Talk:Republic of Texas (group)

message: I removed these two sentences as I could find nothing to verify them:
"Therefore, the vote has never been upheld and Texas has been considered a Captive Nation of War according to the World Court (1991).  The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case as it did not have jurisdiction over Texas."
If someone can show a clear World Court ruling that Texas is legally a captive nation of war, please provide a citation via a link to the Internation Court of Justice site.  As far as the US Supreme Court claiming it has no jurisdiction over Texas, this would appear to be in error.  The Supreme Court hears and rules on cases from Texas often.  Can some one show any SC ruling where the SC argues it has no jurisdiction over Texas?  LarryQ 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Removed Sentences

message: *The final battle of the American Civil War took place with the invasion of Galveston in 1869. Federal troops advanced into Austin, marched the Congress out on the lawn in front of a firing squad and threatened to shoot every member if they did not vote to restore statehood. 
A battle has to be between two opposing forces. Did the federal troops meet armed opposition? Were bullets fired? This does not appear to be a battle, and eev if it were, it's not clear that it'd be a battle of the war or of Reconstruction. -Will Beback 00:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction 

message: The trivia section reads like a manifesto against the US Government. NPOV has obviously been abandoned.
Much of the propaganda, urban myth and flat out baloney has been removed from this section.
:I removed the whole section, leaving only what appeared to be connected to this group. Most of it was as decribed above, and had no direct connection to the topic of this article. -Will Beback 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is still extremely POV.  The trivia needs to be cleaned up, especially the bit about US Hegemony.Letoofdune 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, a poll conducted by Texas Monthly magazine in the early 1990s resulted in greater than 70% of respondents supporting secession from the United States. 
Roadrunner 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: the section on Richard Lance (Rick) McLaren ranges from dates 1861 to the 1990's.  Is this a typo or are we talking about two different people? MarcelloRubini 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a mistake, but it could be clearer. The "1861" refers to events that occured which are considered central to this modern movement. Let's see if we can do some copyediting to improve the clarity.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: According to http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp, McLaren is not currently in federal custody.  I did not get a match for him in the Texas state prison system either.  LarryQ (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: convictions: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=rick+mclaren&sugg=d&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&cid=8581769859170443 Windsor (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 1999 AP story: http://www.amarillo.com/stories/082899/tex_LD0663.001.shtml Windsor (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 2007 prison interview: http://www.oaoa.com/onset?id=1113&template=article.html Windsor (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: removed "(though charged with several felonies, all have been dropped)" since it is clearly incorrect.  Windsor (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify about McLaren 

message: :Image:Republic-of-texas.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Republic-of-texas.png

message: I want to delete this page. I put all information in Texas Secession Debate.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:WhatLinksHere/Republic of Texas (group) shows lots of links. If the page is deleted, I'd suggest replacing it with a redirect to Texas Secession Debate#The Modern Movement. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have come to the conclusion that this article should be merged into Texas Secession Movement. I base this on the fact that the name Republic of Texas was a recognized sovereign nation that accepted, by majority of vote, to become a state in the United States. The validity of this is thus far undisputed, factions notwithstanding. I have no problem with there being a secession movement. I do have a problem with the infringement of the name of the article with The Republic of Texas. The contents of this article reflect a "movement" and not a country in exile. The above unsigned statement, regardless of personal beliefs, is erroneous as there is currently no recognized "nation" of the Republic of Texas in the U.S. or internationally. I "do not" advocate deletion as that would not be per Wikipedia if the above mentioned links or references are accurate. The contents of this article along with Texas Secession Movement, and Legal status of Texas, all concern the same subject so are certainly related. I suggest merging (not deleting) all three under "Texas secession Movement" which, at this point, is certainly the correct name. Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Republic of Texas (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419013203/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Fifth Republic of Texas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19#Fifth Republic of Texas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fifth Republic of Texas" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]