Talk:Texas/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Texas a Republic for 10 Years, Not Nine.

I am changing the text stating that Texas operated as an independent country for nine years to say 10 years. The reason is that Texas became independent in 1836, and the treaty between the U.S. and the Republic of Texas agreeing on annexing/merging the countries was signed in 1845... which is nine years... but the actual transfer of power took place in 1846, not in 1845, which means that it operated as a Republic for 10 years, not nine.

--WisTex 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Healthcare and medical research

In the section on "health care", someone deleted info about the other large health care centers in Texas.

The entire section is now only about Houston's Texas Medical Center. If that is so, then it doesnt belong here in this article, and should be on the Houston page.

Texas is not just Houston. The medical centers in Dallas in fact have more famous researchers than the one in Hosuton.

Im adding the deleted info back in.--Zereshk 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Southwestern Medical Center is not a medical center—it is a medical school of the UT System. I searched Google for "Southwestern Medical Center" and "South Texas Medical Center" and could not find any website that denote their official existence as a "medical center." Just because there is a medical school in a city does not make it a "medical center." There is NO such thing as a "Southwestern Medical Center"—there could be a "South Texas Medical Center," but I have yet to find an official website for one or any other website that would support the existence of a "South Texas Medical Center." In Texas, there is only one official "medical center"—Texas Medical Center—located in Houston. The Texas Medical Center is an official entity and there is an official website for it. TMC has many hospital/healthcare institutions and medical schools all doing extensive research and developments. Enlighten me by giving a few sources stating that the "South Texas Medical Center" and "Southwest Medical Center" exist and recognized as a "medical center." RJN 09:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I just performed another search—this time on the Online Handbook of Texas and yet failed to find anything on "South Texas Medical Center" and "Southwestern Medical Center." I did find an article on the Texas Medical Center though—there is only one official and recognized "medical center" in Texas and that is the one located in Houston. There isn't an article on "Southwestern Medical Center" and "South Texas Medical Center" because they do not exist. RJN 09:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Southwestern Medical Center is a school but it is affiliated with Parkland Memorial Hospital and I believe Zale Lipshy or St. Paul. They have an extensive clinic system that is associated with the hospitals and there is major research going on all the time. It is not a hospital per se, but is an extensive medical school/clinic/research facility. Maltmomma (chat) 15:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Medical school and medical center are not mutually exclusive. — Laura Scudder 16:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RJN,

Dont look too hard. Ive got enough links for you.

I dont know why you keep deleting Texas' non-Houston medical centers from the article.

  1. First of all, youre wrong about UT SW Med Center in Dallas. It's not just a school. It's just called the UT SW Med Center. But rather it is a conglomerate of many institutes and hospitals. Hence the word "center". Have you been there? Theyre pretty huge (e.g. American Heart Association is headquartered in Dallas). In fact, UT SW Med Center outnumbers Houston's Medical Center in Nobel Laureates in Medicine by 4 to 1.
  2. The South Texas Medical Center is responsible for a $12 Billion Bio-med industry, and employs 27,000 people. You cant call that small. Oh, and a link? Here. And if you still doubt it, I'll take a damn picture off of Interstate 10 that says "South Texas Medical Center".

I'm therefore adding those two back in. A mention of them is not going to hurt the greatness of Houston by any means.--Zereshk 09:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...if the section is supposed to talk about medical research, I wonder why UTMB doens't make an appearance. It has the only non-governmental Biosafety Level 4 labs in the country. — Laura Scudder 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It's also enormously important in terms of its indigent care. I'd think UTMB should be listed in any thumbnail of Texas' "health care crown jewels." · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Temple either. I know it's not to well known, but Scott and White is listed as one of the top 100 hospitals in the nation, and even better in cardiac and other feilds. A&M school of medicine and one of Texas' few remaining VA hospitals. Joe I 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe this section should be just about medical research. Since the article is about Texas, this section should cover the major health institutions in the state, at least by mention. Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas has a large amount of influence in the North Texas area, as well as distinctive for being where both President John F. Kennedy and his purported assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, died. Wesmills 01:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out that it currently isn't living up to the second half of it's title Healthcare and medical research not saying that it should focus only on research by any means. — Laura Scudder 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree about UTMB as well.--Zereshk 03:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tejas purchased by Moses

The Father of Texas is Moses Austin: "Prior to 1821, Texas was part of the Spanish colony of New Spain. Moses Austin managed to buy land from the Spanish government in Texas. Moses purchased it with the help of Baron Felipe de Bastrop who presented the land scheme to the royal governor of Texas Antonio de Martinez. The governor passed along the favorable idea to his superior Commandant General of the Eastern Interior Province Joaquin de Arredondo. Moses was granted 200,000 acres (800 km²) of land of his choice."

These are called impresario grants. There were several granted with regard to Texas and anglo immigrants, but Moses Austins was definitely one of the first of that nature.

The Son of Moses is Stephen Austin: "After Mexican independence in 1821, Texas became part of Mexico and in 1824 became the northern section of Coahuila y Tejas. On 3 January 1823, Stephen F. Austin began a colony of 300 American families along the Brazos River in present-day Fort Bend County and Brazoria County, centered primarily in the area of what is now Sugar Land. This group became known as the "Old Three Hundred." The "Conventions" of 1832 and 1833 responded to rising unrest at the policies of the ruling Mexican government."

I am Garry Denke 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

People, THe earliest American settlers in Texas were "invited " by the mexican government to settle provided that they become Mexican citizens; obeying Mexican laws. THey rebelled and sought the help of the US army in a land grab. Ironically, the Estado de Tejas had a considerable illegal alien problem with all the American squatters in the region hoping for some cheap land. Just clarifying things a bit, boys. I am here to help.
Gary, the imprasario grants were real and legal, and they continued even after Mexican independence. The one administered by Lorenzo de Zavalas (first VP of Texas) is an example. If you read any of the first hand accounts of the settlers, the silly idea that somehow this was a conspiracy among several thousand farmers to steal land (in some collectivist sense?) would fade away. I suppose Juan Seguin and de Zavala (writer of the Mexan Constitution Santa Anna overthrew) were part of this stealing conspiracy?
Ciao, (Dynamisto)
The Father of Texas, the Son of Moses, "invited illegal alien squatters", Ciao, (Dynamisto)
Garry Denke 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Source for state molecule

Despite UT professor Jonathan Sessler lobbying for texaphyrin, the buckyball was selected.[1] Johntex\talk 04:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Verification requested

Someone please verify the statement "The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), in Galveston, also contains the only non-governmental Biosafety Level 4 laboratory in the United State" in the Healthcare and medical research section of the article.

I have a source saying that the only such center is located at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, not UTMB: see 3rd paragraph from bottom

Thanx.--Zereshk 19:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears you are correct, in that this is incorrect. SBFR's page (and subsequent link at [2]) say "When the lab 'went hot' in March 2000, it became the only operational BSL-4 lab owned by a private institution." UTMB's page mentions nothing about being the only private BSL4 lab. A press release by the company that built it, Bioscrypt, says "The new BSL4 Laboratory is the first full-sized maximum containment facility on a U.S. university campus." ([3]) Also, UTMB's lab began construction in 2004, five years after SBFR's did. Wesmills 09:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are Texans Southerners or not?

They share many similarities as well as differences. If you ask southerners "What'd ya think about Texas?". They will most likely say "Dem's cowboys is a hell of a football team but ain't nothin like dem' dawg's"(or what ever college team they support) which I learned from my stay in the Atlanta area. They also have a big of an ego as we texans do. They just love all of their south from Louisiana to North Carolina they can brag and tell you why they should have won the war. But my question is are we Texans southerners or not, even though we fought for the confederacy its not really glamourized here, while over there in school instead of saying the pledge they sing dixie to the confederate flag (a common joke in Metro Atlanta). I think Geography would have alot to do with it. The south is so similar to the last detail, it seems like an endless amount of land with all the same vegetation. Sometimes a nice drive to the Houston area from my home in Dallas reminds me of the trees so common in Georgia, the graceful tall pines in houston, and the flowering magnolia's, with large majestic live oaks and spanish moss draped trees with the small palms remind me how beautiful the southland was it truly is God's country. No wonder generations of people still remember those who fought for it. Don't get me wrong I love Texas but is it okay to say your both a southerner and a Texan?

Yes. Texas is in the South. There were slaves here, an agricultural economy, and was part of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In my opinion, it's one of the most Southern states, and no doubt the most Southern outside the Deep South. Look at this article: Southern United States for more info.
P.S. In the article, it says that Texas is always listed as a Southern state. So there you go. :) Stallions2010 17:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So there you go? From an international perspective, it's a Western state. Abroad and in my homeland, Cuba, Texas is known as a place where everybody is a cowboy, where people eat beans around a campfire in the center of a circle of stagecoaches, where gunfights between six-shooter "packing" outlaws and Sheriffs at high-noon are common, and horses are ridden everywhere; not an image associated with Georgia. Add that to the fact that people who are very sensitive to regional North American accents (usually persons from abroad whom watch lip movements carefully when trying to understand persons speaking a different language) know (100%) that the Texas "twang" is quite different from a "Southern" accent. Lastly, Southern states are not known for their Spanish influences; mostly WASP heritages are present in the rest of the South (save for Louisiana and Florida). The fact that there was always and continues to be a strong Spanish presence in Tejas pretty much eviscerates your unsubstantiated claim that "it's one of the most Southern states, and no doubt the most Southern outside the Deep South." Regions are bound by not only geographical ties, but cultural ties. East Texas has more in common with Arkansas than the rest of the state, but that fact alone does not tie the entire state to the South. The fact is that a lot of the state shares no cultural ties with the South (instead of WASP in other regions of the state, there is heavy Spanish, Czech, German, and Polish presence). Here is the final spear: there were slaves in parts of Arizona and New Mexico (not many, but it was legal), too, so that is not the end of the argument. I'm not saying that it is or is not a Southern state; what I'm saying is that the debate is not so simple. I doubt anyone really cares if the state is part of the South or not; if it is, great. If not, no problem.70.178.43.126 21:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As a native Texan, I can tell you that Texas is both. It's both Southern and Western, of both but not quite either, its own glorious entity unto itself. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Amen, sister Kate, the correct answer is BOTH - I too am a native Texan, and a native West Texan at that, though both of my parents were born in New Mexico. I am a proud descendant of four Confederates and "supper" is my evening meal. Fried chicken, chicken fried steak, fried okra, and ice-tea are popular foods around here along with Mexican food. Many of the "folks" who settled in West Texas are from other parts of Texas, the other southern states or their ancestors are, although I can think of one prominent West Texan who uses that word whose family came from up North. Florida also has a lot of Spanish influence, it also has ranches and cowboys, but few question its place in the South. H2O 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be the geographical bind, and even New Hampshire has ranches, which clearly misses the point anyhow; "Alex, I'll take Perspectives and Stereotypes for $200, please."70.178.43.126 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
My observation is that Texas is more a "Southwestern" state (part of the wild west), not really part of "the south", at least culturally speaking. I could easily feel the difference when I went to school up in Tennessee. Them people consider Dixie Land (SC, bama, Georgia,...) the true south, not Texas. From my perspective, this Texas is a "whole other country". And for the better! :)--Zereshk 11:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Only people ignorant about Texas from other parts of the South take that position—most Southerners' welcome Texas as part of the South. (Just the South's regional notice board on Wikipedia.) Before the advent of the dime-store Western Texas' place in the South really wasn't in question. West Texas is very much the Southwest, but East Texas is not only the South it's also the Southeast. Southern culture and heritage is strong throughout even in the most Southwestern areas of Texas (See: Texas' old South roots run deep by The Desert Mountain Times.)
Keep in mind that regional classification for regions such as the South is important to many people because for them it is not just a region, but a culture and heritage (pretty much an ethnicity for them), and in that context saying that so and so is not really Southern because they are from Texas is just as hurtful as saying that someone is not really Cuban or Irish. It's a slap-intended or not.
Zershek, come up to Marshall, and I'll treat you to a traditional meal with fried chicken, purple hull peas, cornbread, and sweet tea. We'll drive around and see the Kudzu, Magnolia, Wisteria, and other flowers in bloom, and then eat some cat and mudbugs on Caddo. Then see if you can tell me among the hat ladies and the bubba with the stars and bars on his shirt, that Marshall and East Texas are not the South.-JCarriker 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link to an article in today's Lubbock Avalanche-Journal describing new Texas Tech Lady Raiders basketball coach Kristy Curry as a "perfect fit" for the school. Curry, a Louisiana native, is leaving Purdue (Indiana) to "come home" to the South (although I am sure the small salary increase might also have had something to do with it). [4] H2O 19:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I think Texas is more of a Southern state than a Southwestern one. In some areas of Texas, there isn't any noticeable Southwestern influence. But in all of Texas there is a Southern one. Even out in El Paso, there were slaves, and Southern settlers moved there; the same is for the Panhandle. Dallas has an especially strong Southern flavor, similar to that of Atlanta's. Almost all of Texas voted to secede from the Union before the Civil War. From an international perspective, yes, Texas is a Western state, but that's just stereotyping, not the actual truth. Most everyone where I live considers themselves a Southerner. Stallions2010 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Texas is essentially a Southern state, even if not a typical one. And most of the things that make Texas TEXAS are Southern in origin. With the exeption of out around El Paso and parts of far west Texas, the Southwest thing has a whole different meaning than it does with New Mexico and Arizona. In the book "Cultural Regions of the United States" by Raymond Gastil, most of Texas (far East Texas was listed as Deep South) is put into a sub-classification of the Greater South, that is called the "Western South"..which makes much better sense than confusing it with the true desert Southwest. Texas history, culture, etc, shares little in common with that area and it has been my experience that residents of New Mexico and Arizona tend to reject any sense of identity with Texas, and think of us as Southerners and part of the South. In fact, something related to that particular point is, I think, very relevent. To wit, a Southern Focus Poll (John Shelton Reed, U.North Carolina Chapel Hill) spanning some ten years once measured the boundaries of the South by where a majority of residents in the particular states considered themselves to be in the South. By an overwhelming majority (86%), Texans surveyed said they lived in the South. And in another study (I can't remember who did this one, although I have it around somewhere), a many more Texans polled considered themselves Southern than Western.

    • To JCarriker...I agree with you totally on that one. I live in North Texas, but am a frequent visitor to your neck of the woods, particularly Caddo Lake and Jefferson (plan to eventually retire out there, in fact). East Texas is not only Southern, but Deep South Southern. I have met visitors from states like Mississippi and Alabama over that way and a common theme among them is that that area is "just like home." All their impressions of Texas had come from those old western movies and etc., and they expected to see just desert and cactus. LOL Texas is Southern...and East Texas is part of the Deep South.

Metropolitan areas?

Last time I checked, Victoria isn't a metropolitan area - the entire county only has a population of ~85,000. Yet the table in the Metropolitan areas section lists Victoria as a metropolitan area with a population of 113,450. It says the table came from the 2004 US Census estimate, but I think whoever created the table may have accidentally put a future estimate into the table rather than an estimation of the current population. That was just a guess, but I know that Victoria doesn't have 100,000 people. - User:SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs

I put that table up. Victoria MSA (metropolitan statistical area) is officially defined by the U.S. Census as a metropolitan area consisting of three counties: Calhoun, Goliad, and Victoria.[5] Victoria MSA has a population of 113,450 as of the July 1, 2004 official U.S. Census estimate. [6] All of the figures and metropolitan areas in that table are correct per the official definition of metropolitan areas and their populations by the U.S. Census. —RJN 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time _I_ checked, Longview did _not_ have 200,405 citizens. In fact when I drove by the sign today, it said something along the lines of 74,000.Kar98 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The population listed is not the city proper—it is for metropolitan areas defined by the U.S. Census as of November 2003 and 2004, and December 2005 definitions. Longview MSA (metropolitan statistical area) has a population of 200,405 as of the July 1, 2004 U.S. Census estimates.[7] All the figures in that table are correct! —RJN 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. Regardless, most people think of a metropolitan area as a large city with a population of, say at least 500,000, a large central business district with tall buildings, and little to no space between the city limit lines of the central city and its suburbs. The only criterion of these that Victoria even comes close to meeting is the last one -- in a few decades Victoria proper will probably expand to the city limits of Telferner, Nursery, and Bloomington, but it hasn't gotten there yet. Following this definition you can see how one might be confused seeing Victoria, Longview, Texarkana, and a few others on this table of metropolitan areas.
The phrase "metropolitan statistical area" sounds to me like congressional districts, except the former is used by the Census Bureau rather than for electoral purposes. Treating metropolitan areas who fit my above description and "statistical areas" as the same can be misleading: Victoria MSA contains only two cities with a population over 10,000 (Port Lavaca barely breaks that barrier), and the inclusion of Goliad and Calhoun counties in this statistical area seems arbitrary. 80% of the population in the statistical area is Victoria.
To alleviate confusion, I propose that the metropolitan statistical areas with only one "central" city with a population of less than 100,000 be noted as such. I would like to be bold, but I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia and don't want to fuck up your pretty table. :P --SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 04:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There's disagreement throughout the country between the locals and the census bureu on what is a metropolian area, not just Texas. However, the Census Bureu's lines are more even than almost all congressional districts, because the Census Bureu never splits a county when considering what is or isn't part of a metro area. In many parts of the county, this does indeed greatly inflate the land area of a metro area compared to how the locals would define it. (It generally actually doesn't greatly increase the population of the metro area; because in fact the main reason the locals consider portions or most of a county the census bureau says is in the metro area that they don't is the very lack of population there. Jon 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)