User talk:S730910/Texas Ranger Division

Organization
Hey there. So the main Ranger page is, clearly, a mess for a number of reasons. It's full of hagiography, but it also repeats a lot of what is present on the separate "History of the Texas Ranger Division" page. This kind of splitting happens on Wikipedia in order to prevent articles from getting too long. It might make sense for the main page, for example, to only describe the organization, and then for separate articles to exist for history and for popular culture representation, for example. In this case, though, it doesn't strike me that the length of the main article warrants its splitting up. In any case, it raises the question fo the best location for your contribution. Should it go in the "history" section, in the separate "history" article, or should you create a new subsection on the main article titled "controversy" or even "corruption"? This third option would make clear the relation of your contribution to the tenor of the rest of the article, much of which amounts to a celebratory retelling of exploits. Ihiyotl (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Expansion
This is a beautifully concise description of the Canales investigation. I've been thinking of how you might expand it. Are there other cases of abuse that surfaces in the testimony that you can describe? Can you say more about the contemporaneous public opinion of the investigation or its legacy? Particularly, how was it (and by extention, how were the rangers) viewed by the Mexican American population in Texas at the time? Alternatively, are there related events from this period in ranger history that you might also add sections for? (And can you think of a citation to add on the "History of..." main page where one has been called for in relation to the massacre of unarmed civilians in Saltillo on the orders of Samuel Walker during the Mexican American War?) Ihiyotl (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral language
This looks excellent and basically ready to move into to the public article. I did notice, however, that your language builds in the assumption that all of the testimony is true. It probably is, but from what I gather, it is also the case that there were no court rulings to this effect. Thus, technically, what one can state with the highest degree of confidence is that these things were testified to be true. In order to not invite contentiousness, you might consider ways to qualify your language. For example:

"violent policing practices that the state force routinely used" might become "violent policing practices that Canales alleged were routinely used by the state force"

"the many instances of abuse that appear throughout the transcript" might become "the many accounts of abuse that appear throughout the transcript"

"Witnesses also revealed that violence" might become "Witnesses also testified to violence"    Ihiyotl (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)