# Talk:Spanish Texas

This article desperately needs a map of Spanish Texas.  This map would be perfect, but it is copyrighted and my map-making skills are nonexistent.  I'd like to prepare this for Featured article nomination, but I suspect it will need a better map before it will pass.  Thanks to anyone who can help!  Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a map of the individual missions and presidios, are you just looking for a replication of the political boundaries and the caminos?  Or something with the notable missions as well? Kuru talk 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like primarily the political boundaries of the region, overlaid on an existing map if possible.  The map I linked in my first comments shows the boundary of Spanish Texas and marks the locations of some of the Indian tribes, which could also be useful.  Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood.  I'd like to get the river boundaries in there as well, since they were fairly important in context.  Some of the geographic features may have changed a little as well (the lack of lakes in the 1800s), so I'll need to spot check a little. I'll see if I can get some time this weekend to play with it and get you a draft. Kuru talk 00:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!!!!!  Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of January 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: on holdpass - see below for a few minor issuses
2. Factually accurate?: pass
3. Broad in coverage?: pass
4. Neutral point of view?: pass
5. Article stability? pass
6. Images?: pass, although it could certainly use a few more, I won't hold it up on that.
Looks good, just a few small issues detailed below
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
More detailed issues:

While I lived in Texas, I often saw "Tejas" used as a reference to the pre-independence region. I didn't see any references to that in the article, but I might have missed it.
Tejas and Texas are pronounced the same in Spanish.  Under Mexican control, the province was officially spelled Coahuila y Tejas but the Spanish usually used Texas.  For clarity, I've added a bit to the Initial Colonization section to explain that Texas became the name. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Lede - Second paragraph, the last sentence says 'rest of the kingdom' I'm not sure that's a correct way to refer to New Spain. Wasn't New Spain part of the Spanish Empire? Maybe province would be better than kingdom.
Although I've often seen New Spain referred to as "the Kingdom of New Spain", I changed this reference to "viceroyalty" so that people wouldn't be confused. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, third paragraph. Might consider wikilinking Christianized
Wikilink added.
Same section, last paragraph. The next to last sentence is a bit unclear, I might word it "The dispute was not resolved until 1819, when Spain traded Florida to the United States in return for recognition of the Sabine River as Texas' eastern boundary." And double check whether it is "Texas's" or "Texas'".. I'm not sure myself.
Change made.  Per Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives, single nouns ending with s can either have the 's or just an ' as long as the article is consistent.  Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Location section, first sentence. Perhaps use "province" instead of "part" if Texas was a separate province of New Spain.
Although most of the time Texas was a separate province, at certain times it was combined with other provinces.  That is why I chose the vaguer term.  Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Initial colonization attempts section, first paragraph. Who is Carlos II? More context is needed in the article itself, rather than having to click through to another article.
changed it to "Spanish King Carlos II" Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section,second paragraph, did De Leon really return to Mexico on June 1?
Good catch, that was supposed to be "year".  Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, last paragraph, instead of "The Indians regularly stole their cattle and houses and were becoming insolent." I'd guess you mean "The Indians regularly stole their cattle and horses and were becoming insolent." but not having the source, I'm hesitant to change it.
Yep, that's what I meant.  It's been changed.
Same section, last paragraph, there is only a specific mention of smallpox, but other "introduced diseases" are referred to. What are those diseases?
That wasn't specified in my sources.  Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
French conflict section, fourth paragraph. Might want to move the "whom the Spanish called the Tejas or Texias" to the first mention of the Hasinai in the Initial colonization attempts section, which is the first mention of the Hasinai, rather than leaving the explanation later in the article.
Done. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, sixth paragraph, next to last sentence.. I assume that villa is a specialized form of village or town, but as the sentence now stands, it seems to imply that the municipality was a fancy house, which is the usual definition of villa. This probably should be clarified.
I'm not sure that I've clarified it well, because the term doesn't have a direct translation into English.  This is my attempt: "Given a status higher than a village (pueblo) but lower than a city (ciudad), San Antonio became the only villa in Texas, " Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Indian troubles section, Karankawa difficulties subsection, third from last sentence, you might want to say that Spain entered the American Revolution on the side of the American revolutionaries also.
Done. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Same section, Peace with the Indians subsection, the first paragraph is abrupt and choppy, might consider reworking to flow better.
Paragraph is rewritten. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Conflict with the United States section, second paragraph, explain or link to "league" as it's not a measurement used often.
Wikilinked league. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
End of Spanish control section, first paragraph, the second sentence is not a sentence and needs to be reworked/reworded/merged into the surrounding sentences.
Thanks for noticing this too.  It's been reworded to "The uprisings continued for the next six years, until his abdication in 1814. " Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Except for the non-sentence, these are all quibbles and getting nitpicky. VERY nice article, was a joy to read. If you're planning on taking it to Featured Article status, it could use more pictures and more varied sources, but it is excellent as it stands. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! It passes, and I'll get on the epaperwork right now. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have several problems with this section and think it needs to be at the very least removed:

It is not specific to Spanish Texas, which is the subject of this article.  The section covers a broad range of time that includes Mexican Texas, the Republic of Texas, and the state of Texas.  That is overly broad and makes it difficult to see exactly how this relates to Spanish Texas.  The Comancheria also covered a broad area, not just the land that was Spanish Texas.
This relies on a single source, which leads to questions about potentially being POV or not mainstream.
I've been in contact with Donald Chipman, who has done a great deal of research on Spanish Texas, and hope to incorporate his suggestions for the article over the next few weeks.  He didn't feel that we needed this much weight on the Comancheria. 
Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an opinion from someone who knows very little about the topic:  it seems to me that the issue with the "Comancheria" section is that it is written with a focus on the Comancheria as a whole.  What makes sense in this article is to discuss how the Comancheria affected Spanish Texas.  Most of the text in the current "Comancheria" section either is or should be in the Comancheria article.  What's needed here is a discussion of the specific interactions between the Comancheria and Spanish Texas. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Richard, that is the largest issue.  Even the recent additions are focused on Spanish-controlled land in general, not Spanish Texas in particular. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Comancheria was largely based in Spanish Texas (as the map shows, all of it was in lands claimed by Spain) and was the main reason Spain could not consolidate its control over Texas. That makes it of central importance to the article because it helps explain Spain's failure there. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC).
There were threats from native tribes, but not only the Comanche, as many of the books I've read point especially to problems with the Apache and to a lesser extent the Karankawa.  The Comanche allied with the Spanish in Texas through the 18th century.  The books I've read have discussed issues with the Comanche post-1820 - a time period more closely associated with Mexican Texas and the later Republic.  Note also that the area of the Comancheria is in the modern-day state of Texas, but this was not all included in Spanish Texas.  This 1822 map of northern Mexico shows the boundaries.  Very little of the Comancheria was in the area known as Spanish Texas (which does not by any means equal boundaries of modern Texas during time of ownership by Spain).  How to reconcile the scholarly works focused on Spanish Texas which discuss the alliance between the Comanche and Spain against the Apache, and the broader works on the Comancheria? Karanacs (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
the article talks a great deal about Indians, such as Apaches (whom the Comanches defeated). The problem is that it takes a Spanish viewpoint and ignores the Indian viewpoint.  That is a serious POV flaw that can be overcome by using the recent (post 1980s) scholarship from ethnography. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That map posted above, File:Mexico_in_1822.jpg, oddly shows San Saba as within the northern boundaries of Texas. The brief history of San Saba plays an interesting role in Comancheria and the Spanish-Comanche relationship in Texas. The destruction of San Saba by the Comanche in 1758 or so makes the statement "The Comanche allied with the Spanish in Texas through the 18th century" sound rather odd. Pfly (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That said, the Comancheria subsection could certainly be improved. It is largely copied from the Comancheria page, which is okay as a starting point. But it would be better if edited to focus more clearly on the relations between the Comanche and Spanish Texas. I know Hämäläinen has a lot to say on the topic. Pfly (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If we can bring this back to more specifics on Spanish Texas (not just Spanish territories) and tie it in better with the other info that we have on the alliances, I think this could be a very good addition.  I don't have access to the Hamalainen book at the moment - can someone else propose some specifics that we can include? Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While U.S. President Thomas Jefferson and the United States Department of State maintained that the Louisiana Purchase included the entire western drainage basin of the Mississippi River, I find no evidence that either Jefferson or the State Department claimed any land south of the basin and west of the Neches River.  Had the United States claimed the Rio Grande as the southwestern border, it would have included half of the Spanish province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México (established in 1598) and well as all of Spanish Texas.  Yours aye,

Which country was Spain threatened by in their claims on Texas territory?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:C080:4150:4193:BFC0:1D10:8D72 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 

The following sentence is not factually correct: "In 1522 the Spanish controlled areas north/east of the Nueces and Medina rivers were made into a new province known as New Philippines."
The name Nuevo Reino de Filipinas, or the shortened Nuevas Filipinas, was first used by the Domingo Ramón expedition, which set out in 1715. A Franciscan missionary in the party, Antonio Margil de Jesús, was the first to put the name to paper in a 20 July 1716 letter to the viceroy of Spain.
The area was named named "New Philippines" because the designation of "Philippines" was already in use in Southeast Asia for the Philippine Islands. And that Spanish occupation didn't even begin until 1565 with the arrival of Miguel López de Legazpi.
Williams-Texas (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)