Talk:Texas/Archive 7

State lands out to 10.3 miles
I'm not sure at all where to put this (not being that familiar with this set of articles). As part of the General Land Office created in 1836, Texas owns the "submerged" lands out to 10.3 miles from shore. (I've also seen an 1845 number) This may become a factor in off shore wind energy. For all other states, state land ends at 3 miles from the coast and federal land picks up there. Not so with Texas. Thus, the offshore wind projects in other states need the approval of federal departments. The comparison given in popular mechanics points out it took 9 years of debate for the Cape Wind project and only 4 months from nomination to bid in Texas. The modern energy aspect is interesting, but this is the first I've heard of this particular historical oddity with Texas (I've heard of several others that are well documented). --Shagie (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct in the 10.3 mile stat, in addition, Texas maintained all the mineral rites to state lands when it was annexed. Maybe a section should be made that specifically focuses on special legal rights/aspects that are unique to Texas... -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 06:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, poking a bit around I've found tidelands and Submerged Lands Act that lightly touch on the 10.3, but don't go as deeply as I would like to read on the issue. --Shagie (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

how the Texas name appeared as derived from Tejas
There are no mentions of how far 'Texas' name appeared from 'Tejas' (Tiles), if it was a miswritten, mistyped or mispronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.73.102 (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Geoquiz3000, 16 July 2010
Please change text in 2nd paragraph from "Other major cities include El Paso and Austin—the state capital" to "Other major cities include San Antonio, El Paso and Austin—the state capital" because San Antonio is the third largest city and metropolitan area in Texas and is considerably larger than El Paso or Austin.

Geoquiz3000 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * San Antonio is mentioned in the preceding sentence as a major city; why would you then call it out here as "other".  Kuru   (talk)  11:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh, how could I have missed that? Sorry for the trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.92.156.133, 24 July 2010
it is thethird largest state in the united states

68.92.156.133 (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Until we invade Canada, I'm afraid Texas remains the second largest state; in land and population. Could you be more specific in your assertion?  Kuru   (talk)  03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.241.20.220, 25 September 2010
The University of Houston is not mentioned, nor is the University of Houston's football team. It is the 3rd largest university in the state and it's no where to be found. Why the omission? There's a lot more to Texas than just UT and TAMU. If the Iron Skillet rivalry between TCU and SMU is notated, then the Bayou Bucket between Rice and Houston should also be listed. If you don't believe me, contact State Senator John Whitmire. He's a Houston alumnus and he has the stroke.

70.241.20.220 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Please be more specific about what you would like to add. The University of Houston is mentioned several times and it isn't surprising that an article about the state might not include details such as their football team, but if you have something specific in mind, please share it. Any facts must be supported by a reliable source, either provide one or refer to one of the existing ones if it includes the facts in the content you want to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gocru, 5 October 2010
Please change "The former republic chartered the private universities Baylor University and Southwestern University" to "The former republic chartered universities the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Baylor University, and Southwestern University."

The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor was also chartered by the Republic of Texas. Please, add it to the listed schools. (see bottom of link: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/belton-tx/mary-hardin-baylor-3588)

Thanks

Gocru (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Updated page. Oldag07 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nations of or in Texas
''Moved this from the main page. while good information, does not flow with the rest of the history section. Not sure exactly where it should go. As for the various native american nations, this information can be seen in the pre-european era section.'' Oldag07 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While there are several such "mini" nations that have existed or struggle to exist in what is now the United States, Texas is no exception:


 * 1) Republic of the Rio Grande
 * 2) Republic of Fredonia
 * 3) Free State of Lavaca
 * 4) Free State of Galveston (sometimes called the Republic of Galveston Island)
 * 5) United Republic of Texas or New Republic of Texas

Texas is an exception--none of these other examples entered into treaties with the United States, and none other than Texas reserves the right--recognized by the United States federal government--to suceed from the union. Furthermore, no other state may legally fly thier flag at the same height as the US flag; the other 49 must fly them lower. This is actually practiced in Texas today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.65.6 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the original content dispute here, but both the 'right to secede" and the flag right are myths. You may want to provide better examples.   Kuru   (talk)  17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-sequitor but why does Texas history end in 1963? What happened from the 60s to 2010 in Texas? (198.151.179.5 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Our awsomeness has become too great to fit our recent history on this page. Just ask any Texan.(Drlf (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from DeonnaRamos, 16 October 2010
SOMEONE NEEDS TO CHANGE THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN TEXAS; IT IS ENGLISH, ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

DeonnaRamos (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources say other wise. Remember that the golden rule of wikipedia is that it has to keep a neutral point of view.   Thanks for your input though.  Oldag07 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Sadly, it seems that Oldag07 is correct - a quick google search for "official language of Texas" yields several hits of politicians proposing English as the official language, but no mention of that proposal being adopted. Celestra (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 146.6.194.230, 5 November 2010
For accuracy, the latest Fortune 500 rankings should be used, or the year cited on those that are currently used. Based on the 2010 rankings (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/), citations #12, #13, #150, and #151 are incorrect. Something like "Texas is currently tied with California in the greatest number of Fortune 500 headquarters located in the state at fifty-seven" would correct this.

146.6.194.230 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Requests should be submitted in the form of "Please change X to Y" so that an uninvolved editor (such as myself) can make the necessary edits without too much difficulty.  elektrik SHOOS  08:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas borders the Mexican states of Chihuahua, to the south and west, Coahuila, to the south, Nuevo Leon, to the south, and Tamaulipas, south along the Gulf of Mexico. Erick Williams (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Erick Williams

Texan Economy?
"....Texas's economy is the third largest in the world of country subdivisions behind California and Tokyo Prefecture....". Surely this has to be an error...England (ie, a first level subdivision of the United Kingdom) MUST have a GDP far outreaching that of Texas, California or Tokyo, thus relegating Texas to at best forth in the world, if it is indeed surpassed by California and Tokyo Prefecture. 82.5.68.95 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kuru   (talk)  19:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.80.74.49, 2 March 2011
Please state the following on this page: Texas is the only state in the US to have the right to secede at any moment it wants to, since it was annexed as a nation. It has been taught in all Texas history books and has been stated in Texas legislature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.74.49 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is not true. It is an urban legend. See Texas v. White for some information on this subject. Republic of Texas also talks about it. Try google and snopes.com too. –  j ak s mata  20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And also, you STILL haven't put that Texas is allowed to fly their flag at the same height as the US flag. Failed to put that in there too. What are ya'll, a bunch of yanks?208.80.74.49 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So is every other state flag. It's an urban myth that Texas is the only state allowed to do so.  You may want to avoid calling people yanks, and then misspelling y'all.  Kuru   (talk)  20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh oh forgive me for a typing error. It isn't a urban myth. Every single Texas Flag I have seen has been flown at the same level as the US flag. No other state flag is allowed to do so, since the other states did not join as nations. They joined as territories. Y'ALL have absolutely no idea what y'all are talking about, and I think every fellow Texan shares my same point of view. 208.80.74.49 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're still confused. Perhaps you could provide the sections of the federal flag code that support your assertion?  I think you'll find that most Texans are educated enough to recognize urban legends, including this one.  Kuru   (talk)  14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This Texan is aware that Hawaii joined the union as a nation and can use both Snopes and Wikipedia. I wish "every fellow Texan" could do the same. Ben (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This Texan also know this. Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms IP editor, please realize that you need to cite your claim using reliable sources, not just "everyone knows..." — BQZip01 —  talk 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It turns out that the IP address is a school district, so the editor is likely a student.Ben (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you check the talk history on this page and related pages, the secession and flag myths are common requests. They are, however, not true. There is no magic right Texas received to secede from the Union (which would be irrelevant anyway, as Texas v. White is definitive on the issue). This is, mistakenly, taught in some places in Texas, but it is not and never has been correct. The question of the flag presupposes that there is a legal code governing the flying of flags. The US flag code is not statuatory law, it is tradition. Any state can fly its flag any way it sees fit. Texas does not have special dispensation. In other news, Pecos Bill did not actually lasso a tornado. But seriously, the Texas secession movement puts out a lot of disinformation...it's akin to the anti-fluoride folks, truthers, birthers, etc. Just because somehting is said repeatedly with passionate intensity doesn't make it so.Jbower47 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed an "urban legend" that Texas has the right to secede, and that it is the only state whose flag is authorized to fly at the same height as the American flag. With that said, concerning the former issue, the Texas v. White case is often touted as having settled the issue of secession. As it was, the case actually concerned bond sales, and in order to make the ruling it did, the SCOTUS had to "prove" Texas had never left the Union. However, the important thing to keep in mind was that secession itself was not the issue before the court; thus, the opinions on that topic are only "dicta" and of no legal consequence as to precedent. Texas DOES have the right to divide itself into 3 - 5 seperate states. And -- I am a little shaky on this one, however -- I think there is something that allows the state to maintain its own army and navy...? But again, I could easily be wrong on that one! TexasReb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from Arkitexas, 29 March 2011
First paragraph includes vandalism comments as follows:

"(mostly niggers and Beaners). Texans are looked down upon by society and should not be alive at all. Luckily the texas reformation- a group in Dallas, is centered about the extermination of such pests, and take control of the white population."

Please have someone remove the vandalism.

Arkitexas (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. It's been reverted. — Bility (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Texas: The Best State for Business
In 2010, the state of Texas picked up another admirable attribute to add to their long list. CNBC has recognized Texas as the best state, in the nation, for business. It was ranked number one on CNBC's list of "Top States for Business in 2010." This is just one more reason to flock to the state of Texas. agreed.Drlf (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Texas pride
As every Texan will tell you, texas arguably has more pride than every other state in the union combined. And yet I find that y'all have been misinforming people by not sayin this peice of info. And for y'all people wantin one of them resources, ask a true Texan. The'll be more than happy to tell you about how proud we are of the greatest place in this very universe.

Oh, and sombody on here said that Hawaii was also admited as a state after it was an independant country. Let me tell you somthin: They were WRONG. It was not admitted as a state. It was a territory first. Texas was NEVER a territory. In fact, there is an entire section in Texas history books about how we were never a territory.

(Drlf (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I live in Texas, and I tend to agree with you. However, Wikipedia does not publish original research based on personal testimony. If you can find a reliable published source that describes "Texas pride", it would be well worth adding to the culture section. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just remembered: Texas pride in football. We have alot of that. But apparently y'all need a 'rescource' for that, too. But my friend is begging me to play video games right now, so I don't have time to look that up. (Drlf (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC))

Texas pride can be found under the term "Texicanism" in several historiographical essays. Most historians refer to it pejoratively, but it exists nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.146.86 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Selena?
Why isn't Selena mentioned in this article? Doesn't make any sense not to have one of the most known Texans out of the article. In the arts section, Tejano music is mentioned, but wait, wasn't Selena the "queen" of that music genre? AJona1992 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No environmental issues
in Texas? Lucky you ... 77.13.176.55 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

External lInk request to TexasLinks.info
Please consider adding an external link to www.TexasLinks.info, a non-commercial site with links to many useful Texas sources, as well as several on-site maps and descriptions of Texas-only state holidays. 68.88.81.17 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No Natural Lakes?
Couldn't help but notice your claim that Texas has no natural lakes; however, though it is shared with Louisiana, Caddo Lake was naturally formed. Is this not sufficient? I realize that the CCC damed the Lake in the 1930s, but I feel that perhaps it warrants a citation for being naturally formed. Thanks.

PS. Sorry for the foolish "Texas can secede" people. Their brand of pride mixed with ignorance will never fully disappear. In fact, it looks like its running for president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.146.86 (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the history behind that line is. I've always used Caddo as the answer to the trivia question of 'what is the only natual lake in Texas'.  TSHA called it "one of te largest natural lakes in the south prior to the construction of the dam", so the "large" part of the line does not seem to limit Caddo.  I realize it is impounded now, but the origins seem sufficient to invalidate that unsourced line - I've modified it for now.   Kuru   (talk)  17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Timhnelson, 5 September 2011
Electronic Data Systems no longer exists as HP has now fully integrated it into HP. References to Electronic Data Systems should be edited to ensure relevancy.

Timhnelson (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Timhnelson (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference?  Chzz  ► 01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: State Symbols
Here is an exhaustive list of the state symbols: https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/symbols.html I would suggest including just the most common ones (flower, song, etc.), and/or including this link to find further symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshearn (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Civil War & secession

 * I have moved the following comment to here; it was originally posted at WT:Talk page guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article on Texas states: "After the war and its restoration to the Union,..." No states were 'restored' to the Union. The US Constitution has no provisions for leaving the Union. States which declared secession and discribed themselves as members of the Confederacy never actually left the Union; therefore, restoration was never needed or undertaken. L Melniker143.104.48.124 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * editor's personal opinions about the law are not relevant--the RS typically refer to restoration to the Union and Wiki must follow the RS. Thus a 1) standard textbook "the Reconstruction process [began] by calling state constitutional conventions. ... and the states would be restored to the Union with full congressional representation";  (A People And A Nation: A History of the United States, Since 1865 by Norton p 445) or 2) another major textbook: "The majority moderate group tended to agree with Lincoln that the seceded states should be restored to the Union " [Kennedy, American pageant]; 3) recent encyclopedia: "following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by the newly elected state legislature, the state would be fully restored to the Union." [Kazin, ed.  The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History'' (2011) Page 93....and many more examples. Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the Republic of Texas colonise Texas?
The caption of the 6 flags, "Six nations who Colonized Texas", would imply that Texas was a colony of Mexico (Mexico would have claimed an intergral part) and the U.S. (who would make a similar claim.) Even more bizarre is the claim implied by the Republic of Texas flag that Texas colonised itself. This caption needs rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.137.164 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points; I've changed the caption to match the intro of the six flags over Texas article. See if that's a little less odd.  Kuru   (talk)  00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag
Flag on main page is Chile flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.254.93 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Childish vandalism that was quickly fixed; the price of an open editing environment. Kuru   (talk)  22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias to East/Central Texas
Except for a brief mention of the Llano Estacado, a short mention of El Paso and one photo of cotton crops in West Texas, apparently noone lives in West Texas or the Panhandle. Needs more info on rest of state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.201.93 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Texas does not have a state property tax
The article says, "...the state collects revenue from a state property tax...," but checking with the reference for that statement says,"Texas is one of the 13 states that collect no state-level property taxes." Even the Wikipedia article, "Economy of Texas," says, "...the Texas Constitution specifically prohibits a state property tax..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.149.121 (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your position seems to be correct. There is no state property tax that I'm aware of, and this seems to make it a little more clear; most of the tax revenue is from our state sales tax.  Looking at my very exciting property tax bill, it's entirely local entities (school district, city, county, hospital district, college, flood fund, and river authority in order of magnitude).  Looking at the references given, as you note the first ones backs up your point, and the second one does not even appear to be a reliable source.  I'll wait a day or so for any other comments, and then make the change if no one else does.  Kuru   (talk)  14:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy: 1800s vs 18th century
The second paragraph of the introduction states: "The name was not popularly used in daily speech but often appeared in legal documents until the end of the 1800s." To me this means till about 1880-1890, which seems unlikely: by then Texas had become a U.S. State, participated in the Civil War, and the name would most definitely have been used by the population at large. Perhaps the author meant "... until the end of the 18th century.", or even "... until about 1800."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.64.253 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this too - I'm inclined to just go ahead and change it, as it's almost certainly not true of the late 1800s, for the reasons you state. I think Texan soldiers in the Civil War would have been surprised to find out the name wasn't much used by them, as would citizens of the independent Texas Republic. Do you think it should be 'until the end of the 1700s', 'the end of the 18th century' or 'until 1800'? I'm inclined to go with until 1800, as it's the least ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.133.194 (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

sports national champs is not accurate
''Collegiate athletics have deep significance in Texas culture, especially football. The state has ten Division I-FBS schools, the most in the nation. Four of the state's universities, the Baylor Bears, Texas Longhorns, Texas A&M Aggies, and Texas Tech Red Raiders, compete in the Big 12 Conference. Also, four of the state's schools, the Texas Longhorns, the Texas A&M Aggies, the TCU Horned Frogs, and the SMU Mustangs claim at least one national championship in the sport.

The last sentence...Also four of hte state's schools claim at least one national champion in sports is not accurate.

Baylor's women's basketball has a national championship Texas Tech women's basketball has a national championship UTEP HAS A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IN BASKETBALL. THEY MADE A MOVIE ABOUT IT. FIRST TEAM TO START 5 BLACK PLAYERS IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.42.19 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you reference is specifically citing the sport of college football, not collegiate sports in general. Therefore, it is accurate as BU, TTU and UTEP do not have any national titles in college football.

However, the information regarding conference affiliation is no longer accurate and needs to be updated. Texas A&M is now in the SEC and SMU and U of H are now in the Big East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.190.126 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A&M officially doens't leave, and TCU will not join until this summer. Mentioning that this will change probably would be a good thing though. Oldag07 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest making the change when it becomes fact is more encyclopedic and remember Truman an Dewey. MadZarkoff (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Its called Texans not Texians
We are not called Texians! It says under history Texians.. you need to change that to Texans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.15.156 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See texian. The usage within the history section appears to be correct.  Kuru   (talk)  23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read this article on Texas and the associated article on Texians to learn and appreciate history. And Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction vs content
The last two paragraphs of the introduction seem less like introduction than content; I recommend moving it into lower sections. The first paragraph should probably be merged into the history section, and the second into economics. I'm not a Wiki expert (wikixpert? wixpert?), though, so I'll leave it up to the professionals to best decide the arrangement. 98.166.56.240 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The opening lede is not an introduction--it is supposed to be a self-contained summary. Most readers only read the lede then and move elsewhere. Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the new guy. The entomology of the word "Texas" probably should make up the first two paragraphs of the whole page. An introduction taking about the whole state would be best served by the later paragraphs in the lead.  To quote WP:LEAD
 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
 * Oldag07 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Tejas name from castillian/spanish language?
doesn't Tejas means Tiles instead? originally from the mexican "Coahuila y Tejas" state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofurano (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The name of the region predates mexico, and it predates the spanish. Details here. If you have other sources which offer a contradicting origin, please provide them.  Kuru   (talk)  16:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Texas's" ?
Texas is already plural. "Texas's" doesn't seem grammatically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.13.2 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the state of Texas is singular! I changed the wording on the first sentence: "The size and unique history of Texas make its regional affiliation debatable:..." not realizing that {Texas's} occurs 25 times. What is an editor to do? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's singular. This is the possessive we are talking about here, however. According to that linked Manual of Style page, I think is fine, because the final 's' is pronounced, otherwise the correct form could be . Which means I learnt something today, too - because I would have guessed the latter - although the page does say that the alternatives are 'optional' and once a style is adopted in an article, that should be the one used throughout that article. Either way -  seems ok to me.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington"?
In the information box on the right side, it lists the largest metropolitan area as "Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington" and as a resident, I have never, ever heard anyone include Arlington when referencing DFW. Not from anyone within the Metroplex, not from Non-Dallas Texans, and not even from border state residents. Sounds like activist editing by a Arlington citizen. The title of the article it links to is even "Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area" Terrance the James (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The official title used by the census is indeed Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, and has been so for quite some time. When referring to the MSA, and any census populations thereof, that title is exactly correct.  Using the common term for the region coincides, to the best of my knowledge, so it doesn't hurt to just use DFW.  It's the same as using "Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area" in place of "greater Houston"; most people are comfortable with the latter.  Kuru   (talk)  21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Houston area is now fifth largest, not sixth
The Houston area is now the fifth largest metro area in the USA. This article still says sixth, but the Houston metro area passed the Philadelphia metro area last year.

So that is an error that needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.115.220 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dhenee (talk)"A popular food item, the breakfast burrito, draws from all three, having a soft flour tortilla wrapped around bacon and scrambled eggs or other hot, cooked fillings" It seems to me that this sentence has no place in this article at all, much less in under the pitifully small Culture section. --Dhenee (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion section
"Dallas-Fort Worth is home to three major evangelical seminaries and a host of monasteries." Shouldn't this be cited? How many monasteries are there in a host? This entire blurb about DFW being the "buckle in the Bible Belt" reads like a visitor's pamphlet. How many monasteries are there in DFW? How many are Catholic? Orthodox? Episcopalian? Bullschuck (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

new section
1. In the Airports section:


 * Southwest Airlines, also headquartered in Dallas, has its operations currently at Dallas Love Field.[236]

"also" should be removed from the sentence because there is not another airline that is also headquartered in Dallas; Southwest is the only such airline.

2. :''Texas's second-largest air facility is Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) with. It serves as Houston based Continental Airlines's largest hub.''

There is a stray "with" in the above. ["(IAH) with."]

3. Also, Continental Airlines no longer exists as an independent entity. That sentence should probably be changed to:

"It serves as the largest hub for United Airlines. United became the world's largest airline when it merged with Houston-based Continental Airlines."

4. In the Sports section:


 * The Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex is one of only thirteen American metropolitan areas that hosts sports teams from all the "Big Four" professional leagues.

The actual text that should be linked is the phrase 'American metropolitan areas that hosts sports teams from all the "Big Four" professional leagues.' because that more accurately reflects the content of the linked article. So that means the wikitext should be:


 * The Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex is one of only thirteen American metropolitan areas that hosts sports teams from all the "Big Four" professional leagues.

5. Four of the state's universities, the Baylor Bears, Texas Longhorns, Texas A&M Aggies, and Texas Tech Red Raiders, compete in the major athletics conference in the area, the Big 12 Conference. The TCU Horned Frogs will join the Big 12 in the summer of 2011, while Texas A&M Aggies depart for the Southeastern Conference. The Houston Cougars and the SMU Mustangs will join the Big East Conference in 2013.

This portion is outdated due to conference membership changes. I suggest this replacement text:

The Big 12 Conference, an Automatic Qualifying conference in the Bowl Championship Series, is based in Irving and has four members within the state: Baylor Bears, Texas Longhorns, Texas Tech Red Raiders, and most recently the TCU Horned Frogs, which joined the conference in 2012. The Texas A&M Aggies (as of 2012) are a member of the Southeastern Conference, the conference which has won the most BCS championships. The Houston Cougars and the SMU Mustangs will join the Big East Conference in 2013.

--108.81.25.227 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I've numbered the changes to keep track of them. I've done changes 1, 2 and 4 but reliable sources are needed for the others. Andie ''  ▶(Candy)◀  09:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore the edit request because items 3 and 5 above deal with updating previous conditions to their current state, and thus it is relatively important that they be changed. If it is necessary for me to find supporting references to certain claims then I can do so but I would like to know which specific claims you believe need specific citations. --108.81.25.227 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are some citations, let me know if anything else is needed
 * Reference for merged United & Continental being the world's largest airline:
 * Reference for Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) being United's largest hub, and for Houston being the HQ of Continental:
 * Reference for the Big 12 being an AQ conference in the BCS:
 * Reference for the Big 12 being headquartered in Irving:
 * Reference for TCU joining the Big 12, and the other schools already being members:
 * Reference for Texas A&M joining the SEC:
 * Reference for the SEC having the most BCS championships: Check back later
 * Reference for Houston and SMU joining the Big East:

So #3 above should be: "It serves as the largest hub for United Airlines. United became the world's largest airline when it merged with Houston-based Continental Airlines."

and #5 above should be: The Big 12 Conference, an Automatic Qualifying conference in the Bowl Championship Series, is based in Irving and has four members within the state: Baylor Bears, Texas Longhorns, Texas Tech Red Raiders, and most recently the TCU Horned Frogs, which joined the conference in 2012. The Texas A&M Aggies (as of 2012) are a member of the Southeastern Conference, the conference which has won the most BCS championships. The Houston Cougars and the SMU Mustangs will join the Big East Conference in 2013. --108.81.25.227 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you can't create an account and do the edits yourself? I closed the request again to clear the backlog.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, I have retired from attempting to maintain user accounts on WP after too many violations of WP:AGF against me. Specifically, my two main user accounts are perma-blocked because some suspect sockpuppetry without any real evidence (all they had was a common article [i.e. ONE article] that we both contributed to). Therefore to me it is not worth the hassle, especially since I will never qualify to be an admin, bureaucrat, or arbitrator (I do not edit frequently enough) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.25.227 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps unprotecting articles would be a better option — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.25.227 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What accounts? If this is true, it's worth looking at. Otherwise, this page has an insane history with vandalism and edit warring. Creating an account isn't difficult. tedder (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Latish redone was my user account and someone accused me of maintaining account User:Rhinoselated as a sockpuppet but the latter account is not me. But whatever. --108.81.25.227 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Updating the population of the most populous cities in Texas
The recent 2011 census estimates for cities has been released making the current number outdated now here's the source for the population of cities http://www.census.gov/popest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny20111993 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Untrue information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.40.41 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Texas Tier One Universities
The article has an error, it claims that the University of Houston is one of three Texas colleges with Tier One status, and that is false. It is in contention for Tier One status but has not reached it yet. The three Tier One universities are the University of Texas, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.118.80 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A claim like that requires a reliable source. Buffs (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and we already have one. It's been fixed for you. Excellent catch. Buffs (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Both users above should have read the paragraph thoroughly in its entirety, and should have taken the time to verify citations included in the sentence. See my comments and explanation below.  –RJN (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Carnegie Foundation's Research Classification
The Carnegie Foundation classifies the University of Houston as a Tier One research university. This is the highest classification of research universities. The designation makes UH one of only three Tier One state research universities in Texas.

The text in the article asserts that "The Carnegie Foundation classifies three of Texas's [public] universities as Tier One research institutions: The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, and the University of Houston." This statement is correct as the Carnegie Foundation classifies these three institutions in its highest category of research universities. UH has been classified in the highest research category ("Tier One") since January 2011.

The Carnegie Foundation's Tier One research classification is not the same thing as the "Tier 1" National University Rankings in U.S. News & World Report, or "flagship" status in the State of Texas. The proceeding sentence clarifies that "The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University are flagship universities of the state of Texas." The paragraph goes on to say "The state has been putting effort to expand the number of flagship universities by elevating some of its seven institutions designated as 'emerging research universities.'"

–RJN (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Please change the link from AT&T to AT&T for simplifying disambiguation, per Talk:AT&T. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh...why? It links already to the appropriate page. Please garner consensus before attempting to "correct" thousands of articles in this manner (see the aforementioned talk page). Buffs (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. AT&T Inc redirects to AT&T and the talk section you point to does not have consensus that the link should be AT&T Inc.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The last comment at Talk:AT&T links two other comments from people who understand disambiguation and the reason for the redirect and who support it. Probably half the 2000 articles are flat wrong (they point to AT&T instead of AT&T Corp) and it's very probable these incorrect links will continue to be created. To be able to find the wrong links timely as they are created, it is appropriately WP:BOLD to create WP:NOTBROKEN redirects from the other AT&T pointers to AT&T Inc instead, even though the article itself is the same. (Often Inc is also demanded in the text due to context.) This is the first of 7-8 such edit requests to be declined; the rest were accepted. This edit request should be renewed after more of the links are corrected and sustained, in part via any additional discussion. Please continue any discussion at AT&T talk. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian-speaking Texans
The State of Texas has an estimated 300 thousand Russian-speaking Americans, mostly immigrants from the former Soviet Bloc. Included in this population are Russians, Russian Jews, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Moldavians, Uzbek, Kirghiz, and others. The Russian-speaking population of Texas has continued to grow in the sector of “American husbands-Russian wives”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.18.32 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect County
In section 7.2 Cities and Towns, Corpus Christi is incorrectly listed as being in "Nuences" county. It should be (and is correctly linked to) "Nueces" county. --76.187.192.173 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. Thanks for catching that. Alexius  Horatius  14:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Demographics Numbers
In demographics it lists 70% white and 37% Hispanic. Is that right? JettaMann (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; seems to match the source . Add all of the one race categories + multiples race cat = ~100%, hispanic is shown independent of race.  Kuru   (talk)  19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013
There are 4 incorrect references to "Dallas Morning News", not the correct title of The Dallas Morning News.

50.27.157.148 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

South and southwest
The article says:

Due to its size and geologic features such as the Balcones Fault, Texas contains diverse landscapes that resemble both the American South and Southwest.

Any thoughts on whether the word South should say Southeast?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * American South generally implies old confederate south. It is fine. Oldag07 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this so natural now?? No one from the time of the confederacy is alive today. Everyone who thinks of the Southern United States perceives it as something to contrast with the North; how natural is this?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd never conflate "South" with "Southeast", nor use "Southeast" to refer to Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri. I'm not even sure I'd use "Southeast" for any state not bordering the Atlantic.  Historic usages are still with us in lots of other terms (Midwest, for example), even if they reflect obsolete geographies.  During the Civil War, Texas wasn't even in the Western theater -- it was in the Trans-Mississippi, which was further west than "Western" at the time. Ben (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll add the wikilinks, but according to this site Southern United States is the old confederacy and Southwestern United States ambiguously refers to the lands of the Mexican Cession. Oldag07 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013
The citation for Sam Houstons deposition in the Texas Handbook is incorrect. It should be changed from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/fho73.html to http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdc02.


 * Yes check.svg Done with this edit. Thank you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agriculture and mining
Texas has the most farms and the highest acreage in the United States.[146]

Source 146 does not support the claims made in the prior statement regarding Texas having the most farms and the highest acreage. Additionally this section may be poorly worded as Alaska is roughly 2.5 times the size of Texas in acreage. Perhaps the section should make the claim of the most acres used for agricultural purposes, if a source which supports this claim can be located.
 * In context, the sentence is referring to farm acreage. As you note, I don't see that claim at the cite given. The census (here) seems to have the relevant stats.  Texas does indeed have twice as many farms, and twice as much acreage devoted to farming as any other state by my read.  Since this is an evaluation of a primary source, maybe someone else can review?  Recommend changing the source, and changing the claim to "highest farm acreage".  Kuru   (talk)  02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013
Six Flags Over Texas is in Arlington, not Grand Prairie, and its regional headquarters are in Arlington, also. Kencostlow (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Ken Costlow (registered editor)

Kencostlow (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article doesn't mention the amusement park or the regional headquarters. It mentions "the Grand Prairie-based large national and international amusement park operator Six Flags", whose web site lists two addresses for its corporate offices, one in Grand Prairie and the other in New York. (Why this corporation rates a mention in the lede is beyond me, but that's another thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tone
I just finished reading the California article and I feel that it does a much better job of presenting California in a positive light than the Texas article does. I don't feel the California article is inaccurate, but it certainly makes it seem like a much nicer place to move my family and business to than the Texas article does, which is why I'm reading them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.193.37 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, you have every right to get an account and help edit this page if you want.
 * Second, we are trying make a balanced article, so we are including the warts and the good stuff about Texas. I don't see anything about the budget crises in California, or the IOU's they have had to pay their civil servants. And while this article doesn't have everything wrong with the state, we are discussing the 2003 "gerrymandering" of the state, and how our agriculture has been hammered by the recent droughts.  Oldag07 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review
This is no-longer even close to a GA article. Will go over the problems and list them at a GA review in a few days. --23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

White Hispanic
There is no citation in the demographic section, some joker apparently thinks all Hispanics are white Hispanic when clearly in the same section it is listed that more than 10% of the population is "some other race", which is the typical designation that Hispanics who are of mestizo origin give themselves. Because the article is locked I'm requesting that the total number of white Hispanics be amended to be only 26% and the total number of whites to be amended to only 70%, which would be the correct percentages. White Hispanic is not a Hispanic with any white ancestry at all, Hispanic is not a race. A white Hispanic is a Hispanic who identifies as part of the white race, mestizos do not consider themselves to be white.64.189.66.48 (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure when that got altered again; I've re-added the specific census numbers, fixed some of the links (the asian indian link pointed to the native american article), and removed anything not specifically stated in the cite. Kuru   (talk)  12:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Higher Education and Stadium name update
Texas Tech University should be listed under Tier 2 schools. Also, "Cowboys Stadium" mentions should be updated to "AT&T Stadium."

Caleb 11/21/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.156.17 (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity
In subsection Race and ethnicity, there is a list of ethnicities. If I sum up all the groups, I end up with a percentage above 100%. I suppose, the group of Europeans is too large in this table. Thanks, Felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:208:FD4D:0:0:0:1026 (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It adds up to 100%; do not include the hispanic/latio number at the end. Kuru   (talk)  14:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a question
Is Texas the hottest state in the USA? Well its my favoret state. IM moveing there when Im 18. IM going to Denton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlynn Coach (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It ranks up in the very top tier, but at least according to this table, it is not the absolute hottest. http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-temperatures.php
 * Keep in mind too, that the rankings are based on overall averages, so much will depend on where in the state the city/town/area is located, and even such factors as humidity to take into account and to just how hot it "feels". For instance, roughly two-thirds of the state are in the humid to sub-humid sub-tropical part of the country, so 100 degrees in Lubbock may not "seem" as hot as 100 degrees in Denton.  Hope this might have helped a bit! TexasReb (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

hey folks
austin is the capitalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.43.7 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

History ending
The end of the history section seems very unsatisfying, and abrupt. I have been trying to write something to add to the end.

''Since the 1970s Texas population growth has outpaced that of the nation. Texas had a population of 11,186,730, in 1970, and in 2010, the state's population totalled 25,145,561. One factor leading to this increase was an oil boom in the 1970s. High rates of immigration from latin America, has led to a sharp rise in Texas' hispanic population.''

''The state's increased population has led to economic diversifation and even more growth. Companies such as Texas Instruments and SBC (now AT&T), have played a large role in the high tech industry. Due to the state's rapid growth, the state's major metropolitan areas have experienced significant suburban sprawl.''

I think this is more appropriate for the History of Texas page. But i think it is a start. I really would like suggestions. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014
Just wanted to let you know that on the state of Texas page.....you have Six Flags over Texas listed as in Grand Prarie...that is incorrect. You can call them or just google their location. Six Flags is in Arlington, Texas.....it's just minutes from the Texas Rangers Ballpark in Arlington and the Dallas Cowboys stadium....all which are in Arlington, Texas.

Thank you, Lisa Whitlock

Lwhitlock71 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Though that particular park is in Arlington, their headquarters are indeed in Grand Prairie. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mr. McBarn; the passage refers to the holding entity, not that specific park (one of many with that name). Kuru   (talk)  13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term Tejano should be list as archaic
Both Texian and Tejano are archaic terms for the original Spanish, then Mexican citizens inhabiting Texas before she became the Republic of Texas. Texian being of Anlgo descent and Tejano being of Hispanic. They became Texans with no differentiating between Anglo or Hispanic heritage. Post WWII when Mexican immigrants began to cross over into Mexico, they began to call themselves Tejano but they are far from the traditional term. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.151.21 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to venue names under sports pictures
The home stadium of the Dallas Cowboys is AT&T Stadium. Further, the home field of the Texas Rangers is Globe Life Park in Arlington. Stormgade4 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Globe Life Park was originally called the Ballpark in Arlington. It was declared during construction, that it would never have a corporate sell-out name. Looks like somebody lied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.151.21 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014
Under the subtitle RAILROADS the following sentence has the word "drive" repeated. I believe you should remove the first occurrence of "drive.", but keep the hyperlinked second "drive."

Part of the state's tradition of cowboys is derived from the massive cattle drives which its ranchers organized in the nineteenth century to drive drive livestock to railroads and markets in Kansas, for shipment to the East.

The second drive is a hyperlink. It should stay but the word "drive" that precedes it should be deleted.

Please change the sentence to:

Part of the state's tradition of cowboys is derived from the massive cattle drives which its ranchers organized in the nineteenth century to drive livestock to railroads and markets in Kansas, for shipment to the East.

Frequencydrive (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The beginning of the article should include the local pronunciation of this placename using the phonetic alphabet, similar to other articles. Historic (Mexamerindian?) pronunciation would also be welcome. I can't add this myself as I have no idea how to pronounce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.114 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling errors, tenses
Under ' 20th century to present ', disenfranchised is not spelled correctly.

Under ' Politics ', " Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio consistently leans Democratic " should be changed to ' lean '.

Under ' Energy ', commercialisation is not spelled the way Texans would spell it.

Under ' Higher Education ', Texas A&M System should be denoted ' Texas A&M University System ', as is the hyper-link it connects to.

Under ' Arts ', additional Fort Worth museums should include the Museum of Science and History, the Aviation Museum, and Sid Richardson Museum.

Under ' Commerce ', sections are needed for ' Airports ' and ' Ports ', please; thank you :)


 * I fixed the energy and politics issues. 'Airports' and 'ports' already appear under Transportation. I too use disenfranchised instead, but disfranchised is okay as well, I think. Alexius  Horatius  18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about airports and ports; just hadn't read far enough down - oops :)

Texas joined The Confederate States, before, at the beginning or during the Civil War?
Fourth paragraph down the article says, "A slave state, Texas declared its secession from the United States in early 1861, joining the Confederate States of America 'during' the American Civil War." Shouldn't the end of that sentence have said more accurately and clearly, "...joining the Confederate States of America at the 'start' of the American Civil War." Because didn't Texas join the Confederate States at the very beginning of the war or before? I was confused when I first read the sentence because as far I am aware, and what I've read elsewhere, I thought Texas joined right at the start or earlier and not later during the war? Texas joined the Confederate States in March 2, 1861 and the American Civil War began later, in April 12, 1861. Sam Houston was out of office before the war had even begun so he didn't block Texas' entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.23.227 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely correct. Texas was one of the charter members of the original 7 state Confederacy, and was indeed a member before the War ever began. So far as Sam Houston goes, it is a little more complicated.  He accepted secession, but objected to Texas' entry into the CSA (which in fact had already been approved by the other 6 Lower South states already assembled in Montgomery, Alabama), on the grounds that the secession convention had no power to do so and that, unlike actual secession, it was not put up for a state-wide referendum.  Thus, he was deposed from office when he failed to respond after his name was called out three times to come up and take an oath of allegiance to the new Confederate Constitution.  But anyway, thanks for bringing all this up! I will take a look at it and do the necessary revisions to make it reflect historical accuracy subject, of course, to the approval of other editors. TexasReb (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion, and the accompanying article as it currently stands, fails to reflect the fact that there was never any such thing as the "Confederate States of America", nor was there any secession from the US to establish such. There was an attempt to do so and an accompanying armed rebellion, however the US Constitution does not provide for the secession of any of the nation's member states, and the rebellion (known as the "American Civil War") failed miserably (as decisively demonstrated by Gen. William T. Sherman in his march through the south and by President Lincoln at Appomattox but with consequences, many believe, lasting to this day). The supposed "Confederate States of America" was never recognized by the world powers of the day and therefore never really existed; it was a wholly imaginary figment of the minds of traitorous southerners alone.


 * Furthermore, it wasn't Texas itself that was re-admitted to the Union in 1870: since there wasn't (and isn't) any such thing as secession from the U.S., Texas never seceded from the U.S., thus it couldn't be re-admitted to the U.S. Rather, it wasn't until 1870 that the Texas citizenry was deemed by the rest of the nation to be sufficiently reformed of its disgracefully traitorous, rebellious ways that the federal government allowed Texans to resume electing their own federal representatives and sending them to Washington, D.C. to participate in national affairs.


 * The language of the Civil War section of the article at hand has been corrected to reflect the previous obliviousness to or disregard of these historical facts. BLZebubba (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the remark attached to one of the March 28 edit reversions by Rjensen that "foreign recognition is separate", actually it isn't: recognition by the other nations of the day is the only standard that matters when considering whether a country existed or not; accordingly, since the "Confederate States of America" never attained recognition by Great Britain, France, nor Spain (nor any other country for that matter), there really was (were?) never any "Confederate States of America", the revenues collected by modern nostalgic southern huckster-authors of glorified Civil War pseudo-histories who assert otherwise notwithstanding.


 * Once again, your obvious hostility and POV's are noted. While there was no foreign recognition, the Confederacy was granted belligerent status and the Union conducted its war policy in line with that which would be used in war with another nation. Also, your tirade as to illegality of secession can be easily countered by that while the Constitution did not specifically allow for secession, neither did it prohibit it, which is actually the more relevant point. The federal government was not authorized by the said document to use force to prevent any member state from withdrawing from the voluntary compact created by sovereign states which were separately recognized as such by the British in the Treaty of Paris. Also the 10 amendment provided that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government was reserved to the states.


 * Also, if you are using the Texas v. White case to make the point that Texas never left the Union, then this too fails as in that the case did not directly involve secession but rather, bond sales made during the War. To make the ruling they did -- after the War was over -- it was necessary to attempt to prove the state had never seceded.  However, this is known as "dicta", meaning that it is an incidental opinion by the court that is not binding on the specific issue at hand, even though it may be very persuasive.  Thus, no ruling has ever been issued on secession per se.


 * Finally, it is interesting that Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote told Sec. of War Edwin Stanton that ''"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."


 * Regardless, it is a waste of time and not the point of this page to get into a lengthy debate over the legalities or not of secession...there are arguments on both sides of the question. We can carry that on somewhere else if you like.  The fact is, the people of the State of Texas voted to secede, and the state joined the Confederate States of America and such is today recognized as a fact of Texas history in everything from our history books to Six Flags over Texas displays, and the Great Seal of the Confederacy is imprinted on the floor of the State Capital, and etc.  So that is what is important and relevant to an article on Texas as concerns its history.  You own editorializing (or mine or anyone elses' for that matter) has no place in the piece.  TexasReb (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Saying Texas V. White didn't deal with secession is dead wrong. The case specifically ruled, regardless of the matter that initiated the case, on the question of secession, past and future. I suggest you review our wiki page on the ruling.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You can "suggest" all you want -- in your seemingly arrogant manner -- but I suggest in turn you do a bit of reviewing yourself and brush up on the term "dicta." The Texas v. White case only dealt with a bond issue as the one directly before the court.  The "logic" used to get to the ruling really amounts to opinion only.  It has no binding on as fare as stare-decisis is concerned.  For one thing, it was made 4 years after the fact.  For another, the issue of secession itself is one SCOTUS can never really "rule" on.  If states secede, by popular vote and/or proper legislative means, then what the court says is irrelevant and totally beside the point; the seceding states are no longer bound by any ruling of the court. Further, the court does not take moot cases thus, the issue would never come up before the fact and never be accepted at all.  TexasReb (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014
Can someone please correct a factual error in the sentence: "Texas is a "tax donor state"; in 2005, for every dollar Texans paid to the federal government in federal income taxes, the state received approximately $0.94 in benefits.".

According to the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_spending_and_taxation_across_states Texas is not a "donor" state, they receive more money back in Federal spending than they contribute in Federal taxes. - the current sentence in the Texas page is based on data from 2005, the data in the referenced Wiki page is from 2012, thus we should be using the latest data

The correct version should be: "Texas is a "tax recipient state"; in 2012, for every dollar Texans paid to the Federal Government in federal income taxes, the state received approximately $1.26 in benefits."

Thanks & Best Regards, Jeff

Lott0004 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There appears to be some difference between the article you mentioned and its sources. That's one of the reasons we don't consider WP to be a reliable source. I'll try to sort out the problem at that article, but please find a reliable source for this if you want to re-open your request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, the esteemed Economist magazine published a 20-year survey (1990-2009) confirming that Texas sends more to D.C. than it receives back, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union which should be creditable support for donor state status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.72.31 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of the Federal money that goes to Texas is for of military spending. Some statistics count this as federal money as going to Texas even though it provides military protection to all US states. Just something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Riggerson (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014
Under greenhouse gasses section, please change to "Texas emits the most greenhouse gases in the U.S.[35][36][37] The state emits nearly 1.5 trillion pounds (680 billion kg) of carbon dioxide annually. As an independent nation, Texas would rank as the world's seventh-largest producer of greenhouse gases.[36] Causes of the state's vast greenhouse gas emissions include the state's large number of coal power plants and the state's refining and manufacturing industries.[36] Although people often consider the vast amount of greenhouse gasses Texas produces, its relatively large population of residents is sometimes failed to be taken into account. Texas has a per capita emissions value of 25.59 metric tons, finishing lower than 13 other states, nevertheless still above the national average." Also add these citations please.

Tom Riggerson (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The cowboy and Spain.
This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. The similarities with the cowboys from Texas are amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish name
Should the Spanish name of the state be included in the infobox of the article? The state does not have Spanish as an official language.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that was added. The template is for use when the native name differs from our anglicization; I can assure you the natives here refer to it as Texas.  added it a few weeks ago without an edit summary, maybe he can comment on intent.  Kuru   (talk)  23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The natives I am guessing are Tejanos? Than why not the Comanche name, or any other language of Native Americans that live/lived in Texas?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Natives in this context simply being "the people who currently live there." For example, we call a certain tract of land Germany, but the natives insist on still calling it Deutschland.  The template makes sense there.  Here, not so much.  It appears Neddy1234 has removed the text in question, by the way.  Kuru   (talk)  03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish influence
The Spanish influence is obvious in Texas and the US. Even the cowboy, made by Hollywood a symbol of the US, is of full Spanish influence, particularly of Southern Spain.

This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes, with traditional music. too. The similarities with the cowboys from the US are amazing.

More information on the Cowboy, a symbol of Texas, and its full Spanish origins could be in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2015
I would like to adjust the first two sentences of the Economy section.

FROM:

As of 2010, Texas had a gross state product (GSP) of $1.207 trillion, the second highest in the U.S.[147] Its GSP is comparable to the GDP of India or Canada, which are the world's 12th- and 11th-largest economies, respectively.

TO:

As of 2014, Texas had a gross state product (GSP) of $1.648 trillion, the second highest in the U.S. Its GSP is greater than the GDPs of Australia and South Korea, which are the world's 12th- and 13th-largest economies, respectively.

Ug2215 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've made the changes you've asked for. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dallas/Forth Worth
Dallas Fort Worth is the 4th largest Metropolitan area in the Nation Houston is the 5th largest. Someone has edited the page to say Dallas/Forth Worth and Houston are the 8th and 10th largest respectively.

The current MSA shows DFW and Houston as 4th and 5th largest

Dallas Fort Worth is indeed the 4th largest metro area and Houston the 5th. Someone has incorrectly edited the page to reflect 8th and 10th largest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80E2:9E60:F032:BEB3:2075:8FB4 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing that. It's been fixed. Sorry it took so long. Woodshed (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion of metro areas and stat areas; two different things. The sentence in the lead explicitly refers to metro area, and indeed links to the ranked list at List of metropolitan areas of the United States, where DFW and Houston are listed as 8 and 10. I've restored to that for now so that it is at least unbroken. No objection if someone wants to change the language to one of the stat areas and change the corresponding list link (List of Core Based Statistical Areas?), but you'll need to figure out which type of stat area (core, primary, etc). May be simpler to leave as is.  Kuru   (talk)  02:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct names of sports venues
The Texas Rangers play at Globe Life Park in Arlington and the Dallas Cowboys play at AT&T Stadium.

Stormgade4 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015
Please change "Spanish: Tejas" in the first sentence to "Spanish: Texas or Tejas", as the spelling "Texas" is the one recommended by the Royal Spanish Academy (http://lema.rae.es/dpd/?key=texas), with Tejas as an alternative. The "Texas" spelling is also the primary one used on the Spanish Wikipedia.

2.103.110.100 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done JustBerry (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016
In the section title Government and Politics, under the bold section State Government, the last sentence of the second paragraph reads

"Thus, the FY 2015 dates from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015."

This should be "Thus, the FY 2015 dates from September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2015." instead.

129.1.58.66 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Talk! 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)