This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Texas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | History of Texas was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
Reasons given are :
Is there some reason this article doesn't even have a link to this subject? Am I missing something?-- Lord Kinbote 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ya what's up with that? 76.94.163.118 ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Paragon 13055
The article says President Polk signed the bill on March 1 to authorize admitting Texas. He didn't take office until March 4. You guys need a Canadian to tell you this? (grin) I don't know which part is right, so I've flagged it "contradiction".
66.96.28.244 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
yall need to add more history about the state because what yall have on here is not helping me too much and it sure wont help anyone else if it aint helping me...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.206 ( talk) 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This section may lend
undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. |
Wikipedia frowns on "revisions to earlier versions of an article" without any explanation as to why.
According to Wikipedia: - Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. 'The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page.
The revisions I made re: the birth of Texas are drawn straight from the Handbook of Texas online - a creation of the Texas historical society. They are NOT my opinions.
They are a summary of what is said "factually" in those documents.
If you have a problem with what is said in that publication, and various other historical texts, take it up with the University of Texas.
I am just tired of the whitewashing of Texas heritage to make it seem like it was a product of kindly folk, desirous of living a free life forced to take up arms against a murderous, oppressive Gov't.
The truth as the "handbook of Texas Online" a publication of the Texas Historical Society makes it abundantly clear that the original Texans were not saints, nor visionary's.
This is truth based on the endess array of "historical papers both American, Texan and Mexican." Again it is NOT my opinion.
For example, stating The Republic of Texas was borne out of the desire to own slaves is FACT, not fiction. To say that some of the original Texans were in fact illegal American immigrants into Mexico who disrespected the laws and refused to learn Spanish is FACT, not opinion. The Republic of Freedonia a historical fact, is in truth what so many Americans feel could be the eventual result of uncontrolled illegal mexicans coming over our present border.
History repeats itself. To learn from history, one must respect that history often has information we do not like. Perhaps the Texas fanboy who is covering this article (I do not know who, because in typical fashion he did a blind reversion) only wants a sanatized version of Texas History on Wikipedia in order to burnish the myth of Texas.
I prefer factual history, and the fact that one of if not the BIGGEST dispute between Texas settlers and Mexico was the legality of Slavery is BEYOND DISPUTE. It is recorded in numourous places. Why this is so, is not so relevent, but I do note this.
If you have a problem with my edit, then prove it wrong or incorrect. As the Wiki guidelines are clear on repeated reversions with out explanation - they are FORBIDDEN.
Wikipedia frowns on people who feel they can force facts to conform to their view.
I have not done that. Read the Texas Handbook Online - the historical sections and you will see NOTHING I wrote is speculative, but drawn directly from there a publication of the Texas Historical Society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmorales@hot.rr.com ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
You also need to say about clothes years ago, style of buildings, lifesyle because none of this helps im researching texas 100 years ago please experiment with my idea it would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.83.103 ( talk) 10:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
What is "Department of Texas" in the context of the American Civil War? (see eg. this.) I could not find the answer in the article. Qblik talk 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it true the state was offered the option of splitting in 5 at statehood? What were the divisions? Trekphiler 12:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph, 2nd line has "better enemies." You might have meant bitter enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiosputnik ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be a title change. But I’m not sure what it should be.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I'm having a little trouble with that wording. Perhaps someone can clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernscribe ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says, " In 1860 30% of the population of state total of 604,215 were enslaved." Now, I'm guessing this means the slave pop was 600K & change, but it's not really clear; it could as easily mean total state pop is. Which is it? Trekphiler ( talk) 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
El Paso is a major part of Texas. It needs some history. When was it established and by whom.
It was part of New Mexico or Chihuahua until 1850. 70.115.171.76 ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Need info on Czech Texans. If you have been to the town of West, Texas or halletsville you have been to a Czech community. they came major waves of immigrations like the Germans.
Should it be mentioned that the Germans were largely anti-slavery and were persecuted during the Civil War. There was a massacre of Germans trying to leave for Mexico to avoid Confederate conscription. Skimaniac ( talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
My recent made big changes to this page
But while editing and pressing preview, I also made some non related changes:
Oldag07 ( talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This section may lend
undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. |
Texas seceded from two federal systems when doing so would allow its slave owners to hold their property in slavery. It was only after 1830, when slaves in Mexico were declared to be freed, that Texas seceded from Mexico. Then within a score of years, the impetus for Texas and other slave states to secede from the United States was the election of the abolitionist Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln.
The history of freedom's development is complex. By succeeding from Mexico, Texans became free to adopt the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus and other treasures of the common law of England, and the Republic of Texas promptly did so in its first legislative sessions. And the Republic of Texas immediately adapted and adopted a new constitution modeled on the constitution of the United States, another treasure of freedom under law.
But the freedom won by the secession of Texas from Mexico was freedom for whites only -- similar to the "whites only" freedom won in the secession of the original British American colonies from England. And unfortunately, a key freedom craved so urgently as to justify the risks of Texas' repeated armed insurrection was the freedom of whites to keep owning black slaves.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background on Feb 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.102 ( talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This article really glosses over the last quarter of the 19th century as though it didn't really matter. In reality this was a very important period for Texas. Basically it was during this period that the state emerged on the national and international scene becoming the world's dominant cotton supplier and the port of Galveston becoming one of the nation's busiest ports. There were many firsts during this time in terms of cultural and urban development (particularly in Galveston, of course). Railroad construction exploded after the civil war.
The article currently has a section covering the period up to 1876 and then skips right to the 20th century. It basically just mentions quickly the mistreatment of blacks in the latter 19th century and that's it. This seems to me a major hole in its coverage.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't if I'm the only one that cares but the article goes back and forth between using "Native American" and "Indian" as an ethnic reference. At minimum the article should adopt a uniform convention (though, of course, organizational names, established names of events, and quotes would be exceptions).
As a point of reference, I took a look at Native Americans in the United States and it looks like that article exclusively uses "Native American" (except in quotes, etc.). Though I don't want to be overly politically correct I tend to think that is a better term to use in modern writing.-- Mcorazao ( talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed "Scholars estimate that humans have lived in Texas for approximately 11200 years," which someone claimed to have pulled out of the TSHA article on Texas prehistory. The article gives at least 11200, which means something else entirely. Moreover, it's very bad even as a rough date, since at the Gault site and elsewhere Texas has abundant Clovis culture sites (in fact, the richest so far discovered in the Americas,) and the entire culture was already gone by 9200 BC. - LlywelynII ( talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well done, and I very much like the point of view Hämäläinen offers in his book; but the one and only footnote will not do (page 2) as it does not adequately support what has been provided. Hämäläinen cites his own sources-- and those ought to be consulted as primary. Can someone help as I do not own that book?
By the way, and not related to anything currently in this section, but because this article faces many points of view which are increasingly in conflict:
Hämäläinen's description of the 1840 Battle of Plum Creek following the Council House Fight mentions the Rangers being armed with Colt Revolvers (page 216)-- seven years before Walker brought the first ones. In understanding the significance of how that battle was waged, and how it changed subsequent tactics, it is not a small error which he has now introduced into modern scholarship. That is a great example as to why we always seek to use primary sources-- especially from a source sometimes considered "revisionist" as Hämäläinen has been claimed by some scholars to be.
Likewise, what we emphasize, as good historians, needs to be balanced: Anglos will mention the Council House Fight, pointing out that the Comanche had reneged by bringing in only one white captive, and she (the fifteen year old Lockhart girl) was in terrible shape, her nose burned off to the bone; but rarely mention that Hispanic captives had also been brought. Comanche, in turn, will leave off mention of the condition of the Lockhart girl, and focus on the Anglo demanding captives be brought by a tribe which did not hold those captives. See Utley's good piece on this in his Lone Star Justice. - cregil (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's discuss this...
The following had been added by user Tex-mex1618 and subsequently removed by another editor:
This subject needs to be included as it relates to specifically Texas history. Now, "How to do it?" -- cregil (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the PV violations just mentioned. So this...
That needs to stop.
Just as The British are considered "Imperialist" in 20th Century Palestinian history, but the Ottomans are rarely branded as such. I'm an Anglo whose family had settled in Mexico-- so I get to protest being tarred while the Spanish Mexican are white-washed.-- cregil (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I work at a large research library. We are digitizing unique historical documents and making them available as primary resources (links to digitized items with information about those items) on the Internet. These items include a wide range of photographs, manuscripts, and imprints. I am following Wikipedia's policy "to encourage librarians and others in cultural heritage institutions to place links to their primary resources (WP:CURATOR)."
I was hoping to gain feedback on the possibility of adding an External Link to appropriate digitized material in our collections.
As an example, the following are some of our digital collections. These deal with Texas and Texas history
I would also appreciate feedback on placing an image via Wikimedia in the appropriate section of this Wiki page.
For example, a Texas and the Civil War image in the Confederate Texas and Reconstruction: 1860–1876 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear lord this person is persistent with the vandalism. You see the amount this page has been vandalized right BethNaught? Can this page not be protected for now? InfernusIsHiding -Talk 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Any interest in creating a Timeline of Texas article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) (chronology){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- M2545 ( talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of Texas. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I just added the more references needed section tag at the top of the article as almost all claims in the lead are unsourced, though the article as a whole is generally fine. I know that the lead generally is not as citation-heavy as other sections, but in this case it contains many specific and substantive claims that seem to need direct references. SaturnFogg ( talk) 05:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
These include the years 2040 and 4070 2601:249:1582:1E40:6D58:790E:3AA1:D25 ( talk) 00:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Texas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | History of Texas was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
Reasons given are :
Is there some reason this article doesn't even have a link to this subject? Am I missing something?-- Lord Kinbote 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ya what's up with that? 76.94.163.118 ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Paragon 13055
The article says President Polk signed the bill on March 1 to authorize admitting Texas. He didn't take office until March 4. You guys need a Canadian to tell you this? (grin) I don't know which part is right, so I've flagged it "contradiction".
66.96.28.244 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
yall need to add more history about the state because what yall have on here is not helping me too much and it sure wont help anyone else if it aint helping me...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.206 ( talk) 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This section may lend
undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. |
Wikipedia frowns on "revisions to earlier versions of an article" without any explanation as to why.
According to Wikipedia: - Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. 'The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page.
The revisions I made re: the birth of Texas are drawn straight from the Handbook of Texas online - a creation of the Texas historical society. They are NOT my opinions.
They are a summary of what is said "factually" in those documents.
If you have a problem with what is said in that publication, and various other historical texts, take it up with the University of Texas.
I am just tired of the whitewashing of Texas heritage to make it seem like it was a product of kindly folk, desirous of living a free life forced to take up arms against a murderous, oppressive Gov't.
The truth as the "handbook of Texas Online" a publication of the Texas Historical Society makes it abundantly clear that the original Texans were not saints, nor visionary's.
This is truth based on the endess array of "historical papers both American, Texan and Mexican." Again it is NOT my opinion.
For example, stating The Republic of Texas was borne out of the desire to own slaves is FACT, not fiction. To say that some of the original Texans were in fact illegal American immigrants into Mexico who disrespected the laws and refused to learn Spanish is FACT, not opinion. The Republic of Freedonia a historical fact, is in truth what so many Americans feel could be the eventual result of uncontrolled illegal mexicans coming over our present border.
History repeats itself. To learn from history, one must respect that history often has information we do not like. Perhaps the Texas fanboy who is covering this article (I do not know who, because in typical fashion he did a blind reversion) only wants a sanatized version of Texas History on Wikipedia in order to burnish the myth of Texas.
I prefer factual history, and the fact that one of if not the BIGGEST dispute between Texas settlers and Mexico was the legality of Slavery is BEYOND DISPUTE. It is recorded in numourous places. Why this is so, is not so relevent, but I do note this.
If you have a problem with my edit, then prove it wrong or incorrect. As the Wiki guidelines are clear on repeated reversions with out explanation - they are FORBIDDEN.
Wikipedia frowns on people who feel they can force facts to conform to their view.
I have not done that. Read the Texas Handbook Online - the historical sections and you will see NOTHING I wrote is speculative, but drawn directly from there a publication of the Texas Historical Society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnmorales@hot.rr.com ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
You also need to say about clothes years ago, style of buildings, lifesyle because none of this helps im researching texas 100 years ago please experiment with my idea it would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.83.103 ( talk) 10:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
What is "Department of Texas" in the context of the American Civil War? (see eg. this.) I could not find the answer in the article. Qblik talk 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it true the state was offered the option of splitting in 5 at statehood? What were the divisions? Trekphiler 12:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph, 2nd line has "better enemies." You might have meant bitter enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiosputnik ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be a title change. But I’m not sure what it should be.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I'm having a little trouble with that wording. Perhaps someone can clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernscribe ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says, " In 1860 30% of the population of state total of 604,215 were enslaved." Now, I'm guessing this means the slave pop was 600K & change, but it's not really clear; it could as easily mean total state pop is. Which is it? Trekphiler ( talk) 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
El Paso is a major part of Texas. It needs some history. When was it established and by whom.
It was part of New Mexico or Chihuahua until 1850. 70.115.171.76 ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Need info on Czech Texans. If you have been to the town of West, Texas or halletsville you have been to a Czech community. they came major waves of immigrations like the Germans.
Should it be mentioned that the Germans were largely anti-slavery and were persecuted during the Civil War. There was a massacre of Germans trying to leave for Mexico to avoid Confederate conscription. Skimaniac ( talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
My recent made big changes to this page
But while editing and pressing preview, I also made some non related changes:
Oldag07 ( talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This section may lend
undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. |
Texas seceded from two federal systems when doing so would allow its slave owners to hold their property in slavery. It was only after 1830, when slaves in Mexico were declared to be freed, that Texas seceded from Mexico. Then within a score of years, the impetus for Texas and other slave states to secede from the United States was the election of the abolitionist Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln.
The history of freedom's development is complex. By succeeding from Mexico, Texans became free to adopt the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus and other treasures of the common law of England, and the Republic of Texas promptly did so in its first legislative sessions. And the Republic of Texas immediately adapted and adopted a new constitution modeled on the constitution of the United States, another treasure of freedom under law.
But the freedom won by the secession of Texas from Mexico was freedom for whites only -- similar to the "whites only" freedom won in the secession of the original British American colonies from England. And unfortunately, a key freedom craved so urgently as to justify the risks of Texas' repeated armed insurrection was the freedom of whites to keep owning black slaves.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background on Feb 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.102 ( talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This article really glosses over the last quarter of the 19th century as though it didn't really matter. In reality this was a very important period for Texas. Basically it was during this period that the state emerged on the national and international scene becoming the world's dominant cotton supplier and the port of Galveston becoming one of the nation's busiest ports. There were many firsts during this time in terms of cultural and urban development (particularly in Galveston, of course). Railroad construction exploded after the civil war.
The article currently has a section covering the period up to 1876 and then skips right to the 20th century. It basically just mentions quickly the mistreatment of blacks in the latter 19th century and that's it. This seems to me a major hole in its coverage.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't if I'm the only one that cares but the article goes back and forth between using "Native American" and "Indian" as an ethnic reference. At minimum the article should adopt a uniform convention (though, of course, organizational names, established names of events, and quotes would be exceptions).
As a point of reference, I took a look at Native Americans in the United States and it looks like that article exclusively uses "Native American" (except in quotes, etc.). Though I don't want to be overly politically correct I tend to think that is a better term to use in modern writing.-- Mcorazao ( talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed "Scholars estimate that humans have lived in Texas for approximately 11200 years," which someone claimed to have pulled out of the TSHA article on Texas prehistory. The article gives at least 11200, which means something else entirely. Moreover, it's very bad even as a rough date, since at the Gault site and elsewhere Texas has abundant Clovis culture sites (in fact, the richest so far discovered in the Americas,) and the entire culture was already gone by 9200 BC. - LlywelynII ( talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well done, and I very much like the point of view Hämäläinen offers in his book; but the one and only footnote will not do (page 2) as it does not adequately support what has been provided. Hämäläinen cites his own sources-- and those ought to be consulted as primary. Can someone help as I do not own that book?
By the way, and not related to anything currently in this section, but because this article faces many points of view which are increasingly in conflict:
Hämäläinen's description of the 1840 Battle of Plum Creek following the Council House Fight mentions the Rangers being armed with Colt Revolvers (page 216)-- seven years before Walker brought the first ones. In understanding the significance of how that battle was waged, and how it changed subsequent tactics, it is not a small error which he has now introduced into modern scholarship. That is a great example as to why we always seek to use primary sources-- especially from a source sometimes considered "revisionist" as Hämäläinen has been claimed by some scholars to be.
Likewise, what we emphasize, as good historians, needs to be balanced: Anglos will mention the Council House Fight, pointing out that the Comanche had reneged by bringing in only one white captive, and she (the fifteen year old Lockhart girl) was in terrible shape, her nose burned off to the bone; but rarely mention that Hispanic captives had also been brought. Comanche, in turn, will leave off mention of the condition of the Lockhart girl, and focus on the Anglo demanding captives be brought by a tribe which did not hold those captives. See Utley's good piece on this in his Lone Star Justice. - cregil (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's discuss this...
The following had been added by user Tex-mex1618 and subsequently removed by another editor:
This subject needs to be included as it relates to specifically Texas history. Now, "How to do it?" -- cregil (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the PV violations just mentioned. So this...
That needs to stop.
Just as The British are considered "Imperialist" in 20th Century Palestinian history, but the Ottomans are rarely branded as such. I'm an Anglo whose family had settled in Mexico-- so I get to protest being tarred while the Spanish Mexican are white-washed.-- cregil (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I work at a large research library. We are digitizing unique historical documents and making them available as primary resources (links to digitized items with information about those items) on the Internet. These items include a wide range of photographs, manuscripts, and imprints. I am following Wikipedia's policy "to encourage librarians and others in cultural heritage institutions to place links to their primary resources (WP:CURATOR)."
I was hoping to gain feedback on the possibility of adding an External Link to appropriate digitized material in our collections.
As an example, the following are some of our digital collections. These deal with Texas and Texas history
I would also appreciate feedback on placing an image via Wikimedia in the appropriate section of this Wiki page.
For example, a Texas and the Civil War image in the Confederate Texas and Reconstruction: 1860–1876 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear lord this person is persistent with the vandalism. You see the amount this page has been vandalized right BethNaught? Can this page not be protected for now? InfernusIsHiding -Talk 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Any interest in creating a Timeline of Texas article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) (chronology){{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- M2545 ( talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of Texas. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I just added the more references needed section tag at the top of the article as almost all claims in the lead are unsourced, though the article as a whole is generally fine. I know that the lead generally is not as citation-heavy as other sections, but in this case it contains many specific and substantive claims that seem to need direct references. SaturnFogg ( talk) 05:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
These include the years 2040 and 4070 2601:249:1582:1E40:6D58:790E:3AA1:D25 ( talk) 00:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)