From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleTexas has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
August 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 31, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 21, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Texas: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2009-08-02

Change the date of the Louisiana Purchase from 1801 to 1803

Undue weight in history section[edit]

There is undue weight on COVID-19 and the governors response. COVID should have a relatively brief mention in the history section, not a long paragraph with trivial information. The history section is for the uppermost information, like independence. I believe it should be shortened to about 2 sentences, and the governor response shouldn't be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Then let us discuss. The information pertaining to re-opening may be agreeably regarded as trivial after the first, however the governor's response should be mentioned as it is a critical event pertaining to the rise of cases among other issues. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Re-openign is definitely trivial. The governors action is also trivial because it's not relevant to Texas history, if you want to talk about the governors response go talk about it all day at COVID-19 pandemic in Texas. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The long paragraph about the power outage is giving undue weight to the subject. It probably needs to be removed entirely since it has little to do with broad Texas history, you don't see us discussing every hurricane in the history section. At the very least everything after 2nd sentence should be removed. Saying 3 million lost power is just trivial not important. Ted Cruz fleeing to Cancun, AOC raising some money, and Beto making some phone calls couldn't be less relevant to broad Texas history. Firstly, that's all WP:RECENTISM, should barely even have mention on their own Wikipedia pages much less Texas history. Right now the sentence talking about them is giving their actions equal weight to the Battle of the Alamo which also only has one sentence in the history section. Another thing is that sentence violates WP:NPOV since it only serves to make Cruz look bad and AOC and Beto look good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I also removed the Dallas shooting since it also is WP:RECENTISM and is not relevant to broad Texas history. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The actions of the governor in the midst of a global pandemic in the twenty-first century should not be deemed irrelevant to Texas history. It is known without a doubt that executive leadership shall have precedence within the history textbooks of tomorrow, particularly their actions during such a pandemic (which from ten years will assuredly, again, be in the textbooks of tomorrow). Next, it does pertain to broader Texas history as it pertains to its typical historical precedent of anti-federal regulatory governance and culture, which are definitely going to be discussed in the now-syncretic political climate of that state via political classes. In addition, one cannot allege it being against WP:NPOV because they establish they do not attack anyone, neither are they unverifiable claims. An issue similar to this has occurred with the article J. Delano Ellis as it appeared information attacked them, yet it was verifiable information others simply didn't like or deem appropriate for Wikipedia, solely because their apparent favorite leadership was not praised through the whole article like typical propaganda pieces or affiliated websites to them; also, personally writing, Cruz made himself look bad with this in national press, not Wikipedia. The Dallas shooting should be deemed relevant to broad Texas history as well as a critical yet dangerous response to police brutality, which sparked further debate such as evidenced in this article, yet it can be left out in contrast with these pandemic and snow-storm related debacles. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and another word: please watch your WP:Civility, as responding to this I felt a spirit of condescension with the initial response to mine. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, there's a lot unpack here. The history section is not supposed to be a place to detail every action by the executive leadership. We don't go into detail about any executive leader in the broad Texas. I think the virus itself is sort of notable for inclusion. I've said before there is a place to mention all those things the governor did, it's just right here in the history section. Your argument about NPOV is fair, I'm not gonna dig into that because it's not really worth a discussion. You didn't really comment on the Cruz comment being undue, so I'll just clarify, my problem with the sentence about Cruz, AOC, and Beto is that in 200yrs it will never be brought and is has nothing to with Texas history. It's just not relevant enough. The winter storm like the Dallas shooting is just WP:RECENTISM, we don't mention anything about Hurricane Ike or any other natural disaster, and certainly not how a congresswoman from a different state reacted to it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand and agree your reasoning. The Cruz issue is however one conundrum of great confusion, I'd respond. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
So if you agree then what are you wanting done here different? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Your information has enlightened me on the removal of the Abbot and Cruz statements. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you agree we should remove the winter storm? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with that. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
You are going to need to explain how it's notable to broad Texas history. Most of the things we see in the section are broad like Californians moving to Texas or the oil industry, not WP:RECENTISM like natural disasters. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Then shall this be in the weather section for historic weather events pertaining to winter, now that I think about it? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
No it shouldn't be, it should be a section about Texas history. Weather events, especially if they don't cause lasting change or are just really significant like the hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900, aren't notable for inclusion. Having a section on historic weather event's on the Texas wikipedia would be really weird and unprecedented. I would oppose it because such a section would give WP:UNDUE weight to weather events. If you want to create an article about "historic weather events in Texas" that would be pretty neat, and we could link it maybe in the climate section, but a section on this article is not warranted. The winter storm is just not very important. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity[edit]

The history section is inobjective contains a lot of false/racist terminology, e.g. giving the population number only of white people as if the native ones weren't people, calling the Hispanic settlers natives etc. It requires reedition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "white people" doesn't exist in the article. Could you narrow down the location of the problems? | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that unsigned contributor needs to do a little more reading on the history and relations of the term "race", "white", and Natives and Hispanics. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

History section too specific[edit]

"Senator Ted Cruz came under scrutiny when it was released that his family traveled to Mexico during Winter Storm Uri.[149][150] Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Beto O'Rourke began efforts to raise money and goods for Texans in the storm.[151]" should not be included in the history section. This is so minor relative to Texas' history, and even a little politically biased. These two sentences are not needed and should be removed. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

NorfolkIsland123, All that and more is being discussed above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
This contributor appears to be pushing a WP:Agenda of White supremacy as evidenced by their contribution history, targeting anything that goes against racial viewpoints of theirs, in particular. Please investigate further Iamreallygoodatcheckers. If it looks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Take a look at their contribution for the Parler page as further confirmation. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
TheLionHasSeen your comments about NorfolkIsland123 are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia or any where for that matter. When I looked at his supposed "contribution history, targeting anything that goes against racial viewpoints of theirs" that you used as evidence of white supremacy, I expected something serious to be there. All he did was post on a talk page saying that an article needs protection and has a NPOV issue. None of that indicates him being a white supremacist. I even checked around his contribution history, nothing I saw. For you to say that was unwarranted, unsubstantiated, damaging, and an immoral attack on NorfolkIsland123's character. You claim I'm in violation of WP:CIVIL because you don't like my tone, but you the audacity to label NorfolkIsland123 with a term that has ruined peoples lives. You have violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I regularly discuss controversial topics and have never seen anyone doing anything of this nature. You need to give NorfolkIsland123 an apology and remove that hurtful damaging comment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
For your sake and recommendation, I just may recant. But, observing the contents of the following contributor at hand in detail, in contrast with what appears to be a lackluster investigation, one can determine again that it appears (notice the terminology in bold), they are committing a WP:AGENDA on the basis of conservative and racially-charged principles, in what appears to be an attempt to rewrite articles or erase anything which makes their particular and publicly politically biased character seem negative, though it is WP:verifiable. In addition, it also appears to be such due to attempts to remove verifiable information pertaining to the phenomenon of "white women calling police on black men" which were not accepted, alongside what appears to be a rant in accordance with the Don Lemon controversy pertaining to his statements on white supremacists as the context was forgone. It can currently be observed at Talk:Don Lemon. Quotes were partially given in their defense when utilizing additional sources, it can be determined Don Lemon's statement was not "anti white" in general. The sources from Newsweek and USA Today may be read here. These are not alternative media sources for the left or right, which further guarantees little political commentary, in contrast with what CNN or Fox News, One America News, or Newsmax may have published as a response to this. Quoting the text, that its full context may be witnessed, Lemon clarified, "We have to stop demonizing people and realize that the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." Finally, in personal defense, notice the terms appear again over verbatim determining them as a white supremacist. Seeking to argue with the quack statement, that is saying one may allege without determining them, until verifiable evidence can be presented. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: Also, I recommend you take a read at this article for further research purposes: How White Supremacists Use Victimhood to Recruit, published by The Atlantic, as the article also submits things that appear from within such communities as well: "The group’s newsletter, the NAAWP News, ran items with headlines such as "Anti-White Discrimination Accelerates,” Berbrier notes. Today, this sentiment survives as the myth that affirmative action, for instance, constitutes “reverse racism.". - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not a white supremacist and I am disgusted by the fact that you have called me a white supremacist. Like all people with a brain of their own, I do have biases. I try to negate these biases, but sometimes they may be seen through my editing. I'll give you that I am slightly biased to the right, but that is no justification for you to call me a white supremacist. I strongly denounce the sickening idea of white supremacy, or any other sick type of racial, ethnic, religious, etc. supremacy. Please apologize and we can leave this behind us. Thank you. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation of "Texas"[edit]

The modern-day state of Texas is derived entirely from the Centralist Republic of Mexico; specifically from parts of Coahuila y Tejas, Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, and Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The history being such, it seems the Spanish pronunciation (Spanish: Texas or Tejas, pronounced [ˈtexas] (About this soundlisten)) should be relevant, just as it is in the case of New Mexico and Florida. DiverDave (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fortune 500 companies in Texas[edit]

The opener says that Texas has the 2nd most Fortune 500 companies; however I believe as of 2021 Texas is tied with California. Wouldn't that be pertinent information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talkcontribs) 15:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the annual list is published until May for FY2020. Kuru (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessment[edit]


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The biggest issue is the article's length. It is currently 15,630 words, and the recommended length is no more than 10,000 words. In addition, there is some content that is missing citations, and information that needs to be updated. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)