immigration enforcement.

I would be interested in seeing quotes from sources contemporary to the events about the repatriation.

Otherwise, it appears this is another case of modern politics usurping truth for revisionist history in support of an agenda. --cregil (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work at a large research library. We are digitizing unique historical documents and making them available as primary resources (links to digitized items with information about those items) on the Internet. These items include a wide range of photographs, manuscripts, and imprints. I am following Wikipedia's policy "to encourage librarians and others in cultural heritage institutions to place links to their primary resources (WP:CURATOR)."

I was hoping to gain feedback on the possibility of adding an External Link to appropriate digitized material in our collections.

As an example, the following are some of our digital collections. These deal with Texas and Texas history

• Lawrence T. Jones III Texas Photographs, DeGolyer Library

• Texas: Photographs, Manuscripts, and Imprints, DeGolyer Library

I would also appreciate feedback on placing an image via Wikimedia in the appropriate section of this Wiki page.

For example, a Texas and the Civil War image in the Confederate Texas and Reconstruction: 1860–1876 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear lord this person is persistent with the vandalism. You see the amount this page has been vandalized right BethNaught? Can this page not be protected for now? InfernusIsHiding-Talk 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in creating a Timeline of Texas article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:

• "Timeline of Texas history", Texas Almanac, 1996-1997, Dallas Morning News – via University of North Texas Libraries {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Federal Writers' Project (1940), "Chronology", Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, American Guide Series, New York: Hastings House – via Internet Archive {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• "Timeline". Women in Texas History. Austin: Ruthe Winegarten Memorial Foundation for Texas Women's History.
• Benson John Lossing, ed. (1905). "United States: Texas". Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History. Vol. 9. Harper & Bros. – via Hathi Trust. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (chronology)
• Benjamin Vincent (1910), "Texas", Haydn's Dictionary of Dates (25th ed.), London: Ward, Lock & Co. {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

-- M2545 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu:80/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102074700/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527195314/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/17/album1.html to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/17/album1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the more references needed section tag at the top of the article as almost all claims in the lead are unsourced, though the article as a whole is generally fine. I know that the lead generally is not as citation-heavy as other sections, but in this case it contains many specific and substantive claims that seem to need direct references. SaturnFogg (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEDE, the intro is merely summarizes the article itself, where those claims definitely would need cites. The corrolary is that the lede should not be making any other claims, and therefore whatever it says generally does not need to be cited in the lead also (redundant to cite in body). If you find anything in the lede that does not match the body, or anything in the body that is not cited, those are the more important concerns for such a long and well-developed article. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These include the years 2040 and 4070 2601:249:1582:1E40:6D58:790E:3AA1:D25 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for letting us know someone was goofing off. DMacks (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]