Talk:Republic of Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRepublic of Texas was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 2, 2004, December 29, 2004, March 2, 2005, December 29, 2005, March 2, 2006, December 29, 2006, March 2, 2007, December 29, 2008, December 29, 2009, and March 2, 2010.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Old West / Texas Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Top-importance).

Contemporary Christian Republican Cult[edit]

There is currently a Christofascist Republican cult which believes that they are still living in the "Republic of Texas" which is "one national under god," according to their ideologies. They have had domestic terrorism incidents against the United States. It might be informative to add text and suitable references and citations to the extant article to cover these right wing terrorists who think that Texas joining the Union was "illegal" and that they're still living in the "Republic of Texas." SoftwareThing (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this different from Republic of Texas (group), which is linked in the See Also? --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish spelling[edit]

There's a bit of a discrepancy between the native Spanish spelling on the English article "Republica de Tejas" and the *actual* Spanish article for this page that lists it as "Republica de Texas". Does anyone have an explanation for this spelling difference between the native Spanish page and the spelling given in the English article? It's the same issue for the Coahuila y Tejas page, which on the Spanish Wikipedia is listed as "Coahuila y Texas". SVS Shadow (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a possible explanation, although it is a bit cynical: Simple carelessness about spelling at the time meant that different versions were in use for people in different places and from different economic classes. No single spelling was ever established as authoritatively correct. My friend has an ancestor, born around 1900 from Mexico whose name the family always spelled Senoviá, but when examining her passport - an official, signed and sealed government document - my friend discovered it had been spelled Cenobia. Somehow this was never a problem for her or the family. Fairthomas (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
San Antonio is in Bexar County. Pronounced "Bejar" (or "bear"), Mexico is pronounced "Mehico", etc. 104.219.46.242 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Third Republic of Texas" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Third Republic of Texas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19#Third Republic of Texas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche opposition[edit]

"The Comanche Indians furnished the main Indian opposition to the Texas Republic, manifested in multiple raids on settlements, capture, and rape of female pioneers, torture killings, and trafficking in captive slaves."

Riveting tale, chap! Actually, this can be nothing more than synthesis, as there is nothing in Empire of the Summer Moon that explicitly says this. There are precisely 5 utterings of the word rape in Gwyne's book. Page 44 mentions that rape occurred among the Comanche, like other Indian tribes in the past. Page 84 mentions a case of the rape of Mary Matilda, noting that the Comanche were "oblivious" to the impression that this left on Texas settlers. Page 37 mentions the rape of Lucy Parker's aunt and cousin. 43 mentions the rape of the Plummer women. Page 251 mentions the rape of three women the Lee family.

That's all the book says about rape. The presumption of widespread rape by the Comanche against Texas settler women has been synthesized from a book that mentions 4 incidents of rape. It doesn't say anywhere that this was a part of a broad Comanche strategy, nor should unassuming Wikipedians be fooled that it could have been: Texian settlers were overwhelmingly male.

What I've highlighted here is original research, and from a source that is known within the academic community for a its general bias towards vilifying the Comanche Nation through a narrow focus on a handful of exceptional cases of cruelty.

The article should give an honest synopsis of this book rather than an ornery synthesis that even Gwynne didn't put together. It should also give its due to the normal perspective on this period of Texas history. Which is that Comanche launched violent raids on to some Texas settlements, not that they commonly took slaves or raped women (which they did not). 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:E050:2D36:27C9:14C4 (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]