Talk:Legal status of Texas

message: Most of the information in this article is unsourced, it clearly has an agenda, and it makes extremely specious claims without any evidence to back them up. On top of that, the style of the opening section is not in the slightest bit encyclopedic and instead reads more like the home page of a website, or a sloppily written essay. If this article can't be revised to NPOV on this issue, if it can't be properly sourced, and it can't be written in a style appropriate for Wikipedia, it ought to be deleted.Antodav2007 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is part of a series which includes the legal status of Hawaii and the legal status of Alaska.  In particular, please read the extensive discussion page regarding the legal status of Hawaii.  That article has been repeatedly challenged.  I think you may some of your concerns voiced and addressed there.  I believe this article is NPOV as it shows both sides of this topic while also showing that the view that Texas is legally American is the majority one. LarryQ (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been no discussion for several weeks, I am going to remove these tags. LarryQ (talk)
The entire History section is rife with POV.  "Citizens of the state voted overwhelmingly not to be part of the United States," "The United States invaded Texas and forced it to be a part of the United States," -- in addition to being crappy writing, this is staunch POV.  68.46.43.198 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: POV? "Citizens of the state voted overwhelmingly not to be part of the United States." They did. That is why Texas seceded and became a Confederate state.  Pure fact.   "The United States invaded Texas and forced it to be a part of the United States." Which is also true.  There were Civil War battles fought in Texas and the Union military victory assured that Texas remained in the Union against the will of Texas voters.  How is the POV? This tag should be removed. Texas in the 1860s is very different than it is today.  Texas may be legally part of the USA but there is a legal argument for why some believe this is not true. Do not unbalance this article by denying this point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.55.241 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it's written is blatantly sympathetic toward the advocates of Texas independence. Who are, let's face it, kooks. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously the language should reflect reliable sources, which usually aren't emphatic. For example, the first sentence quoted above probably is ok; the second one POV. Also, the article is supposed to reflect reality and reliable sources, if both point to Texans, past and present, being sympathetic to secession it's not for us to share our WP:Soapbox on their viewpoints.  Extralegal secession convention obviously relevant. Put it in with WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Problems 

message: Regarding this verbiage:
::The McLarens and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison (though charged with several felonies, all have been dropped).
What exactly does this mean? Does this mean that all the felony charges were dropped, but the people remain in prison? Once you are convicted, there is no legal procedure for "dropping" the charges. There would have to be some sort of action by a court to reverse or vacate the judgment of conviction, and then maybe a decision by the prosecutor not to re-charge, or a decision to drop the charges, etc.
Or, have the individuals been released from prison?
Either way, it appears that either the information is wrong or some crucial bit of information is missing. Famspear (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what they were referring to:
Richard Lance McLaren was indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity by conspiring to commit the aggravated kidnaping of Joe and Margaret Ann Rowe. The State alleged that McLaren performed the overt act of abducting the Rowes in pursuance of the conspiracy. McLaren was convicted by a jury and sentenced by the trial court to ninety-nine years' confinement. On appeal, we held that there was no evidence that McLaren performed the overt act of abducting the Rowes. See McLaren v. State, 2 S.W.3d 595, 598-99 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1999), rev'd sub nom. Otto v. State, 95 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We therefore reversed the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Id. at 600.
The Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently reversed our judgment, holding that the State was not required to prove that McLaren abducted the Rowes. See Otto v. State, 95 S.W.3d 282, 284-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The court remanded the cause for us to consider the remaining issues raised by McLaren in his appeal to this Court. Id. at 285. Finding no reversible error regarding those issues, we affirm. 
Trentc (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Enigmatic language

message: I agree with the merge. The articles are very similar. We shouldn't be misleading users by having two articles with similar content. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Texas Secession Movement, this article, Legal status of Texas, Republic of Texas (group), and Texas Annexation, are certainly related and similar. I have not looked at them to see if there would be a way to merge and condense for length but I do know that the articles have been tagged. These tags need attention. Articles or sections that are not sourced should be removed. This is regardless of personal agendas or not and is supported by Wikipedia, especially taking into account there is a tag, no action has been taken in a long time, and there is no need for career type tags hanging around.
*I will review this in a week to see what actions are suggested but will begin at a point to take sanctioned action as allowed by Wikipedia. If there are editors watching these articles it is about time to form a consensus and take action. Otr500 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should merge them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: There is a request to merge this article and Republic of Texas (group) to Texas Secession Movement. There is some confusion that the discussion was not centralized so please weigh in here with "Support", "Oppose", and any comments. Otr500 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: The legal status of Texas is only being questioned by fringe groups. I question if the title should be changed.198.45.184.25 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The article was getting ab it threadbare. I added a few sentences of context to some of the sections (non-substantive, as segue between sections and in relation to overall topic, because they had been just bullet lists). I also did some re-ordering (historical actions moved to precede current actions, etc).Jbower47 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  context added, order changed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal status 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/20160206094609/http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1845/debates to http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/texas1845/debates
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified