Talk:North Texas

message: Can we get a map image? ~ Dpr 06:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We need to get a general map of the area. --Stallions2010 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Map added, I'm pretty ignorant of Texas geography though - if any counties there don't belong just let me know and I'll fix it.  Kmusser 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone must have deleted your map.  I hope it can be reinstated.71.221.117.58 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Really?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.107.31 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randy Galloway? 

message: This article perpetuates pseudo-information.
As can be seen by the original author's failure to document in any substantial way the existence of any such entity as "North Texas" [sic], that phrase is nothing more than a grammatical faux pas; the proper phrase is "northern Texas" or, perhaps more accurately in terms of what the original author intended to describe, "northern central Texas" or (more accurately in my opinion) "central northern Texas" - an admitted mouthful.
So where is the capital of "North Texas"? Maybe there's a document in the State Archives vouching for the formal establishment of "North Texas" as a specific entity? No? Then "North Texas" doesn't exist. The University of North Texas is free to call itself whatever it wants, as is the North Texas Council of Governments (NTCoG); that doesn't mean there's any such formally-named geographic location as "North Texas".
Admittedly the area around the Dallas/Fort-Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has little in common with Texas's panhandle - clearly part of northern Texas - so a distinction needs to be made, geographically at the very least. Thus I suggest "central northern Texas". Tyler and points east, as well as Lubbock and points north, can both legitimately be described as belonging to northern Texas, but in the case of Tyler it's also very much a part of eastern Texas, and Lubbock belongs to western Texas as much as it does to the northern part of the state. This would seemingly leave the Dallas/Fort-Worth MSA as belonging to "northern central Texas". Except that "central Texas" brings Temple, Austin, San-Marcos, New Braunfels, Kerrville, Johnson City, Fredericksburg, Junction, Llano, Mason, San Saba and Lampasas to mind - maybe Waco too at the northeastern-most (funny how "northeastern" and "northwestern" are perfectly acceptable words but there's no "northcentralern" - just northern). Dallas and Fort Worth are not part of that region, lying well beyond even its northernmost fringe.
Truth is, everything north of a line drawn between about El Paso and Nacogdoches qualifies as part of northern Texas, just as everything south of that can be called southern Texas, depending on the context; the same goes for a line from from about Laredo to Vernon when distinguishing eastern versus western Texas. But we need, and have, more useful descriptors: thus Tyler, Jefferson and Texarkana are more accurately referred to as being part of northeastern Texas just as Lubbock, Amarillo and all of the panhandle are part of northwestern Texas.
All of which leaves me thinking the most accurate description for the area around Dallas and Fort Worth is best described as "central northern Texas" and not requiring a distinct Wikipedida article. However the opinions that matter most on this issue are those of professional geographers, linguists and historians, and I yield to them. But I strongly suspect they would say that to refer to any "North Texas" is to perpetuate bad grammar and promote an excessively distinct and unreal existence. Simply put: North Texas does not exist as a distinct entity, therefore it doesn't deserve a distinct Wikipedia article.
Put another way: "North Texas" is grammatically incorrect as well as being non-existent. One could perhaps live with "northern Texas" in terms of its existence, but it's not descriptive enough - it's too indistinct. Since the Dallas/Fort-Worth area is not part of either northeastern or northwestern Texas, that would seem to leave "central northern Texas". BLZebubba (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire article needs to be eliminated - there's no such place as "North Texas" 

message: Historical accuracy - North Texas voted AGAINST secession and were murdered by South Texans. Pulled from an amateur historian's website.
"I've mentioned this before, but one of my ancestors was hung in Texas by a lynch mob started by plantation owners who used the local media to convince the local residents that people were moving down from the north to kill women and children. My ancestor had just moved from Ohio with his wife and children. His wife's family was from Texas and they inherited land. I don't think they would have taken the risk otherwise. They still call it the Great Gainesville Hanging in Texas and say very little about it in Gainesville, which I don't mind publicly saying is shameful. They literally fed the older men to the mob to appease them until the military arrived. One of the men they hung was in a wheelchair and had to be carried to the gallows. That was another form of vigilantism in the south. Like the ranchers and the sheepherders, the plantation owners hired vigilantes to attack the people of north Texas--a little known fact that most people who lived in north Texas prior to the Civil War voted against secession."
http://wildwesthistory.blogspot.com/2013/10/vigilante-justice-in-american-old-west.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.20.81.66 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A definition of "North Texas" but needs sourcing. Never eliminate this article.