Talk:Texas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

WikiProject:Texas

There is a new WikiProject dedicated to improving and expanding Texas related topics on Wikipedia. Check it out and see if any of y'all want to sign up as participants. -JCarriker 05:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bug reports

The picture isn't showing up. -- Zoe

Offsite image. They got disabled awhile back. I was transferring them over for awhile (the ones we can use, anyway) & then stopped. --KQ

Miscellaneous comments & questions

Formerly sovereign states

"Texas was the first state in the United States to be a sovereign nation before joining the United States". This phrasing is inaccurate because it suggests that Texas (1n 1836) was independent before Hawaii (in 1795). I believe that you intended to consider the order in which they joined, and I've made changes to reflect that.

The current version's "Apart from aboriginal nations and the Vermont Republic, Texas became the first sovereign nation which the United States annexed" isn't really any better. Since it joined the union well after the Vermont Republic, it's not first, is it? Otherwise, this statement is akin to "I'm the best in the world, except for everyone that's better." Kaszeta 19:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Red River

Is the Red River in the Texas/Oklahoma area ever called the Red River of the South? I disambugiated the one in Minnesota by calling it the Red River of the North, which it IS called, but I've never heard the southern one called the Red River of the South. -- Zoe

I've certainly never heard it called that, though I've never lived further north than Austin. -Ben

I've never heard that usage either -- but I suspect it's because the Red River that forms the northern border of Texas and then heads down through Louisiana was settled far earlier than that little stream up in the Frozen Nawth, and there was nothing at the time that it had to be disambiguated from. . . . --Michael K. Smith 22:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Capitol

The capitol building is not made of texas pink granite. Reference: Houston Chronicle, Mar 9, 2003. The shade of granite from Granite Mountain, where the capitol stone was mined is now known at "sunset red", but was originally called "texas pink". Perhaps only of importance if you're trying to buy some granite? -bill

---

"These place-names line the Rotunda of the Capitol in Austin" Can someone explain what this means? :P --Golbez 06:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A not very clear way of saying they're incised along the tops of the walls, rather like the names of the states at the Lincoln Memorial. Michael K. Smith 22:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I used to work as a lobbyist in the Capitol and the only place I remember seeing them was on the floor of the south entrance of the building, across from the Governor's Office, where all the guided tours used to start. But it has been nearly 20 years ago. Holford 23:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The "less massive" may just be a matter of semantics. I'm working from memory of a tour of the capitol building a couple of years ago, but I recall the tour guide saying something to the effect of the architects taking the length and width of the US capitol building and knocking off a couple of feet. I regret that I have no definitive source for that, so take it for what it's worth.Marstinson 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Texas region?

Various people have moved Texas back and forth between the US Southwest and the US South. I've listed both. Remember that these categories are more sometimes usefull overgeneralizations than absolute clasifications.

FYI, my old Encyclopedia Americana begins their article "Texas, one of the Southwestern states". A Texan friend of mine says that the border between the US South and the US West runs about halfway between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. I take neither of these pronouncements as definitive. :-) Your neighbor across the Sabine, -- Infrogmation 16:31 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Froggie -- What are you doin' readin' this Texas stuff? Arlington -- midway between Dallas & Ft. Worth -- is indeed the geological, botanical, and meteorological dividing line between East Texas and West Texas, but not between The South & The West, I don't think. It has been said, with a fair degree of truth, that simply because of its size, Texas is a "region" unto itself. The differences between Orange, Amarillo, El Paso, and Brownsville are enormous in every respect. (To quote the old complaint, "The sun has riz, the sun has set, and here I is, in Texas yet.") --Michael K. Smith 22:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (San Antonio native, lifetime Dallasite, now in exile in Baton Rouge...)

If I may add to a long-expired discussion, that dividing line between Dallas and Fort Worth is not too far from accurate. But it truly depends on what you mean when you say "region." I grew up in Dallas, which maintained a decidedly southern atmosphere and outlook, while Fort Worth very much viewed itself as western. At the time of Texas' annexation, the westward extent of settlement in Texas more or less followed the present-day route of I-35 from the Red River down to San Antonio, with a bit of a "hump" to encompass the Hill Country. The settlers east and south of this line were predominantly from the South, which probably accounts for the prevailing atmosphere in that part of the state. Towns like Fort Worth, Abilene, Wichita Falls and extending into the Panhandle grew up with the cattle boom and railroad and have a decidedly western attitude and feel. El Paso, like many other towns along the border, is very much southwestern. However, all of this has very little to do with geographic regions and a lot to do with cultural regions.

If you want to talk physical geography, Texas includes pieces of four US geographic regions: the Coastal Plains (appromately following that I-35 line), the North Central Plains (extending from Fort Worth westward to the Caprock Escarpment and southward to about San Angelo), the Great Plains (the northern and western half of the Panhandle area and extending southward to the Balcones Escarpment), and the Rocky Mountains (starting a bit west of the Pecos River and going west to the Rio Grande).

The Coastal Plains region is further subdivided into about five subregions. The North Central Plains region has three or four subregions (depends on who you ask). The Great Plains has two or three, depending on whether the Llano Uplift (or Llano Basin - need some standardized terminology here) is included in the Edwards Plateau or broken off on its own. The Rocky Mountains only has one subregion, although there is often argument over where the eastern border is. Some have it follow the Pecos River for convenience, while other start it approximately where the Pecos River enters Texas, but go almost straight south to the Rio Grande from there. I think every 7th grader in the state has to memorize those subregions, but none of their textbooks agree with each other except for the four regions and the subregions of the Coastal Plains.Marstinson 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Spanish and Mexican Texas

BTW, is someone planning to write the articles for Spanish Texas and Mexican Texas? If not, perhaps the article shouldn't be urging readers to see those non existant articles. --Infrogmation 16:35 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

State length and width

Hi, I'm looking for a table of the US State's length and width information that is found in each state summary (I am doing some college research). If you know about such, please send an email to z_arreguinma@titan.sfasu.edu (I don't know that I'll remember to come back and check this page.)

It would also be helpful to know what guidelines were used to make the measurements (did they measure east and west from the geographic center to find the length or use the widest measurement from the geographic center or some other method?)

Marcus Arreguin

For what it's worth, when you enter Texas on Interstate-10 at Orange (headed west), there's a big mileage sign reading "El Paso -- 855 miles". ---Michael K. Smith 22:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "Lone Star State"

I believe the Texas state nickname, and the single star on the Texas flag have their origin in the "fact" that there was only one US Marshall assigned to the entire territory prior to Texas becomeing a state. This would mean that the opening paragraph is in error. I placed the word fact in quotes above because, despite living in Texas, I do not know if that is actually a fact. Does anyone already know about this? Thanks - DavidR 20:41, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I always thought it was because of the flag, and that the flag had it due to independence. But I won't claim to be a definitive source by any means. Cheers, Meelar 20:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This sounds very odd. Texas was of course an independent Republic until its admission to the Union and was never a U.S. territory per se. I believe the flag dates from the foundation of the Republic, which was ten years before annexation by the U.S. -- Decumanus 20:48, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Follow up. According the Texas Handbook Online [1], the flag was designed in 1839, and was called the "Lone Star Flag". -- Decumanus 20:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One of the most popular predecessors to the present Lone Star flag, during the Texas Revolution, was the "Bonnie Blue Flag," with a single white star centered on a blue background. An argument can be made (and often is, here in Louisiana), that the whole "lone start" theme originated in the short-lived Republic of West Florida in 1810 (consisting of what are now the "Florida Parishes" east of the River and north of Orleans), whose flag was identical to the Bonnie Blue Flag. And there were, not surprisingly, a number of Louisianians among the early Anglo settlers of Texas. (New Orleans supplied the flag that flew at the Alamo, in fact, and which is still in Mexico City, I think.) ----Michael K. Smith 22:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. I have made extensive edits to Bonnie Blue Flag, and West Florida to reflect this history. Also, it is interesting to note that the original Texas flag was not quite the "bonnie blue" flag, since it had a yellow star instead of a white one (See Flag of Texas). --JW1805 22:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

State slogan

The page currently says that the state slogan was formerly, "Don't mess with Texas." I don't think that's true... that's the slogan for TxDOT's anti-littering campaign, but as far as I know, it has never been the state's slogan, which is generally a little catchphrase meant to attract tourists. "Don't mess with Texas" would probably scare the tourists away. Also, it's not a "former" slogan; it's still in use by TxDOT. -208.180.124.100 03:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that what someone is looking for is the state motto, "Friendship". 'Course Texas (being Texas) has a "state" everything (rock, grass, gemstone, flower, food, small mammal, large mammal, tree, insect, reptile, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam - you'd think that the legislature would have better things to do).24.174.199.49 20:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas Online

Hi...

As many people editing here will have noticed, the Handbook of Texas Online has a large collection of first-rate encyclopedia articles relating to Texas. A number of individual Wikipedia articles link to these, but there are many more. Wikipedia should draft an email to the Handbook asking for a GFDL license to import as many of them as possible! -- pde 01:51, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Anyone feel up to doing a full-dress "History of Texas" article? Something along the lines of History of California? Surely, WE (Texicans) have as much history as THEY (Californyuns) do. I guess I'll add it to my to-do list (unless one of ya'll wants to beat me to it). ---Michael K. Smith 22:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would think that is in order, but I'm much too busy to take it on; also not at all expert on the topic. If someone wants to do this, they would do very well to read the article "Appellation Texas Contrôlée" in the August 2004 issue of Harper's. Ostensibly a book review, it's more of a demolition of the lousy scholarship of several books. It's a very strong essay on the origins of Texas in the context both of the history of Latin America and of the expansion of the U.S. -- Jmabel 05:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we can enlist the help of some Texas middle school / Jr. high school students. Seems like when I was in the seventh or eighth grade at James B. Bonham Jr. High School in Amarillo we had to take a whole year of Texas history and had a complete textbook to go with it. H2O 04:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If that was the only Texas history you got you're lucky. When I went through it was mandated every third year, so 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th grades. And yankees wonder how Texans get such a big head about the state. --Laura Scudder | Talk 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that how we get big heads here in Texas? And all along I thought it was from drinking that well water. ;-) maltmomma 19:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Spanish language

I started off the Spanish langauge article for Texas. However, I don't know THAT much Spanish, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone built up the said article. WhisperToMe 01:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Is the spelling Tejas used by Spanish speakers in Texas? And in Mexico?

I've lived in Texas my whole life and can't remember ever seeing a spanish text with the word Tejas. I do remember a lot of English uses of it to be cute and ethnic though. Of course, I only have the amount of Spanish knowledge you're forced to have living in Texas. Let me defer to something a bit more objective: A quick Google search of "tejas" in spanish pages turns up mostly sites in .es having nothing to do with the state. A search of "tejas estado" in spanish pages gets 22,000 hits (some history articles citing Tejas as the older name) and "texas estado" 225,000, which I guess classifies Tejas as a much lesser used alternate amongst spanish websites. Doesn't answer your Texas vs. Mexico question, though. Laura Scudder 01:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

in Mexico, Texas is always write with x but spelled teh-hasin spanish and tec-sas in english.

---

In Spanish, Texas is normally used, but I think Tejas is used occaisionally to emphasize proper pronunciation.

By the way, I changed the Caddo spelling of the word for "friend." I've talked with Wallace Chafe, a linguist, and he told me that the Caddo word for friend is táysha? (the question mark representing a glottal stop), obviously the word which the Spaniards wrote as Texas or Tejas. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to change it back.

Benjamin

By the way, the glottal stop is not denoted exactly by a question mark, but rather by ʔ. Whether people will really care is another matter, but I've changed it. — Laura Scudder | Talk 03:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

In Caddo, either way works (See Kiwat Hasinay Foundation). I just thought some people's computers might not have a font with the glottal stop symbol, so I used the question mark. - Benjamin

Well, do it whichever way you think is best. I was a reluctant about adding special characters, but I thought that the question mark might be rather confusing, whereas the other mark might at least be recognized as a special character. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"national reputation" section

Recently an anonymous user performed a major edit, removing among other things the entire "education" section, and adding a "national reputation" section. This new section makes a number of claims, including that Texans have a lower average IQ, without adding any sources to the article. If anyone has a source for these facts please post them; otherwise I will remove these claims. 204.0.197.190 16:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Present-day Indians

"Native American inhabitants of present-day Texas include Apache, Atakapan, Bidai, Caddo, Comanche, Cherokee, Karankawa, Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Wichita." Who added this? The Karankawa article notes that this group of tribes have been extinct since 1860. The Kiowa are now only in Oklahoma. Strangely, there is no mention of the Alabama, Coushatta, Tigua, or Kickapoo. Holford 21:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure about the rest, but it's true that the Karankawa are extinct. I removed it. ([2]). · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• The idea, I believe, is to list the Native American peoples who once populated the area that is now Texas; that is, it is Texas that is present-day, not the inhabitants. Deh 09:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You could be right. If so that needs to be made more clear in the text. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Texas map

The German wikipedia has a Texas map de:Bild:Texas_2002.jpg that I like better than the current one because it shows more geographic features. How do people feel about it? --Laura Scudder | Talk 18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's fine. It's from the PCL map collection anyway so eminently usable. BTW, Laura, I like your potato chips =) · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the German wiki map too. Easier to see. maltmomma 19:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

College pics

Im not sure if putting the pic of U of Houston is a good idea. It's not as prominent as the other schools to be displayed on the Texas page, and it therefore gives the impression that Texas lacks prominent schools. If we display U of H, why not display other 2nd tier schools too? After all, both UTMB-Galveston and UT-SW Med Center are far more prominent than U of H and are nationally recognized.

And besides, aesthetically, the UH pic isn't that much of a great sight either.

Why not just show the very best of Texas?--Zereshk 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

The answer is that alumni from those institutions are apparently not as enthusiastic about editing Texas-related articles as UH Collegian [3]. The attention the articles at University of Texas Medical Branch and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallashave received certainly doesn't give the impression that it's more prominent than University of Houston right now, but I assume that's because medical students don't have as much free time as undergrads. --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

I think it should be taken off. Put it on the Houston page. If every graduate or student of some university in TX started feeling enthusiastic about their school here, then we wont have much space left on the Texas page pretty soon.

Or at least put in a better picture.--Zereshk 8 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

OK. MD Anderson can go if the images are about representation (instead of rankings),as User:JCarriker seems to be pointing out. I do however repeat that UH is not a world-class institution like the other 4 schools pictured. However, if UH must stay (for reasons of representation), then I propose that at least we use the Melcher Hall pic on the University of Houston page, since I find it more fitting for a page like Texas.--Zereshk 22:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's all take a deep breath. UHCollegian, please try not to use words like "greedy," "materialistic," and "ignorant" to describe other editors -- personal attacks are absolutely forbidden here and there is never a justifiable reason for making them (Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks). As a native Houstonian who has several family members with degrees from UH, I am sympathetic to your wanting UH to be included in the photos of universities, but we don't have University of Dallas, or the satellite University of Texas campuses, some of which are as competitive as UH. It gets into a slippery slope past a certain point where you end up having to include everything. As for MD Anderson, personally I think it should should stay -- it's world-reknowned in its specialty. I am somewhat ambivalent about Baylor. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:51, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

If youre going to talk about representation, then why should there not be even one pic from a Dallas school, or a San Antonio school, or any other city? Why are there 4 schools from Houston? If we're not talking about Ranking, then we should be talking about real representation. However, I still insist that we stick to ranking. It's better for the image of the state. That's why Im proposing a vote. I think it is a fair deal.--Zereshk 00:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope I dont seem condescending or anything like that by proposing this be put to vote.--Zereshk 23:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

A vote isn't a bad idea since it is a rather personal debate for some apparently, but the current poll has no set end-date yet, meaning anyone can claim after the fact that someone ended the poll simply because their side was ahead. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, which recommends allowing a week before the poll to agree on the options, deadline, etc. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Surveys are to help gauge the degree of consensus on an issue, such as this. I'm only following the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes recommendations.--Zereshk 01:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Upon looking at the California#Education I wonder if we shouldn't follow suit and move the list to its own article and write up a text summary of the university systems and prominent private institutions. --Laura Scudder | Talk 03:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, I had no idea about the ongoing negotiations on usertalk pages about this, or I would've ben more circumspect with airing my opinions. I never meant to tank any sort of pending agreement (though I would've preferred those discussions take place on this talk page, where other interested editors could participate in the decision). I'm much more interested in furthering fruitful negotiations than taking a snap poll, particularly when we pretty much know everybody's opinions on the matter that have weighed in so far. So I'm going to abstain and encourage more discussion instead. Actually I think Laurascudder might be onto something with her suggestion above. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise on College pics

Originally posted here

How about this: include both the top four by the US News Ranking, and top three by population. This would mean that Rice, UT Austin, A&M, SMU (if we can't find a pic, we can use Baylor), and UH would be seen. That should give it the prestige Zereshk wants and the inclusiveness UH Collegian wants. If y'all approve we can move this proposal to Talk:Texas -JCarriker 15:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I would be ok with that system. I didn't realize that there's no picture of SMU. I'll make sure to take a few next time I'm in Dallas (August), but I'm fine with Baylor, too. --Laura Scudder | Talk 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's not ideal, but given the situation it seems the fairest way to go. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. UH Collegian 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• The 4/3 solution is fine with me. Though I do wish we would somehow include BCM instead of SMU, since we dont have a med school on the 4/3 solution list (and BCM is the 13th highest ranked medical school Nationally, higher than Cornell, Brown, Vanderbilt, and Mayo). Also, can we switch the UH pic? Melcher Hall (on the University of Houston page) looks much more progressive and fitting than the current cityscape image or the initial image. But then again, that is only my opinion.--Zereshk 02:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with you on Baylor College of Medicine. Since you want the best looking picture for UH, I will provide that instead of the Ezekiel W. Cullen Building or the current half campus with the cityscape. Can you wait a few more weeks so that the new $81 million Science and Engineering Complex could be completed. When it is completed, I will replace that picture representing UH per your request. UH Collegian 03:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good enough for me.--Zereshk 16:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So do we have an agreement?--Zereshk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I thought the sentence

Among Texas schools, the university is ranked No. 1 in 30 of the 37 fields in which it was evaluated

in the edu section is kinda redundant. I mean, the paragraph goes into enough detail about UT-Austin's ranking. Any takers on not deleting the sentence?--Zereshk 20:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Population of cities

I added the top four city populations and (correctly) ranked them accordingly in their respective image captions. (San Antonio is now larger than Dallas.) The estimates come from here.--Zereshk 00:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Just thought I'd mention that the 2004 estimates are used for govt work by the federal and state of TX govts (I have already provided example links). It is mentioned even here: [4]. And besides, 2000 was 5 years ago (quite a while I'd say). Those figures are thus obsolete and do not reflect the correct status of TX cities today.

The figures are according to the US Census Bureau: [5]

As for the anon user's last comment about having metro populations instead of city populations put on the page:

The name of the section is called "Important Cities and Towns" NOT "Largest Metropolitan Areas." Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA's) are not even universally accepted in the US as Metro definitions, because there's also Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSA's). We can't just decide to redefine the word "city" because we want Dallas to be bigger than San Antonio. In the U.S., the word "city" refers only to a municiple entity with its own govermental institutions, and replacing city pops with metro pops would set a very bad precedent for articles on these cities. It also creates an enornmous amount of ambiguity, for instance, the Bay Area was listed as "San Francisco" even though SF isn't even the largest city in that metropolitan area.

But then again, in the end, if there is no agreement to be reached at all, I propose we mention both City and Metro pops.--Zereshk 00:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I see no need to mention both. It's completely unnecessary and clogs up the article. I would support mentioning the MSA's, as that's what people think of when they think of any certain large city. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry fellas, I followed Zereshk here, and thought I might drop my input if worth anything: I think of Dallas and FW as separate cities. Their downtowns are way too far apart. Otherwise we would have to think of Philly and NYC as one giant city as well. But we dont. Besides, the picture on the Tex page shows downtown Dallas. It's not showing DFW. I think we should stick with the accepted definition of a "city". The 2004 numbers are also more up to date. cheers! --217.218.35.61 03:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The above annon is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Zereshk by looking at the "user contribution" link. Special:Contributions/217.218.35.61 Please don't do this again. – UH Collegian 00:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Some clarifications about this discussion

• The title of the section is Important cities and town, but the text of the section refers to Metropolitan Statistical Areas. (i.e., it begins "Texas has 27 Metropolitan Statistical Areas or MSAs designated by the U.S. Census as of November 2004.", then lists those 27 areas.) I believe that is what the anon was refering to.
• The term "city" does not always refer only to incorporated municipalities. While that is the basic technical definition of "city", in practice the term is used much more loosely. When people refer to important cities/towns/whatever, they often mean the metropolitan area, not the strict legal entity. People often say that live in "Houston", when in fact they live in the Houston area but outside the city limits. I usually say that I live in "San Antonio", even though I live in the separate incorporated municipality of Terrell Hills. These informal definition are not always consistent. For example, people often refer to the entire Los Angeles metro area as "Los Angeles", but rarely refer to the northeastern megapolis of New York-Philadelphia-etc. as one city.
• In short, both Zereshk and the anon are being pedantic. (I don't mean that they're both at fault. The anon was rude and obnoxious, and Zereshk acted reasonably.) They are insisting on applying strict technical definitions to popular conceptions; i.e., they are applying strict U.S. Census definitions to the much vaguer and inconsistent popular concepts of "cities". I would argue that adding populations to the city pictures is misleading, and that it implies a false level of precision. I think it would be better to simply leave the pictures in the order they are now in, but omit the population figures.

Mateo SA | talk 04:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, let's just leave the pictures as it is without the city population figures as they can be misleading for people. UH Collegian 04:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need to mention both MSAs and city populations. I support the listing of MSAs only. When the page unlock, I will put the list of MSAs in "pretty table" format to make the page look neater/cleaner with the 2003 population of each MSA (U.S. Census has not release 2004 figures for MSAs yet). UH Collegian 05:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to Zereshk (not really about cities, somewhat out of content)

As of November 2003 definition, the U.S. Census no longer uses CMSA and PMSA. All are MSAs now. For example, Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown and Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington are both MSAs, not CMSA. There is no longer a category of PMSA. Just thought I need to correct you on that. Another example would be San Antonio MSA, not CMSA or PMSA. None of that anymore. CMSA and PMSA were used prior to 2000. If you want, I'll provide the link for you so you can go see first hand. I'll give you a more visual example below...

• Prior to 2000 definition (old, no longer use officially anywhere)

Houston–Galveston–Brazoria CMSA

Houston PMSA

Galveston PMSA

Brazoria PMSA

Dallas–Fort Worth CMSA

Dallas PMSA

Fort Worth PMSA

• As of the November 2003 definition (current)

Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown MSA

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington MSA

Dallas–Plano–Irving metropolitan division

Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan division

As you can see, since you like to be updated to the latest Census figures and tables, we are no longer on CMSA and PMSA. If you would like further information regarding the two MSAs mentioned above, see: "Houston Metropolitan Area" and "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex." So if you like the 2004 figures so much, you should also update your other sources as well (eg. no more mentioning of CMSA and PMSA). Also, the new as of 2003 definition introduced "metropolitan division." Only a few MSAs have "metropolitan divisions." Any questions and confusion regarding MSAs and metropolitan divisions, feel free to inquire below. I know everything I just typed is out of topic, but I had to explain and give Zereshk an update since user has mentioned CMSA and PMSA, which are very outdated.

Here is the link to all of the MSAs as of the latest Census definition. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/List4.txt If it looks too confusing for you, you can look at Template:Texas as it contains 27 MSAs and 2 metropolitan divisions as of the latest definition. In summary of my long post, the U.S. Census no longer uses CMSA and PMSA. UH Collegian 04:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What we need is a defintion of what the major cities are. Perhaps the best defintion would be the cities included in the titles of both the 2000 and "new" msa defintions. Any definition that excludes Galveston and Marshall, from the major cities or an important cities and towns section, both of which have been considered major Texas cities for over a century, is not only incorrect— its insulting. On the opposite end of the spectrum, excluding cities like Arlington and Sugar Land, that have recently gained recognition—unlike some "cities" which are nothing more than Dallas and Houston under a different name—have their own identities is equally insulting.- JCarriker 15:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why protect this article?

Why is this article protected. We Texans can take care of ourselves!

Seriously, is there something wrong with the article? Maybe I can help. Snookums 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

(It was unprotected shortly after Snookums posted the comments above.) The page was protected after an edit war on July 31 between an anon and several other users about captions for the pictures in the section Important cities and towns. The anon repeatedly deleted the captions and refused to discuss his actions on the talk page. The discussion about the "controversy" is in the section Population of cities above. Mateo SA | talk 22:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Article lacks information about cities

The TX article mentions nothing of "cities" in Tex, only Metropolitan areas. What if someone is interested in cities as opposed to Metro areas (like we see on the California page)? Then Wikipedia will not be a source of info for them.

The metro table list should be shortened, and a second table added with correct 2004 "city" populations instead. Othewise Wikipedia will be lacking info about the "cities" of Texas.--147.97.138.210 17:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The above anon user is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Zereshk once again by comparing the user's contributions with Zereshk. They both edit the same type of articles. Stop the San Antonio sockpuppets! Special:Contributions/147.97.138.210 For the second time, don't do this again! – UH Collegian 18:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What is up with the fuckin attitude, UHC? Yeh, I have been following Z around, just like you have. He's right, and youve got a chip on your shoulder. Why dont you stick to your over-glorification of Houston, instead of attacking people?--Nightryder84 19:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The above new user is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Zereshk, that account has been created today after my accusations. As of this edit, that account only has 3 edit contributions. Also, user is contributing to the same type of materials. Stop the Zereshk sockpuppets! Of course the only people that call me UHC is Katefan0 and Zereshk. You are not that smart and you can't fool anyone Zereshk. UH Collegian 19:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont care who the fuck you think I am. The facts still hold. I was there when you viciously insulted Z for saying UH was not top ranked. Stop acting like a baby.--Nightryder84 19:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate my postion I will oppose any list that excludes either Marshall, Galveston, Arlignton, and other like cities. It's a blatant slap in the face for them to be excluded. -JCarriker 19:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nightryder84 -- Please stop making personal attacks. You're free to discuss article content all you like, but personal attacks are strictly forbidden. So don't do it. Besides which, I have no interest in listening to any of your arguments when they're peppered with personal attacks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0 is right, pesonal attacks will only get you blocked not make your case. If you make many more of them I'll likely block you myself. -JCarriker 19:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the personal attacks are against me, and I will take UHC to ArbCom if he doesnt cease to attack me. He is a baby, and I'll hold by that. He accuses me of impersonating Z and calls me a San Antonio fanatic. And if you wish to block me, then fine. Block away. But the TX page still wont be accurate.--Nightryder84 19:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• I do not wish to block anyone, but if you force me to I will block you temporarily. -JCarriker 20:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Despite the above playful diversion created by UHC, the Texas article still continues to lack information about "cities".--Nightryder84 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No one has addressed my original idea of using the 2000 and 2004 census defs to compile a list of major cities. If that were the case these are the cities that would appear:

Abilene, Amarillo, Arlington, Austin, Baytown, Beaumont, Brazoria, Brownsville, Bryan, College Station, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Denison, Edinburg, Galveston, Harlingen, Irving, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Killeen, Laredo, Longview, Lubbock, McAllen, Marshall, Midland, Mission, Odessa, Port Arthur, Plano, Round Rock, San Angelo, San Antonio, San Benito, San Marcos, Sherman, Sugar Land, Temple, Texarkana, Tyler, Victoria, Waco, and Wichita Falls.

We could move the cities that have a population over 500,000 to section entitled largest cites in the article and template and bold there name (in the template). I believe these cities would be: Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. -JCarriker 20:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections of listing both cities of the 1999 and 2004 MSA definitions. While I believe the argument of this started because they (both Zereshk and Nightryder84) want San Antonio to be listed as the second largest city because of a 2004 estimates. For the cities part, if Zereshk and Nightryder84 would look at the MSA table, it has over 30 cities listed. The only difference is that San Antonio is not placed second because San Antonio MSA is the third largest. To Nightryder84, if I am such a fanatic about Houston, I would have put the cities table to support Houston being listed as Number 1, but I did not. Also, the MSA list was not my idea as it was already on the article when I started editing the Texas page. There is no need to have a list of cities since there are over 30 cities represented in the MSA table. The only difference is that that table list the population of the MSA instead of cities. With the MSA table, San Antonio is ranked third and I believe Zereshk and Nightryder84's main concern to switch over to the city table with the 2004 estimates so San Antonio could rank second. I stand my support for the MSA listing only. I am neutral to all Texas cities. If I was not, I would favor the listing of cities so Houston could be first, but I did not and still favor the MSA format, which places the greater Houston area second. – UH Collegian 21:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, using the MSA table is much neater and wont clog up the space since some MSAs have two or three cities as the title. Listing 35-40 cities straight line is pretty much cluttering up the article. Using metropolitan areas and their populations are widely accepted. It gives a grasp of true economic and cultural activities and representations. Listing cities in order by population don't as it crosses cultural and economic lines. – UH Collegian 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, Brazoria shouldnt be listed in largest cities since it only has a population of 2,000 people. Yes, that wasn't a typo, they only have 2,000 people. ndash; UH Collegian 21:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a total of 39 cities in the MSA table currently. That is enough representation of cities. How is that not a representation of cities? If we were to list Dallas, Plano, Irving, Arlignton, and Fort Worth separetly, that would be redundant since they all share a cultural and economic center. Also, Plano and Irving are suburbs and people there colloquially claim they live in Dallas. This is why most people on here support the listing of MSA instead of largest cities or important cities as they are subjective. – UH Collegian 21:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Having a list of metro areas incorporate in cities, however, having a list of only cities won't incorporate in metro areas. Also, if we include only a list of cities, it will become an endless opportunity for people to include their hometown (cities or towns, incoporated or unincorporated). It will come to an endless list and clog up the article. Having a list of 25 metro areas designated by the U.S. Census makes sense and no one can argue about their existence. No one can add anymore to the list or delete it. This works since these 25 metro areas are defined by the U.S. government. With the cities, the government doesn't designate which ones are "important". Also, having a list of largest city is also subjective as well. I mean, when will it stop? Having a list of metro areas and population gives people a sense of culture/economic areas and population concentration. – UH Collegian 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

In summary, Zereshk and Nightryder84 main interest of this whole discussion is to have San Antonio's picture and rank listed as No. 2, instead of No. 3. This apply to both the table population figures and the order of pictures. What a coincidence that both of them keep on changing Dallas and San Antonio and both share the same mission on Texas of having San Antonio listed as No. 2 and No. 2 of the picture. – UH Collegian 21:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on posting erroneous info, UHC? We all know that Dallas is bigger than SA Metro-wise. So what gives? If youre going to do it, then do it right. List BOTH "cities" and "Metro" areas to make the page comprehensive. And use the 2003/2004 figures, which are accepted and used by the state of Texas itself. That's all I'm saying. Geez, you people. Like I insulted your mother or something...

And btw, when you use "cities", instead of (or as well as) "Metro Areas", JC's request would be satisfied as well, since Arlington, for example, doesnt fall within Dallas or FW, as far as city definitions are concerned, but stands out as a city in its own right.--147.97.138.210 01:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Texas template

Recently, User:Ed g2s keeps on changing the Texas template to a plain version and won't explain why. I need you guys to support me to keep the Texas template that has been active.

This is the Texas template that has been active, before that user erased it, see below:

This is the template that User:Ed g2s (that he made) and has been reverting to, see below:

I want you guys to have some input and decide which one is best for Texas. Like I said, I support the colorful template, but Ed g2s has been reverting it without explaination and has threatened to block me if I revert again to the colorful one. I think the colorful one is more aesthetic looking. Ed g2s doesn't seem to think so and keeps on erasing it to a plain version. Also, he's not even from Texas, he's from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let's have a vote on this on Template talk:Texas. Thank you for everyone's time. – UH Collegian 19:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be Texan to have an opinion on the template. I find the red garish. The others could be toned down a little more, and the second template is very subdued and not flashy. Here's a question - what don't you like about the second one? Not what you like about the first one. --Golbez 19:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I like the first one because it contains the three colors of Texas and is aligned center. The first one has larger text at 90%. The second one is too plain and he keeps leaving off a region every time he reverts. I don't like the second one because the text is too small, it is left aligned, and is too plain. The first one is colorful and looks like Texas. The first template incorporates the flag, seal, and state flower of Texas. The second one is plain and cookie cutter. – UH Collegian 20:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

spanish state title

Since Louisiana's de facto French status has the French state name below the English, for the sake of consistency, I did this with Spanish for Texas.

Religion

Some of the numbers just don’t make sense; how can there be 29% Catholic, when there is 34,6 Hispanic (which are almost exclusively Roman Catholic) ? Add to that non -Hispanic Catholic and the number should be at least 50%. --Cigor 02:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The census data is accurate, but the lack of reference on the religion data is really annoying. Anyone here remember where it's from? — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure the religion info was added along with the other demographic info by Rambot, which means it also came from census data. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not from the Census (or rather it's not from official Census data). The Census is specifically forbidden from collecting information on religion "on a mandatory basis"[6]. This data is probably taken from a table similar to the table "Religious Preference, Church Membership, and Attendance" in the Statistical Abstract of the United States (such as Table 66 of the 2001 version). That table is itself based on data from the Gallup Organization. However, that table is for the U.S. as a whole, not Texas specifically (though the numbers are suspiciously similar). — Mateo SA | talk 15:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the table again, I think that it is completely inadequate. It is unsourced and not explained. The table does not even say whether the percentages are of the total population of Texas or of the total number of religious people in Texas. I'm going to comment it out until it can be sourced and better explained. — Mateo SA | talk 16:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good call for the moment. Kudos to Cigor for raising the question, too · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Current event?

Why is Texas a current event? Shouldn't this apply to one section? G Clark 21:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Centralista's? Zacatecas?

The entry: "The example of the Centralista forces' suppression of dissidents in Zacatecas also inspired fear of the Mexican government." seems really out of place, plus it doesn't strike a bell with me (a native Texan) as something even remotely related to Texas history. "Centralista" is linked but goes nowhere, and the link to Zacatecas results in very uninteresting (from the Texas history perspective) information. Anyone know why the entry is there?

Zacatecas rebelled against Santa Ana's policy of enforcing centralization, supported by "Centralistas," over Federalism. Santa Ana brutally suppressed the Zacatecas rebellion, leading many moderate Texans such as Stephen F. Austin, to favor Texas' independence from Mexico. Zacatecas was also in the same military district as Texas, forcing General Cos to have to deal with Zacatecas before Texas—thus buying Texans more time to prepare for an invasion. I hope this answers your questions. -JCarriker 06:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

State slogan

The page currently says that the state slogan was formerly, "Don't mess with Texas." I don't think that's true... that's the slogan for TxDOT's anti-littering campaign, but as far as I know, it has never been the state's slogan, which is generally a little catchphrase meant to attract tourists. "Don't mess with Texas" would probably scare the tourists away. Also, it's not a "former" slogan; it's still in use by TxDOT. -208.180.124.100 03:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe I'm blind, but I don't see where the article says anything about Don't Mess with Texas being a "former" state slogan. You're right, of course, I just don't see where the article asserts such a thing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Aha! That would be because you just erased it. Good work! · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)