Talk:History of Texas

message: 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)
thread_title: GA failed

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Mexican-American War]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting the error. It was the wrong president. Tyler did it. Rjensen 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date or wrong president? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another Comment 

message: 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)
thread_title: Department of Texas

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks! Kuru talk 12:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Difficulties With The Indians 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What, exactly, is an Indian, in this context? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's the total state pop; 421549 free, 182566 slaves.  The cite does not work at the moment for me, but here's another  from the state archives. Kuru talk 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of the least?

message: 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)
thread_title: El Paso History needed

message: 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)
thread_title: German Texans

message: 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)
thread_title: Massive changes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nitpick: Earliest Texans 

message: 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)
thread_title:  West Texas: Comancheria: source help and examples for contributors to consider. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interested in Providing External Links and Possible Images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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:
* 
* 
* 
*  (chronology) 
* 
-- M2545 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of Texas 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Texas. 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/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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead section needs more sources 

message: These include the years 2040 and 4070 2601:249:1582:1E40:6D58:790E:3AA1:D25 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for letting us know someone was goofing off. DMacks (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect dates