This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should probably have not been created. The information here could easily be incorporated into the Legal status of Texas article which recounts the arguments for the continued existence of the Texan state. The word Secession is also controversial. If Texas was not legally annexed via a Joint Resolution of Congress, it is not legally a state and secession is not a correct term. Instead, Texas is only seeking restoration as an internatioanlly recognized state. This is an old issue.
In addition, the Legal status of Texas article follows the trend of other American independence articles such as the Legal status of Hawaii and the Legal status of Alaska. The naming convention used in the Legal status of Texas should be retained. LarryQ ( talk) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we have a problem with this article due to this article being suggested to be merged with two other pages. Should we do anything about this to solve this problem? -- 82.112.148.35 ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
ETA: The governor has publicly riduculed secession calling it ridiculous. He did pander to secession in the past.
TNM is not a legit movement, unless you're counting terrorists as legit. The 250k figure is ludicrous and seems to be anyone who ever visited their website. Likely they have 1/10 that.
Added this, not havingt it is a major omission from the topic: In reaction to these secession petitions, a number of petitions were also circulated, calling for secession petitions to be ignored, petition signers to be deported or have their citizenship stripped, and for secession from Texas and to remain part of the United States. Petitions included calls for Austin, El Paso, Houston, and South Texas to secede from Texas, saying Texas secessionist have virtually no support in major cities or the predominantly Mexican-American regions.
This is not encyclopedic or even referenced content. Either work these issues into the general article, or rewrite this section as actual, referenced from credible sources, text. A random bulleted list is not something belonging in a proper wiki article. As only one or two have any citation, they also border on original research. I don't want to unilaterally remove them, but will check back later to see if there is any discussion/opposition. Jbower47 ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a request to merge the articles Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group) to this article. Some editors commented on the talk pages of the other articles creating confusion. Editors please respond with "Support" or "Oppose" and any "Comment"(s). Otr500 ( talk) 04:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There should be mention of the petition mentioned here Drlf ( talk) 00:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Texas secession movements"? Notice the capitalization and the plural. Comments? TuckerResearch ( talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. TuckerResearch ( talk) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The last line of the first paragraph: "Texas Nationalist Movement headed by Dennis Miller." The first line under the heading "Texas Nationalist Movement": "The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), headed by Daniel Miller,"
Dennis or Daniel? Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6033:E6:312F:1BBE:332D:3E1D ( talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the statement about Vermont & one other state not having been nations on the grounds that it has no citation, no support. Were not all the colonies independent states (nations) before they agreed to the Articles of Confederation? IMHO: Americans are so used to using "state" today for our non-state states, that we forget what the word state actually means, a nation. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
The "right to secede" is a faulty concept. Any group has a right to secede once it attains the power & will to secede. The Declaration of Independence has a rather broad right to secede concept argued. If "We the People" of Texas ever have the power & desire to secede, they will then have the "right." History is full of boundary changes, nationality redefinitions. It happens all the time (remember the Soviet Union???). It is only a matter of time (if history continues as it has been doing for the last 4000 years) before the USA will be redefined, become larger or smaller, or splits. There is nothing eternal or indivisible about any nation. Divide they do & divide they will. And what about "right to secede" under the US Constitution? Whenever 5 men on the SCOTUS decide that such a right exists, it will exist! ( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
I removed one piece of minor text whose reference was a phd dissertation that was not published, that I could find, anywhere of note. In looking through the references, I found a lot of similar citations. In general, we prefer to have published works/secondary sources, of more reliable nature. While not looking askance at the time and effort that go into PHD dissertations, I don't think that student papers should be used as a predominant source, especially if they are being used as references for statements made in wiki's voice (as many are here). I would recommend removing these references/associated text and/or replacing with references from better sources. Jbower47 ( talk) 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
While it is mostly careful not to state anything in Wiki's voice, this overly-large section seems wholly given over to expressing the views (uncriticized or without due weight to other views of the organization as a fringe movement) of the organization. Not only is this a lot of real estate for the one organization, it reads as a puff piece for their aims. I'd like to see this edited down to just an objective description of the group and their core aspects, or at the very least daughtered to a sub-article. Wiki's purpose is not to be a brochure for the organization. Jbower47 ( talk) 14:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Texas secession movements. 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 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The {{ POV}} template, attached in July 2014, seems to have been resolved, in part pursuant to the discussions above. The article seems neutral, stating the opinions of various secessionists without adopting them, but also noting their unfashionability among Texas Republicans and the study of the groups as "terrorists." I have removed the template. Yesterday, I copy-edited a couple sections, not meaning to change the substance. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
If Texas, or any other state does not have the legal free right to independence, the term 'United' is a lie, 'Captive' or any equivalent term would be correct. As a British person I absolutely appreciate the fortunate right we had to independance from the EU, every so-called 'united' nation on earth should have that right. Middle More Rider ( talk) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is covering two different movements. There are likely enough references to sustain a second article about the secession of Texas and to move this article to one of the following titles, in order of preference: Texas independence movement, Proposed secession of Texas, or Texit. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should probably have not been created. The information here could easily be incorporated into the Legal status of Texas article which recounts the arguments for the continued existence of the Texan state. The word Secession is also controversial. If Texas was not legally annexed via a Joint Resolution of Congress, it is not legally a state and secession is not a correct term. Instead, Texas is only seeking restoration as an internatioanlly recognized state. This is an old issue.
In addition, the Legal status of Texas article follows the trend of other American independence articles such as the Legal status of Hawaii and the Legal status of Alaska. The naming convention used in the Legal status of Texas should be retained. LarryQ ( talk) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we have a problem with this article due to this article being suggested to be merged with two other pages. Should we do anything about this to solve this problem? -- 82.112.148.35 ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
ETA: The governor has publicly riduculed secession calling it ridiculous. He did pander to secession in the past.
TNM is not a legit movement, unless you're counting terrorists as legit. The 250k figure is ludicrous and seems to be anyone who ever visited their website. Likely they have 1/10 that.
Added this, not havingt it is a major omission from the topic: In reaction to these secession petitions, a number of petitions were also circulated, calling for secession petitions to be ignored, petition signers to be deported or have their citizenship stripped, and for secession from Texas and to remain part of the United States. Petitions included calls for Austin, El Paso, Houston, and South Texas to secede from Texas, saying Texas secessionist have virtually no support in major cities or the predominantly Mexican-American regions.
This is not encyclopedic or even referenced content. Either work these issues into the general article, or rewrite this section as actual, referenced from credible sources, text. A random bulleted list is not something belonging in a proper wiki article. As only one or two have any citation, they also border on original research. I don't want to unilaterally remove them, but will check back later to see if there is any discussion/opposition. Jbower47 ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a request to merge the articles Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group) to this article. Some editors commented on the talk pages of the other articles creating confusion. Editors please respond with "Support" or "Oppose" and any "Comment"(s). Otr500 ( talk) 04:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There should be mention of the petition mentioned here Drlf ( talk) 00:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Texas secession movements"? Notice the capitalization and the plural. Comments? TuckerResearch ( talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. TuckerResearch ( talk) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The last line of the first paragraph: "Texas Nationalist Movement headed by Dennis Miller." The first line under the heading "Texas Nationalist Movement": "The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), headed by Daniel Miller,"
Dennis or Daniel? Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6033:E6:312F:1BBE:332D:3E1D ( talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the statement about Vermont & one other state not having been nations on the grounds that it has no citation, no support. Were not all the colonies independent states (nations) before they agreed to the Articles of Confederation? IMHO: Americans are so used to using "state" today for our non-state states, that we forget what the word state actually means, a nation. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
The "right to secede" is a faulty concept. Any group has a right to secede once it attains the power & will to secede. The Declaration of Independence has a rather broad right to secede concept argued. If "We the People" of Texas ever have the power & desire to secede, they will then have the "right." History is full of boundary changes, nationality redefinitions. It happens all the time (remember the Soviet Union???). It is only a matter of time (if history continues as it has been doing for the last 4000 years) before the USA will be redefined, become larger or smaller, or splits. There is nothing eternal or indivisible about any nation. Divide they do & divide they will. And what about "right to secede" under the US Constitution? Whenever 5 men on the SCOTUS decide that such a right exists, it will exist! ( EnochBethany ( talk) 17:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
I removed one piece of minor text whose reference was a phd dissertation that was not published, that I could find, anywhere of note. In looking through the references, I found a lot of similar citations. In general, we prefer to have published works/secondary sources, of more reliable nature. While not looking askance at the time and effort that go into PHD dissertations, I don't think that student papers should be used as a predominant source, especially if they are being used as references for statements made in wiki's voice (as many are here). I would recommend removing these references/associated text and/or replacing with references from better sources. Jbower47 ( talk) 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
While it is mostly careful not to state anything in Wiki's voice, this overly-large section seems wholly given over to expressing the views (uncriticized or without due weight to other views of the organization as a fringe movement) of the organization. Not only is this a lot of real estate for the one organization, it reads as a puff piece for their aims. I'd like to see this edited down to just an objective description of the group and their core aspects, or at the very least daughtered to a sub-article. Wiki's purpose is not to be a brochure for the organization. Jbower47 ( talk) 14:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Texas secession movements. 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 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The {{ POV}} template, attached in July 2014, seems to have been resolved, in part pursuant to the discussions above. The article seems neutral, stating the opinions of various secessionists without adopting them, but also noting their unfashionability among Texas Republicans and the study of the groups as "terrorists." I have removed the template. Yesterday, I copy-edited a couple sections, not meaning to change the substance. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
If Texas, or any other state does not have the legal free right to independence, the term 'United' is a lie, 'Captive' or any equivalent term would be correct. As a British person I absolutely appreciate the fortunate right we had to independance from the EU, every so-called 'united' nation on earth should have that right. Middle More Rider ( talk) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is covering two different movements. There are likely enough references to sustain a second article about the secession of Texas and to move this article to one of the following titles, in order of preference: Texas independence movement, Proposed secession of Texas, or Texit. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)