Talk:Texas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Midnight Coogan

Fair to say "Tex" is a generic term for "cowboy" or "Westerner" in Eastern U.S.? Trekphiler (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

uuhhh...I'm a Texan and "Tex", at least the only way I've heard it, is used in a more provocative manner than just a casual name, like "smooth move Slick"..."Nice one Tex". (I know it's not the best examples but that's always the way I've used the word.)Prussian725 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't disagree it's used that way; I do wonder if it's not used more broadly than just Texans, tho (as the film ref indicates...). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be.Prussian725 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Geography

• The upper Texas Panhandle is similar to the Midwestern United States and the South Plains parts of West Texas, is a blend of South and Southwest.
  • Don't know much about TX geographyOldag07 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • When you say "don't know much about TX geography" in reference to the section mentioned (which I agree needs citation) what specifically are you referring to...? Your own or the one(s) who added it to the article? Not trying to be flip, but just asking so as to get clarification. Thanks! :-) TexasReb (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Texas Almanac divides Texas into four physical geographical regions: Gulf Coastal Plains, Interior Lowlands, Great Plains, and The Basin and Range Province.
  • Can not findat all in AlmanacOldag07 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Geology

• This orogenic crest is today buried beneath the Dallas—Waco—Austin—San Antonio trend. During this time E. Texas was a region of high mountains and shallow seas covered W. Texas.[citation needed]
  • Very unfamilar with GeologyOldag07 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• At the start of its formation, the incipient Gulf of Mexico basin was restricted and seawater often evaporated completely to form thick evaporite deposits of Jurassic age. These salt deposits have buoyantly risen up through the passive margin sediments to form salt dome diapirs, commonly found in East Texas, along the Gulf coast.

• Texas has no volcanoes and few earthquakes, being situated far from an active plate tectonic boundary

Climate

• Climatologists divide Texas into three main zones: the humid subtropical climate (Koppen Cfa) of the eastern half of Texas, the temperate semi-arid (Koppen BSk) steppe climate of the northwestern part, including the Panhandle, and the subtropical steppe climate (nearly an arid desert climate, Koppen BSh) of the southern parts of West Texas, particularly around El Paso.

• Tornadoes in Texas generally occur between the months of April–July.

• Other devastating Texas hurricanes include the 1915 Galveston Hurricane, Hurricane Audrey in 1957, which killed over 600 people, Hurricane Carla in 1961, Hurricane Beulah in 1967, Hurricane Alicia in 1983, Hurricane Rita in 2005, and Hurricane Ike in 2008.

• A citation for this last can be found at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml. Kenfair (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Put it in. Thanks! Oldag07 (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

• As of 2004, the state has 3.5 million foreign-born residents (15.6 percent of the state population), of which an estimated 1.2 million are illegal aliens. More than one-third of the foreign-born population in Texas and 5.4 percent of the total state population comes from illegal immigration.

Comment: Illegal alien is not accepted by most stylebooks. Use 'unauthorized' or 'undocumented' 'immigrant' or 'resident.' Quill (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Racial group and ethnic origins

• Mexican (25.3%)

• Much of the population of east, central, and north Texas have a white Protestant heritage, primarily descended from ancestors from Great Britain and Ireland.

• African Americans, who historically made up one-third of the state population during the 19th century, are concentrated in the parts of East Texas where the cotton plantation culture was most prominent before the American Civil War, as well as in Dallas and Houston.

• After the European revolutions of 1848, German, Polish, Swedish, Norwegian, Czech and French immigration grew, and continued until World War I.

• German settlements formed in frontier Texas, particularly in Fredericksburg and New Braunfels.

• Immigrants (including illegal aliens)—primarily from far southern Mexico and Central America, contribute heavily to the state's growth.

• The influx of immigration is partially responsible for the state's having a young population compared relative to the rest of the United States.

Politics

Judicial System

• Texas Game Wardens—law enforcement officers employed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department—are given the same level of authority as standard law enforcement officers.

Politics

• After the 1960s, Conservative Democrats in Texas began to endorse Republican presidential candidates.

• Scholars attribute the change to the success of Nixon's Southern Strategy. In 1978, Texas Republicans elected their first post-reconstruction governor and in 2003 they gained control of the state legislature.

• Dallas remains approximately split. In the southwest part of the state, particularly in El Paso, Democrats are strong.

Adminisrative Divisions

• County elections are partisan.

• Municipal elections in Texas are nonpartisan.

Economy

• Texas's growth can be attributed to the availability of jobs, the low cost of housing, the lack of a personal state income tax, high quality of education, low taxation and limited regulation of business, a central geographic location, a limited government, favorable weather, and abundant natural resources.

Statistics and opinion surveys generally rank Texas low on quality of K-12 education. Quill (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• On another note, the economic impact of illegal immigration is significant but difficult to estimate.

Energy

• Since 2002, Texas deregulated its electric service with mixed results.

• In 2006, for the fifth year in a row, Texas led the nation in export revenues. Texas exports for 2006 totaled $150.8 billion, which is $22.1 billion more than 2005 and represents a 17.2 percent increase.

Culture

Arts

• The name Deep Ellum is derived from local people pronouncing "Deep Elm" as "Deep Ellum". Artists such as Blind Lemon Jefferson, Robert Johnson, Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter, and Bessie Smith played in early Deep Ellum clubs like The Harlem and The Palace.

Sports

• As described the book Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream, high school football is a major part of Texas culture.

• Municipal elections in Texas are nonpartisan.

• Other popular sports in Texas include golf, fishing, auto racing and lacrosse.

Education

Colleges and Universities

• There are 181 colleges, universities and dozens of other institutions engaged in the research and development of Texas within five different university systems.
  • Very difficult to get an exact numberOldag07 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-worded the El Paso sentence and threw a few election results to back it up; it isn't perfect, but it should work for now. As many areas along the river seem to be more Democratic than El Paso, the 'especially El Paso' part didn't really work. I'm not sure about how to approach the Geology section, as I too know very little about this. I did see some references in Geology of Texas, and I think the Texas Almanac has a section about this, so maybe just cut the section down a bit, re-word and put a few refs in there for now, and that should be good. As to the other unsourced statements, I was thinking that, while important things like illegal immigration should be kept and sourced, many of the above statements, like the one about Municipal elections or the Deep Ellum thing, could probably just be cut. I looked for refs for some of these, and came up empty. It would be OK to have these if they were cited, but they're not, and as such they are holding back any chance of the article's promotion. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

134%

I don't get it... 69.8% white, 11.6% black, 3.3% Asians, 13% other racial groups, 35.7% hispanic and latino... that makes about 134%, or I am miising some great logical thing here... care to explain? nem13

Hispanic is not considered a race by the census. The other numbers add up to the 98.3% of the population which identified as of one race; people who identified as two or more races comprised the remainder of the sample. You can visit the cite given for more information. Kuru ^talk 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lacrosse a leading sport?

Can anyone verify the last sentence under Sports? Perhaps we have a vandal wishful thinker. Quill (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say remove it after a couple of days if someone can't find a source that says the sport has an abnormally high following in the state. It's just a bit too counterintuitive. AlexiusHoratius 05:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GA

I am going for another run at GA status. We will see if it will work.Oldag07 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to the old nomination page: Talk:Texas/Archive_5#GA_quickfail Oldag07 (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There is one small issue I found- the reference for the high school pic's caption, near the end of the article in the education section, comes up as a 404 error for me when I try to access it. Could be a bad url, or maybe the article no longer exists. Anyway, should we remove the picture and caption (I don't know that it is critical to have an illustration here), or just shorten the caption by cutting out the largest high school part? ...Or we could fix the reference, but I've searched for a better one and haven't been able to find anything online. AlexiusHoratius 07:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it off. page is way too big anyways. Oldag07 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While some of these concerns may be more related to the subarticles than the Texas article itself, there were a few instances where the use of WP:SUMMARY style could be improved:

• Texas#History does not mention History of Texas#Indigenous peoples even though it is longer than the lead of History of Texas
• Texas#Modern_era last paragraph is not based on History of Texas
• Texas#Climate could be more consistent Climate of Texas:
  • Average number of tornadoes does not match
  • Snow in the north mentioned in the summary, but never in the article
• Texas#Cities_and_towns last paragraph is not based on Demographics_of_Texas#Cities_and_towns
• Texas#Government of Texas could have a Laws subsection added per WP:STATE#Politics_and_government
• Texas#Transportation first paragraph is not entirely based on
• Texas#Culture first paragraph is not entirely based on Culture of Texas
• Texas#Education first paragraph is not based on Education in Texas

EagleAg04 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxes

We are missing a huge area when it comes to state taxes.I shouldn't put this in until after the GA review but it probably would not go too well in an FA review. I found this great source, we just need to convert these main points into prose. Help?

• No state income tax (something already put in)
• Texas' State/Local Tax Burden Among Nation's Lowest
• Texas' 2008 Business Tax Climate Ranks 8th
• Texas Levies Sales Tax above National Median
• Texas Property Taxes: Comparatively High
• Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Texas is a Donor State
• However, Texas recently instituted a gross receipts tax called the Texas Margins tax. It went into effect January 1, 2007.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/60.html Oldag07 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • POSTED**** Oldag07 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what i got so far. need to convert references into citation templates, and copyedit. any help would be appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can help with the conversion into templates and then copy-edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I converted all {{citation}} templates to {{cite web}}. Now, we need to address all the problems that the link checker shows. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed most of the links. Thanks for the help Dabomb87. now can anyone help me with this future paragraph Oldag07 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities section is confusing

What is wrong with these two sentences?

Texas has a total of 25 metropolitan areas, with four having populations over 1 million and two over 5 million. Texas has three cities with populations exceeding 1 million: Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas.

Remember that metropolitan areas are different than cities; the census bureau includes a city along with surrounding suburbs in the metropolitan area. ( In this case, the population within the city limits of Austin has less than one million people, but the Austin Metropolitan Area, including the suburbs, has over one million residents.) That said, it may be worth using some different language in the article, to avoid confusion. AlexiusHoratius 05:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can hear music

"immigration has made Texas a melting pot of cultures from around the world" Fair to say Texas contributed to the development of country? I'm thinking of the polka roots, which were taken from immigrants. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Prep

I say we go for a run for the big cheese. I don't think we have much left to do.

1. Nominate for peer review.
2. Expand geography
3. Nominate for FA

Oldag07 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, since I've just done your GA Review I just want to put some comments in on this. While it's certainly now a GA-Class article and you're definitely on the road to FA-Status, there's certainly more to do than just expanding the geography. Give me a few hours and I'll type up a semi-comprehensive 'list' of what needs doing, and I might even give you a hand to help it along to FA Status. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Oldag07 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And by hours I meant a day or two. ;) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

i think i am going to take a week break from wikipedia. a fresh eye would be good for me. Oldag07 (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I just created an organizational structure for the Fa run. So much for getting it done in three easy steps. Oldag07 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The FA page

(CLICK HERE TO GET TO FA PREP PAGE) I converted the once template into a link. I thought if it was out in the open, people would read it. but now, it seems to be hindering discussion elsewhere. for work that needs to be done, click on the link above Oldag07 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing need

Texas needs editing for prose style. There are content redundancies and "Strunk and White unnecessary words". Also the text is awkward in sentence structures and paragraph organization. An example is the first para where there are a couple sentences on the notable cities towards the end of the para separated from a sentence about Austin towards the front. Put like with like--it reads better that way. Not meaning to slam y'all, just thought the Texas article would be slicker. The state is so justifiably proud of itself, so intrinsically fascinating that it deserves a smooth-reading article. I suggest getting Tony1 to go through it. If you want, I will, but he's better. TCO (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony doesn't copy-edit articles—read the notice at the top of his talk page. I will try to go through it sometime in the next two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

TCO, I think this page could go though multiple copy edit sessions from multiple editors. It is so hard to keep track of everything on a topic this large, and a page this long. we would be greatful for you to help copy edit this page. This history section also needs a careful eye. I recently added several paragraphs to that section. Oldag07 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

use of the word "Texian"

I'm sorry but I must take issue with your term above used to describe people who live in, are from the state of Texas. As one who was born here, and has lived here most of my life, we are "Texans" not "Texians".

David DuBois Richardson, Texas03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.216.97 (talk)

See Texian. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates

There are a lot of specific dates on this page. This page itself is growing very rapidly, and needs some trimming. I isolated all the "dates" on this page. As a page that is supposed to broadly talk about Texas, I think most of the dates can be shortened to years. The exception to this rule would be the date Texas came into the union, and the JFK assasination.

• Texas would also join the Confederate States of America as a charter member on March 1, 1861.
• On November 6, 1528, shipwrecked Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca became the first known European in Texas. . .
• On January 3, 1823, after obtaining authorization by Governor Antonio María Martínez,
• The vague unrest erupted into armed conflict on October 2, 1835 at the Battle of Gonzales.^[43]
• On March 2, 1836, the Convention of 1836 signed a Declaration of Independence.^[45][46]
• On April 21, 1836, after several weeks of retreat, the Texian Army commanded by Sam Houston attacked and defeated Santa Anna's forces at Battle of San Jacinto.
• On December 29, 1845, Congress admitted Texas to the U.S. as a constituent state of the Union.^[54]
• President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor south to the Rio Grande on January 13, 1846.^[55]
• On April 25, 1846, Mexican cavalry routed one an American cavalry patrol in the disputed area. Polk the declared the incident, called the Thornton Affair, an act of war.
• The Confederate States of America accepted Texas as a charter member on March 1, 1861.^[58][2]
• Texas hosted the last battle of the Civil War, the Palmito Ranch on May 13, 1865.^[60]
• Juneteenth commemorates the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation on June 19, 1865 in Galveston by General Gordon Granger, over 2–1/2 years after the original announcement.^[62][63]
• President Johnson, on August 20, 1866, declared that civilian government restored in Texas.^[64]
• Despite not meeting reconstruction requirements, on March 30, 1870 Congress readmitted Texas into the Union.^[65]
• The first major oil well in Texas was Spindletop, south of Beaumont, on January 10, 1901.
• On November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated president John F. Kennedy.
• The state's Texas Panhandle has an eastern border with Oklahoma at 100° W, a northern border with Oklahoma at 36°30' N and a western border with New Mexico at 103° W. El Paso lies on the state's western tip at 32° N and the Rio Grande.^[56]
• The state's fiscal year spans from the previous calendar year's September 1 to the current year's August 31. Thus, the FY 2008 dates from September 1, 2007 through August 31, 2008.
• On July 4, 1883, Pecos, Texas hosted the world’s first rodeo.
• In May 2006, Texas initiated the program "code red" in response to the report that the state had 25.1 percent of the population without health insurance, the largest proportion in the nation.^[172]

Oldag07 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit plan

I can understand why copy editing this page would be a pain. I decided to divide the page into 6 parts. editors than sign up and edit one of the 6 sections rather than editing the whole thing. hopefully with smaller chunks to edit, more people will be willing to copyedit this page.

Example Intro Oldag07 (talk)

Here is the list we need to do.

1. Intro, Etymology,— BQZip01 — ^talk 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
2. History — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Geography, Geology, Climate TCO (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (will need to wait for weekend)
4. Demographics, Government and politics AlexiusHoratius 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Economy, Education Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)—Might have to wait till Thursday or Friday.
6. Transportation, Culture, Healthcare

Oldag07 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, be sure to use the FA prep page for suggestions. Oldag07 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

<Sigh> Old Ag, please make sure you run this by other, more mature Aggies first, especially some of us with higher math backgrounds. You're reinforcing the Aggie stereotype a little too well. You said you wanted to divide it into six parts...however, the number of sections is clearly less than six. Being an older Aggie, I could see this problem right away (you young whippersnapper!). It is clearly less than six, but I only minored in Math at A&M, so I'd estimate there are only about four sections to edit. If an Aggie math major could double check that for me, I'd appreciate it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like making excuses, but i did have 6 originally. Excuse I wasn't the one who changed it. but yea, i was a bio major. what do i know. I am an Aggie. I put transportation, and culture back in. It is nice of you to catch it. good work so far on the page. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Boys...get a rope...". — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb, no worries. BQ and i go back. Oldag07 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Alright, I had a go at the Economy section, but the problems extend beyond simple grammar and flow. See my inline comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a little busy at the moment. Here is a good source for the oil quote though. http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/highlights/oil/ Oldag07 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Geography

It seems like our french comrades beat us to it. There is a french FA about our state. It is fine with me. i have translated the section with babel fish that needs the most help on our page. here it is Oldag07 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Geography Icon of detail detailed Article: Geography of Texas. General information General chart of Texas Texas, which extends between 25°50' and 36°30' from northern latitude, and between 93°31' and 106°9' of western longitude, offers varied landscapes. The septentrional end of Texas is about with the same latitude as the town of Tunis, whereas the south is with the same latitude as Louxor in Egypt. The city more with l' west is El Paso. With 696.241 km2, Texas is the second vastest State of the United States behind l' Alaska, which explains the variety of the landscapes. It is larger than the Metropolitan France. It extends on approximately 1.300 km from north in the south and on 1.400 km of is in west. The overall length of its coasts reaches more than 1.000 km [2]. Most of Texas is in the time zone of the States of center (UTC-6); only the most Western area (counties of El Paso and Hudspeth) belongs to the time zone of mountains (UTC-7). L' State has a common border with Mexico. This area is a zone d' human and economic exchanges. The American States which border Texas are Louisiana and l' Arkansas with l' is, l' Oklahoma in north, and New Mexico with l' west. The borders of Texas were disputed a long time between the European colonial powers, Mexico and the United States. Today, several rivers mark the limits of the State: the Rio Grande in the south, the red River in north and the Sabine in the east [3]. Texas belongs to several regional units: in Sun Belt for its climate and its economic dynamism; in Far West by its landscapes and its folklore; but also in the South of the United States for its history and its culture. It s' open on the Gulf of Mexico and Mexamerica because of its past and its relations with the adjoining country. Relief [to modify] Simplified chart of the relief of Texas Hill Country Texas constitutes a zone of transition between the plains from l' is of the United States and the mountains of l' American west. The relief s' organize on the levels d' longitudinal orientation, more high-altitudes being with l' west: they is there that the culminating point of Texas is, Guadalupe Peak (2 667 m). However, the plains, the hills and the plates are the dominant reliefs: l' average altitude of l' State is of 520 Mr. Texas can be divided into three great natural units: littoral and Eastern plains, plates of the center, and mountains of the west. The coasts of the Gulf of Mexico low and are cut out by bays and estuaries. They are bordered by several large islands, of which widest is Padre Island (542 km ² [4]). The south of Texas is occupied by part of the coastal plain which is prolonged as far as Florida. With a great half is, it is characterized by low altitudes (less than 300 meters) and a relatively flat or slightly undulating relief, favorable to the human activities. The center of Texas consists of plates and high plains, bordered by escarpments (escarpment of Balcones, escarpment of Caprock); it represents a zone of transition between the Large Plains and the coastal plains. The Plate d' Edwards offers a karstic relief and is attached to the Large Plains. More north follow one another Llano Estacado, regarded as l' one of largest the mesas d' North America [6] and Panhandle, formed of high plains and plates dissected by throats. Here, the canyon of Palo Duro, the second of the United States by its dimensions, after that of Colorado. Lastly, the Transone at the western end indicates a complex whole of assembly lines, plates and arid or semi-arid trough faults. The Guadalupe Mountains are highest. Hydrography Rio Grande, Big Bend National Park, Texas Some 3 700 cours d' river water and 15 systems representing a cumulated length of 307.385 km irrigate Texas. The majority of the rivers have a north-western/south-eastern orientation. The Rio Grande revêt an economic and demographic importance of first order. It occurs in the Rocky Mountains in the State of Colorado and runs on 3.034 km of which 2.018 km correspond to the border between the United States and Mexico. Its medium flow is of 160 m ³ /sec. In Texas, its principal affluent is Pecos (1 490 km on the whole from New Mexico). With 607.000 km ², the catchment area of the Rio Grande east one of vastest of the American west and overflows on the north of Mexico. It forms a small sandy delta with its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico. Brazos is the largest river of Texas: it measures 2.060 km what makes some eleventh of the United States [8]. Its catchment area covers some 116.000 km ² [9]. Colorado takes its source close to Lamesa (Texas), crosses the town of Austin and traverses some 1.380 km. Other rivers sprinkle Texas: the Sabine (893 km), Trinity (885 km), Neches (669 km) and Rio Nueces (507 km), who throw all in the Gulf of Mexico. The State is also traversed by several affluents of the Mississippi: Red To rivet form the northern border of Texas. It is 2.190 km long of which 1.030 km form the border of Texas. Canadian River is thrown in Arkansas River, an affluent of the Mississippi, and runs in Texas Panhandle. The Lake Withney: Whitney Lake and Prejudice one the Brazos To rivet in Bosque and Hill Counties, Texas Lastly, in the arid areas of the west, certain rivers are temporary. The lake Caddo is largest of Texas: it is with l' is and measures 103 km2. Several storage reservoirs are present on Colorado like the lake Buchanan (90,4 km2) or the lake Travis (77 km2). On the whole, one counts more than 180 artificial lakes and tanks [3], which are mainly located at the east. The tank Sam Rayburn is l' one of most important: it is 5,9 km long for a surface of 463 km ². The water infiltrations in the grounds limestones of Texas generated the formation of caves and caves in several areas in particular in the karstic relief of the Plate d' Edwards (Inner Space Cavern, Natural Cavern Bridge, Hollow Wonder). L' aquifer d' Edwards s' extends on approximately 10.300 km ² and provides water to more than two million people. Water reappears with the foot of the plate in the form of resurgences which allowed the establishment of many cities. There exists a fossil ground water in addition on the edge of Llano Estacado, exploited by the farmers.

Prehistoric Texas

I also copy and pasted a translanted version of their prehistoric texas section. all of this is sourced, but the translation does not have those templates.Oldag07 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC) In the current state of research, human presence on the territory of Texas go back to 11,200 years [1]. The prehistoric period, which runs between 9200 BC and the seventeenth century AD, is known from the archaeological excavations undertaken since the beginning of the twentieth century. The prehistoric period, which runs between 9200 BC and the seventeenth century AD, is known from the archaeological excavations undertaken since the beginning of the twentieth century. The Paléoindiens who lived in the late Pleistocene (circa 9200 - 6000 BC) are related to Clovis and Folsom cultures they hunted large mammals that have disappeared from Texas, such as mammoths and bison long horns [1]. The Paléoindiens who lived in the late Pleistocene (circa 9200 - 6000 BC) are related to crops Folsom Clovis and they hunted large mammals that have disappeared from Texas, such as mammoths and bison long horns [1]. They used arrows propelled by atlatl. They used arrows propelled by atlatl. They provided flint on the site of Alibates Flint in the north of the state. They provided flint on the site of Flint Alibates in the north of the state. They also practiced the collection and were nomadic. They also practiced the collection and were nomadic.

Climate change opened the Archaic period (c. 6000 BC - around 700 AD), marked by the extinction of the giant mammals, by a relative population growth (from the third millennium BC ) and the birth of trade. Climate change opened the Archaic period (c. 6000 BC - around 700 AD), marked by the extinction of the giant mammals, by a relative population growth (from the third millennium BC) and the birth of trade. Many symbols drawn on the walls of the caves or on rocks are visible in the state, including sites Hueco Tanks [2] and Seminole Canyon. Many symbols drawn on the walls of the caves or on rocks are visible in the state, including sites Hueco Tanks [2] and Seminole Canyon.

Some groups living east Texas began to settle in the early centuries of the Christian era, to practice the agriculture and building the first burial mounds [1]. Some groups living east Texas began to settle in the early centuries of the Christian era, to practice the agriculture and building the first burial mounds [1]. This phase shows the influence of civilizations that flourished in the Mississippi basin. This phase shows the influence of civilizations that flourished in the Mississippi basin. Caddo nation was formed between 500 and 800 while the populations of Transpeco in west Texas were influenced by culture mogollon. The Caddo nation was formed between 500 and 800 while the populations of Transpeco in west Texas were influenced by culture mogollon.

From the eighth century, the bow and arrow were introduced [1], the manufacture of pottery was developed and Americans increasingly depends on the buffalo for their survival. From the eighth century, the bow and arrow were introduced [1], the manufacture of pottery was developed and Americans increasingly depends on the buffalo for their survival. The obsidian objects found in various sites show that the Texan exchanges became increasingly estranged from Texas, with Mexico or the Rocky Mountains. Obsidian items found in the various sites show that the Texan exchanges became increasingly estranged from Texas, with Mexico or the Rocky Mountains.

Before Europeans arrived, Texas was occupied by several Amerindian peoples: Alabama, Apache, Atakapan, Bidai, Caddo, Comanche, Coahuiltecan, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coushatta, Hasina Jumano, Karankawa, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Wichita [3]. Before Europeans arrived, Texas was occupied by several Native Americans: Alabama, Apache, Atakapan, Bidai, Caddo, Comanche, Coahuiltecan, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coushatta, Hasina Jumano, Karankawa, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Wichita [3].

With the arrival of French and Spanish in the region of the current Texas ended the prehistoric period. With the arrival of French and Spanish in the region of the current Texas ended the prehistoric period. However, for several decades, many Americans kept their way of life until the eighteenth century, when Spanish missionaries began evangelization. However, for several decades, many Americans kept their way of life until the eighteenth century, when Spanish missionaries began evangelization. The introduction of the horse, metal objects and glass fit truly enter communities in history. The introduction of the horse, metal and glass objects was truly enter communities in history. It was also at that time that the village suffered epidemics and attacks by Apaches and Comanches. It was also at that time that the village suffered epidemics and attacks by Apaches and Comanches.

The name "Texas" comes from the Caddo "tejas" which means "ally" or "friend" [4], [5], [6], [7] The name "Texas" comes from the Caddo "tejas" which means " ally "or" friend "

French

>

English

swap

Translate

Texas Pro Sports

In the Texas article sports section the only female professional teams listed are two WNBA teams. Excluded are the many Womens professional Football teams that represent the state of Texas. Houston Cyclones, Houston Energy, North Texas Fury, Austin Outlaws, The Dallas Diamons, The East Texas SaberKats, and The Lone Star Mustangs. The Houston Cyclones and Houston Energy are both Superbowl Champion Teams and are noteworthy when talking about sports in the great state of Texas. Though the teams are split between two leagues the game of football remains the same.

League Website www.WomensFootballAlliance.com League Website www.Womensprofootball.com http://www.htowntexascyclones.com http://www.etsaberkats.com/ http://www.lonestarmustangs.com/ http://www.houstonenergyfootball.com http://www.dallasdiamondsfootball.com/ http://www.austinoutlaws.com/

76.30.228.59 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are a very large number of professional sports teams in Texas (see List of Texas sports teams for a full list), and we can't mention all of them as the section would grow too large and become basically impossible to read. Per WP:Summary style, only the teams with the greatest impact on the state should be mentioned here. However, Sports in Texas looks like it would be a good place to add the information you're describing. AlexiusHoratius 18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics?

There are several problems with the ethic makeup area, specifically that there was no U.S. Census in 2006, and that the presented percentages add up to 135.7%. This needs fixing. Jamie1743 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article already specifies the 2006 numbers as an estimate and not a full census. As to the racial stats, I've added the '(of any race)' modifier to the Hispanic entry. As the census bureau does not consider Hispanics to be a seperate race, you will get a number above 100% if you simply combine the Hispanic estimate with the rest of the race statistics. AlexiusHoratius 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, although some of the racial statistics are covered by the reference, others are not, and it doesn't say where those numbers are coming from. Specifically, the various White ethnicities do not have references. AlexiusHoratius 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Natives before European colonization

I just reworded the paragraph listing Native Americans who lived in Texas before Europeans came. I assume it meant "came to Texas", otherwise quite a number of the tribes listed would be incorrect (the Comanche, for example, didn't arrive in the southern plains until the 1700s). I find some of the tribes listed hard to believe, especially: Alabama, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coushatta, and Kickapoo. I'm also a bit skeptical about the Kiowa, Wichita, and Comanche being in this list. Europeans "arrived" in what's now Texas very early as explorers, but if we're talking about settlement and colonization, that would date back to at least 1716, if not 1690 (Spanish Texas), or even 1659 if you include El Paso. Is the claim being made really that Cherokee, Choctaw, Kickapoo, etc, lived in Texas before 1690? Until about 1700 the Comanche lived in the Idaho-Wyoming area, no where near Texas. I realize the list is referenced, to Texas: the Lone Star State, 9th edition, by Rupert N. Richardson, etc; pages 10-16. I am unable to view these pages online so cannot confirm and clarify what is being claimed. Does anyone have this book? Would you check? Seems to me I am either misunderstanding the claim (perhaps "European arrival" in the book does not include the Spanish?), or the book has mistakes. Pfly (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I got help from French wikipedians for those sources. if you can find better, more updated sources, go for it. Oldag07 (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas if it werent for US would have been a mexican state and we would have gone to another state. Texas is very flat and is nick names the lonestar state. That means that it used to be part of mexico. Its flag looks like Us's flag but with only two stripes and only 1 star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.137.77 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Natural Disasters

The page for Sunset was modified indicating that it had been destroyed, wiped off the map, by wildfires. This was based on an error in one news article. Sunset still exists; approximately 10% of the homes in Sunset were destroyed. We should take care in reporting on natural disasters. Many of the early reports are in error, and before significant changes are made regarding the status of a community it should be validated through multiple sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchoge (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Products

The main products for Texas are grapefruit, oil, and cattle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.134.235 (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for reassessment?

Despite its good referencing, the fact there are tags regarding the article's tone, grammar, and section length suggests that this article should not have been listed as a GA to begin with. GA's don't have tags of any sort, per MoS. If there is not substantial improvement by May 24, I'll place the article up for GAR. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bankrupt

I thought Texas went bankrupt does anybody else know about this??? 204.133.215.130 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You've been misinformed. Kuru ^talk 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a wikipedia talk page topic. I can imagine that being true during the reconstruction era. Oldag07 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Were did you heard that Texas hasn't gone bankrupt nor any state in the U.S cant go bankrupt however they can have a lack of money in the states budget; however Texas has had a surplus in its budgetTxtrooper (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Grossly misinformed. Texas is one of the few states that #1 has a budget surplus in these times and #2 has mildly weathered the financial storm. (76.79.9.129 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

"According to local lore" as a citation

"Lubbock, according to local lore, has the most churches per capita in the nation.[99]"

Really? Local lore also says that Lubbock has the most restaurants per capita, the most teen pregnancies per capita, the highest STD rates per capita, the highest drunk driving accidents/arrests/fatalities per capita, etc. etc. etc.

Lubbock must be the most amazing city on the face of the Earth to be so exceptional in so many areas.

Strangely I've never seen any actual numbers supporting these claims.

Many of these same dubious distinctions has been claimed by multiple other college towns I've lived in. It's extremely common for college students from larger cities to pin any number of faux rural or redneckisms on smaller communities, and for these urban legends to be passed down to each new class over the years.

The source article also describes the 90th largest city in the United States as a "dusty farming community," which seems like an effort to color the city as either far smaller or more rural than it actually is, or as something out of a Western.

I don't think local lore, common knowledge or popular opinion is a very reliable source for an encyclopedia. That statement ought to be supported with census data or something. If not, I see no reason why somebody shouldn't edit the Dallas article to say that it's populated almost entirely by rich Republican white folks with giant cowboy hats driving Chevy Suburbans, and the Austin article to claim that Austinites don't bathe more than twice every month and subsist entirely on a diet of marijuana brownies and bongwater.

Just because something in print or on the web mentions something as local lore doesn't suddenly make it accurate, or appropriate for a reference resource.

Slemmons (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bordering States

I dont live in the USA. I wanted to search information about the states arround Texas, but the article says nothing about them. Maybe it seems basic for most of you, but imperialization has not arried to the whole world yet; so pleae add a sentence in the article with links to the bordering states; because it says they are "Oklahoma on the north, Louisiana and Arkansas on the east". According to the map they are 4 not 3 --Andrés Baldrich (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point; I added a very basic sentence to that end. Improvements are welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The fourth (4th) state is New Mexico, which is basically to the west (yet north of El Paso). In the extreme northwest of its panhandle, Texas is only 1 county away from both Kansas and Colorado; 2 additional OK counties which constitute the Oklahoma panhandle also border both Texas and Kansas. Shanoman (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Geography of Texas revisions

I expanded the Geography of Texas section enough to the point where I think the tag can be removed. Like most of my edits, it needs some copyediting. Looking at the big picture, the Geography of Texas page is in dire need for a rewrite. I don't think we have natural regions defined by any credible source. Since this page is supposed to be a summary of the geography page, and if that page is messed up, the summary of it is broken too. I added new material in reference to the state's lakes and rivers, with isn't added on the geography page. I hope i can get around to it, but any help would be nice. Oldag07 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Will it be appropiate if we added Texas Sucesion Movement

Will it be appropriate if we added the Texas Sucesion Movement that is Currently going on Since April 10 2009 and were HCR 50 is going on and going for hearing in April 21Txtrooper (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC) http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/

Maybe in the Politics of Texas page. I don't seriously think this talk is nothing more than some flag waving rhetoric. . Oldag07 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually came to the Texas page to see how the state might rank as a seperate nation. You know like how folks are always saying California would be the 6th largest economy in the world or whatever. I don't think secession could ever actually happen, but a small section on the resulting stats of independence might give a sense of Texas's scale. Like, for example, it would rank 47th in population among nations, larger than Greece and Cuba combined. Or that it would rank 40th in size, larger than France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, or the UK. Maybe the page could use a section like that? I'd be happy to write it up. Nosimplehiway (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article would benefit from the types of comparisons you describe, Nosimplehiway. From memory, it seems that Texas' GSP is comparable to Mexico's GDP. --Mikebrand (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it measurable, considering that a portion of that product comes from Texas being part of the United States? (e.g. NASA) -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_(nominal) --Mikebrand (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting map: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/131-us-states-renamed-for-countries-with-similar-gdps/ --Mikebrand (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic is becoming very messageboardy. . . is this movement notable on the Texas page. I don't believe so. there is no serious push to leave the union. you listen to the soundbyte of the governor's speech, even that doesn't make it sound like he wants to leave the union. I am not a crazy right wing yahoo, but this is really the media trying to get a story. Oldag07 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are currently a handful of organizations on the web advocating secession, however, they do not have any influence at the State level or with any significant trade groups. Such movement should not be included in this article, which is designed to provide general information about the State. Of course, should such organizations get actual political representation and influence in the Texas State legislature or the Governor's office, it would appropriate to place them in the Politics section. At best, this should be a separate article describing the existing movements, their history and current leadership. AndrewAguayo (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A discussion of any depth on the topic (ie, movements, history, leadership) would certainly be best in a separate article or in a section of the Texas Politic page. The existing three sentences (or some variation of those sentences) probably adequately cover the topic for the Texas page. As I interpret those sentences, they say that "there is minority support for secession but it can't happen legally". That is relevant but not controversial, in my opinion. I prefer to keep that paragraph in the Texas page. That is my vote, but I am not adamant about the topic. If someone moves the paragraph to the Politics of Texas page, I will not revert it (though I will join in the discussion if others protest the move). --Mikebrand (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The part I am objecting to is the claim that a state cannot secede legally. That is not true there are no US Supreme Court cases where a state secession has been challenged, nor is there any language in the US Constitution itself that forbids secession. It is the burden of the author of that section to provide adequate citations for the claim that a state cannot legally secede. If needed I can provide citations by State Representative Ron Paul and former judge Andrew Nepalitano that actually argue with better authority than me that a State CAN legally secede. My argument for removal of the paragraph it that it is factually incorrect. At best, current secessionist movements in Texas are sentimental, with a few quasi political parties being formed. In my view this warrants a separate article, but not inclusion in a general article about Texas. Secession should be included in this article, if these parties start endorsing and getting into state offices candidates who actually publicly support secession. Then, it is a real movement that warrants mention in this general article. AndrewAguayo (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I sat let them go back to Mexico. Texas seems to think the nation revolves around it when it does not and they seem to think they are what America is, which they are not. The east coast is what America is as Texas is a Johnny-come-lately state. Let these un-American seperatists go, them we should not have to hear anymore from the so-called conservatives. Maybe we to take it back by force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of a paragraph from the Politics section?

I'm not sure how to go about challenging a section of an article, but here's the section I think should be removed or revised.

Texas is not unique in possessing a secessionist movement. While Texas did originally retain the right to divide into as many as five independent States,[127] after the civil war the option for Texas to secede was revoke and in 1869 the US Supreme Court banned any unilateral acts of secession.[128] Despite those facts, a 2009 poll found that 31% of Texans believe that Texas has the legal right to secede and form an independent country and 18% believe it should do so.[129]

Citation 128 refers to a news article from mySAnews and not any established law journals regarding the topic of secession. Plus, the cited article is not accurate. In closest case regarding Texas secession, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Texas_v._White the US Supreme court returned bonds sold by the Texas Confederate government to the Texas government during reconstruction. The majority opinion sited the Articles of Confederation phrase "the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" was justification for returning the bonds since they were sold by an illegal government. The decision does not explicitly ban secession as the citation claims, it merely returns bonds.

Additionally, even the US Supreme Court's majority opinion is flawed. The Articles of Confederation was replaced by the US Constitution and should have no bearing on a Supreme Court decisions. The US Constitution is actually silent on the issue of secession for ANY State and not just Texas. Since it is silent on the issue, the dissenting opinion should have prevailed in the case. Plus, due to its silence one could argue that Article 10, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," by default, allows states to decide on their sovereignty.

The line after the citation - "Despite those facts, a 2009 poll found that 31% of Texans believe that Texas has the legal right to secede and form an independent country and 18% believe it should do so.[129]" The phrase "Despite those facts" expresses a disparaging opinion of ignorance amongst the 31% who believe in the right to secede rather than simply states a fact. Should the sentence remain, it should read "A 2009 poll found that 31% of Texans believe that Texas has the legal right to secede and form an independent country and 18% believe it should do so.[129]"

AndrewAguayo (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that citation 128 inaccurately represents the Supreme Court's ruling or are you saying that citation 128 is referencing an inaccurate ruling by the Supreme Court? If the citation is inaccurate, please provide an accurate citation. If the ruling is flawed, it is still the ruling until the Supreme Court reverses the ruling. --Mikebrand (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have said is that citation 128 states "After the Civil War, the option of secession was forever taken off the table. And the point was driven deeper and harder by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869, which banned any unilateral acts of secession." However, this statement is wrong because there are no US Supreme Court decisions that ban a state from seceding. The closest case, Texas vs. White in 1869 does not ban secession. AndrewAguayo (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the topic, but at this point the only reference is citation 128. It is just the local San Antonio newspaper. AndrewAguayo, can you provided a reference, that is at least as authoritative as a big city newspaper, that supports what you are saying? If so, then it would seem that the paragraph needs to be modified. --Mikebrand (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My viewpoints are articulated in here Talk:Texas#Will_it_be_appropiate_if_we_added_Texas_Sucesion_Movement. Yes I believe we should remove it, or at best move it to the politics of Texas page. .. remember this page is a broad outline about everything in texas. Oldag07 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Texas article is rather short, not overly long, so I see no reason to move these few sentences to a different page. According to the survey cited, nearly a third of Texans think it can secede and nearly a fifth think it should do so. Seems that the topic is relevant to an article on the state. --Mikebrand (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would disagree with the idea that the article is "not overly long". This page is 124,370 bytes. We were getting complains about this page being overly long at 100,000 bytes. Oldag07 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would question the timing of the poll. The governor had just talked about it public, and there were all of these "anti tax" rallies. I question if the poll is just a statistical anomaly, or an actual desire to succeed. Moreover, the paragraph says "this is not unusual for a state to have", making it of questionable notability. Something like this belongs on the Politics of Texas page, not this one. Oldag07 (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are two links I have found that indicate states have a right to secede. http://jimostrowski.com/articles/secession.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/ron-paul-defends-secessio_n_188893.html. This is also cited in Andrew Nepalitano's book "The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land" As I was saying, the claim in the Texas article that states cannot legally secede is factually incorrect. Please remove the paragraph.

I do not believe the many people would consider either of those references (an individual's personal website and the opinions of a fringe candidate) to be more authoritative than the San Antonio Express News newspaper, and I do not consider the Express News to be very authoritative. The bar has not been set very high, but at this point citation 128 is the most authoratative reference on the topic in this article. The standard for Wikipedia is published sources, not persuasive speech. An article (not an op-ed) from either the Wall Street Journal, NY Time, LA Times, Houston Chronicle, etc that supports legal secession would go a long way to supporting your point. --Mikebrand (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

These WP articles support the position that secession is not legal:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Secession#United_States

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Texas_v._White

As long as WP articles on the topic of secession report that is it not legal for states to do so, it is entirely consistent for the Texas article to state the same.

--Mikebrand (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the paragraph. If I understanding AndrewAguayo correctly, there is a question whether the Supreme Court was accurate in its ruling in Texas v White. Nonetheless, it does seem to be accurate to say that the SC did rule in Texas v White that states do not have the right to secede. I believe the current wording of the secession paragraph in the Texas article accurately states the facts (ie, how the SC ruled) without treading the ground of legality (ie, is it legal to secede regardless of past rulings). --Mikebrand (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mikebrand I thank you for the rewrite, especially removing some of the language I found objectionable. There is one more change that can be made to make the article consistent with other WP Articles. The sentence "In 1869 the US Supreme Court in Texas v. White found that the Constitution did not permit states to secede.[129]" should read as it does in article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Secession "The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[23][24] The citations in the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Secession [23] and [24] are more authoritative than [129] in the current sentence. This language is also consistent with http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Texas_v._White where is it phrased and directly quotes the decision: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[19]" Again citation [19] in the aforementioned article is more authoritative than [129] in the existing sentence. As you can see, Texas vs White actually opens the possibility of secession with an agreement of 2/3 of the states or revolution. Hence citation [129] is actually incorrect and inconsistent with other citations of WP articles. AndrewAguayo (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Cornell reference is more authoritative than the San Antonio newspaper. In reading the decision in Texas v White I see that the full sentence referenced is "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." The description:

membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."

gives the impression that membership in the union of States could optionally be revoked by a state. The phrase "no place for reconsideration or revocation", to me, is very restrictive. I think the following would more accurately summarize Chase's majority opinion:

membership could only be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."

Would you agree to that wording? In other words the Texas article would read:

"The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that the union was "perpetual", secession ordinances were "absolutely null," and membership could only be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[23]

Or the current sentence "In 1869 the US Supreme Court in Texas v. White found that the Constitution did not permit states to secede" could be modified by adding "unilaterally":

In 1869 the US Supreme Court in Texas v. White found that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede.

That is, states can only secede through revolution or by consent of the other states.

--Mikebrand (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going in a direction that doesn't belong on a WP talk page. Remember Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view, meaning, we aren't supposed to pick a side of the argument. Moreover, talk pages are not supposed to be used to debate the issue, but rather, about the article itself. Hence, if a successionist movement is notable enough to go on a page with is a general summary about texas. I personally do not believe that the succession movement as of June 27, 2009 in Texas is very serious. And as the paragraph says itself, small movements like this are not uncommon, hence, isn't necessarly notable. If succession thoughts belongs on wikipedia, than it belongs on the Politics of Texas page, not this one. Oldag07 (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the issue of secession does not belong in this article and would actually prefer it to be removed and personally agree the current secession movement is not serious enough for this article. However, If the current authors include subject in the article, I will continue to insist that the topic be handled accurately. Yes Wikipedia is supposed to have a netural point of view, however, should not disseminate inaccurate information either. As I have said numerous times in this discussion, neither the US Constitution nor US Supreme Court or even our current laws legally prohibit secession. The closet case to addressing secession is Texas v White, which actually does open the possibility for secession. Should the topic remain, I believe the final sentence(s) should read. "In the 1869 Texas v. White case, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of secession in its majority opinion. From the decision: "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"[23]. I believe this achieves a neutral point of view since it directly quotes the courts decision. AndrewAguayo (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Tomorrow I will move the secession paragraph to the Politics of Texas page and revise the wording. --Mikebrand (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to note here, while I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, it seems to me that, when it comes to the issue of the "legality" of secession, something is often overlooked when citing Texas v. White. That is, it being invoked as being "proof" a state has no constitutional right to secede. However, there is more to it than that. The important thing to remember is that it did not address the question of secession per se, but rather, involved a dispute over bond sales. The below is some of my own wording to sum up what a lawyer aquaintance of mine once said on the matter:

The actual issue before the SCOTUS was about the rights of the State of Texas in handling the bonds and whether they had legal standing to sell those bonds through contract to two men in the northeast.

The court held in favor of Texas and the Chief Justice, in writing the opinion for the majority, stated rather parenthetically and peripherally that part of his logic was based on the fact that states had no right to secede and that Texas had remained a State of the Union throughout the period following her secession. The Chief Justice, writing for the majority, opined about secession and statehood. However, this matter was not the one before the court. The court was not asked, nor has any subsequent court been asked, to hear and rule whether or not states had legal rights to secede. Nor was the court asked to rule on whether Texas had legally left the Union when she seceded.

Nor does a court have a legal basis to decide, mid trial, that they are going to switch or add horses and take up other matters not before it. The judge can opine all he likes, but, the law is the law and the specific matters before the court are what will be legally concluded by the court.

The 'holding' of a case is what the court decides about the issue presented to it. Any other pronouncements or explanations by a court are what is known as 'dicta', which, although it can be persuasive, is essentially the term for extraneous explanations or commentary that are not directly related to the issue before the court. The specific issue at trial is the only issue affected by the resolution of the court. The 'dicta' that emerge from a hearing or during trial are of no legal consequence."

Thus, as it is, no court has ever addressed the issue of secession directly. TexasReb (talk) TexasReb —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

Size of Texas in Sq. KM

Article states 696,200 km2 (kilometers squared). I Believe that is actually 696,200 square kilometers and not 696,000 kilometers squared.

Jimbosco (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an issue with the {{convert}} template. I believe it is correct. that is how i was taught to write it in math class. Oldag07 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, look at the square kilometre page. Oldag07 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Race Table

I have created a table for race as suggested.

Race	Percentage
White*	70.6%
African American	11.5%
Asian American	3.3%
Native American	0.5%
other racial groups	12.3%
Two or more races	1.8%

I have no clue how to add the "white hispanic- non hispanic sections" as well as the english, irish scots etc section. Suggestions Oldag07 (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census has a table you can copy. --JWB (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in education section

The education section is majorly flawed, and the editors seem to be a group of people trying to one up each other in terms of their respective universities.

Fact 1) There are two flagship universities in Texas: UT in Austin and Texas A&M in College Station.

Fact 2) Per the latest U.S. News rankings, The University of Houston is a 4th tier university (the lowest ranking a college can receive), and this isn't likely to change. Let's keep hopeful speculation off a fact page. Quote from the Houston Chronicle earlier this month: "The University of Houston, for example, isn't in the initial group. It is in the U.S. News survey but ranks as a Tier 4 school among national universities. (Only schools which rank in the top half of each category get a numerical rank; the rest are divided into Tier 3 and Tier 4 schools based upon their scores.) Renu Khator, president of UH and chancellor of the UH system, said she doesn't expect that to change soon. For one thing, she said, it takes time to change a school's reputation."

Let's not waste space talking about 3rd and 4th tier universities and concentrate on the premier univeristies of Texas; Rice, A&M, & U.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.228.137 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A&M is the other flagship university. There are two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinite64 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with only mentioning the "premiere" universities in Texas. I am an Aggie as evidenced by my screen name. Students aren't only educated at these four universities, and there are many institutions of considerable size in Texas. Oldag07 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Colleges and University images

Quoting Karanacs from the Texas A&M university talk page:

I think there were (and still are) way too many pictures in the article, and that is part of what is causing the article to load slowly. It also makes the article seem sloppy - too many pictures jammed together. There are about 20 pictures currently in the article, which is an incredibly high number for an article not on an artist or art movement. . . . . I think we really need to justify each image in the article, and if it doesn't actually provide unique information, or depict something that can't be shown easily in words, the image probably doesn't belong. For an article this size, I'd aim for 10-14 images.

The A&M page is smaller than this one, but that is the whole reason why I removed 3-4 images earlier. Now that we have 2 university pictures up on this page Texas A&M and UT's, I feel compelled to remove one of them. Removing either one would seem to favor the other and anger either Aggies editors on this page or the Longhorns. Moreover, removing one and not the other could be interpreted as violating WP:NPOV. I suggest we place the SMU picture up, and remove both TAMU and UT. This is a school that most people don't hate, and both aggies and longhorns would not be offended from it. Oldag07 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

French Texas

Under the Six Flags section the author suggests that the French flag flew over Texas due only to Fort Saint Louis. This is simply not the case. This is just more Wiki-inaccuracy. The map of the Louisiana Purchase clearly shows that France laid claim to much more than Fort Saint Louis (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:U.S._Territorial_Acquisitions.png) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.94.66 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of Fort Saint Louis, France believed they had a claim to all of Texas. Spain, likewise, claimed to own all of Texas. The border dispute between these two superpowers ended when Spain took control of Louisiana. When Spain ceded the land back to France, the border language was ambiguous, and when France sold Louisiana to the US shortly after, the American government interpreted the borders as liberally as possible. I'll check the wording in this article to make sure that it is not misleading. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I miss here information about the origin of the name "Texas". You can find it in the Spanish version. This is what I found on the web, which is almost the same as what the Spanish article says: TEXAS, ORIGIN OF NAME. The word texas (tejas, tayshas, texias, thecas?, techan, teysas, techas?) had wide usage among the Indians of East Texas even before the coming of the Spanish, whose various transcriptions and interpretations gave rise to many theories about the meaning. The usual meaning was "friends," although the Hasinais applied the word to many groups-including Caddoan-to mean "allies." The Hasinais probably did not apply the name to themselves as a local group name; they did use the term, however, as a form of greeting: "Hello, friend." How and when the name Texas first reached the Spanish is uncertain, but the notion of a "great kingdom of Texas," associated with a "Gran Quivira" (see QUIVIRA) had spread in New Spain before the expedition of Alonso De León and Damián Massanetqv in 1689. Massanet reported meeting Indians who proclaimed themselves thecas, or "friends," as he understood it, and on meeting the chief of the Nabedaches (one of the Hasinai tribes) mistakenly referred to him as the "governor" of a "great kingdom of the Texas." Francisco de Jesús María, a missionary left by Massanet with the Nabedaches, attempted to correct erroneous reports about the name by asserting that the Indians in that region did not constitute a kingdom, that the chief called "governor" was not the head chief, and that the correct name of the group of tribes was not Texas. Texias, according to Jesús María, meant "friends" and was simply a name applied to the various groups allied against the Apaches. Later expeditions by the Spanish for the most part abandoned the name Texas or else used it as an alternative to Asinay (Hasinai). Official Spanish documents continued to use it but later narrowed it to mean only the Neches-Angelina group of Indians and not a geographic area. Other putative meanings have less evidence from contemporary accounts to support them: "land of flowers," "paradise," and "tiled roofs"-from the thatched roofs of the East Texas tribes-were never suggested by first-hand observers so far as is known, though later theories connect them with tejas or its variant spellings. Whatever the Spanish denotations of the name Texas, the state motto, "Friendship," carries the original meaning of the word as used by the Hasinai and their allied tribes, and the name of the state apparently was derived from the same source.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Frederick Webb Hodge, ed., Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico (2 vols., Washington: GPO, 1907, 1910; rpt., New York: Pageant, 1959). "Letter of Don Damian Manzanet to Don Carlos de Siguenza," Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 2 (April 1899). William W. Newcomb, The Indians of Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961).

Phillip L. Fry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.164.249 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

DART vs. METRORail

I'm not trying to be bias, but I'm afraid I can't help it. Why is the picture of a METRORail train in the Transportation section when DART's light rail is already established and more well known outside the state? NThomas (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, and why is there a picture of Dallas in the "Cities and towns" section when Houston is the largest city in the state? Should we replace both images? Postoak (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I swapped the image to Houston under the "Cities and towns" section, but could not find an image of DART's light rail to replace. So feel free to replace the METRORail image when someone can find an image for DART's light rail. —RJN (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Article looks fine to me

Shrug. What's with all the tags added to the top of the article? I doubt they're appropriate for an article listed as GA. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you as the article looks fine to me as well. That user failed to add his comments on the talk page for putting that tag in the article. —RJN (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I'd be interested in knowing which sections of this well-sourced article resemble a 'personal essay', or which sections feature a tone or style not appropriate for Wikipedia. While the article is certainly rather long, it has over 220 citations and it shouldn't be penalized for this. AlexiusHoratius 01:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The tagger has done this before. User talk:Waterjuice#One of your edits to Texas Oldag07 (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me also. The user should discuss the reasons for tagging. I will undo the tags until Waterjuice can give some explanation. Postoak (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fair idea. Not sure where the editor's fan-pov concerns come from. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The tags are legitimate to the article and should be left alone, enough said.. Waterjuice (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article went through WP:GA review. Please give clear reasons why the article is being tagged, otherwise they will be removed per consensus. Postoak (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Its difficult to ascertain problems an article may or may not have, if the editor tagging it doesn't expand on why its being tagged other than "they are legitimate". The current consensus amongst editors is that the tags in question are improper, however those positions can be re-evaluated if a convincing argument can be made. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem seemed to resolve itself last night with Waterjuice's resignation. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Observation: Not that it matters now but in my experience editors that have a fundamental problem with a topic often find reasons to fault articles about the topic. From this person's edit history I would guess this is a Californian ... --Mcorazao (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Was I the only one here thinking, "Don't mess with Wikipedia"? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith from Waterjuice. He has made a few questionable edits after claiming to be "retired". Oldag07 (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused again

Given this diff, what does 50 years of presidential election results have to do with the state of Texas? Shall we also include Namibian presidential election results? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed, it was unsourced and not very well placed. Please revert if anyone disagrees. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Size

This page has been ballooning in size as of recently. as of now, the page stands at ~126,000. when this page gained its GA status it was ~101,000. Any suggestions on what could be trimmed? Oldag07 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, the above referenced diff added 2814 bytes to the article (123,200 bytes versus 126,014 bytes) (about a 2.2% increase if my math is right). I note the data is unsourced, irrelevant (because the Electoral college determines presidency, not popular vote), off topic to the article, and looks to me personally like POV-pushing vandalism. I'd appreciate its removal.

Speaking in general about the article's size, I noticed it when I first reviewed the article: My response was <shrug> "Oh, well, it's a big state". The problem that I've had overcoming size issues in articles I edit is that they are always fixable under WP:SS, but to actually accomplish a move of material one needs to be an expert on both source and destination articles in order to 1) be sure that all relevant data is preserved in the move, 2) insure no data is duplicated in the target article, and 3) insure that the summary paragraph left in the primary article fairly summarizes the sub-article. "This," says I, "is a big job." It's not really a simple cut-and-paste. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions on trimming:

• History - A good guidline is that history summaries on geographical locations be less than a dozen paragraphs. This one has more than double that.
• Geography - The Geology section could be simplified. Rather than trying to summarize all of the major points of the geology it should pick a few of the most significant/interesting things and mention them.
• Climate - Mentioning Indianola history, while fascinating, is unnecessary.
• Religion - The Lubbock "local lore" comment can be removed (probably inappropriate anyway). The detailed table on all of the different religions could be simplified or removed (would be a shame but it is not absolutely necessary). Note that there is some redundancy in that the section mentions number of adherents for some faiths and then mentions these same faiths as percentages.
• Government and politics - Texas Ranger discussion could be trimmed a little. The discussion of gerrymandering, while interesting, can probably be trimmed or eliminated. The discussions of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections are not essential discussions, at least in their current form (informative but, if space is an issue, these can be cut back).
• Economy - The bits on renewable energy are interesting but, given that their impact is currently not large, this could be abbreviated. The note on "urban sprawl" is not essential info.
• Transportation - The Airports section need not discuss so much the airline headquarters (arguably it should take these out and instead mention other airports). The Railroads section could be summarized a bit more too.
• Culture - The Arts section could use a slight trim (e.g. a tad too much detail on Deep Ellum and ACL).
• Education - Presidential library info is interesting but not essential.

Hope that is helpful.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the culture section reflect more on the general culture of the state versus the fine arts. Texas is known for it's unique blend of cultures.Texdoc41 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Just as a note here if the change gets lost in a revert or edit. The etymology source (The Texas Handbook article on the Name of Texas) does not support saying that the word was "widespread" among "native Americans." It says it was common among the native Americans of East Texas: ie, among the members of the Caddoan confederacy, who spoke similar dialects. Also informative to note the proper etymology for the regional name (that it was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo and their region of East Texas,) given the later expansion of "Texas" to include everything northeast of the Rio Grande. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Democrats in the Rio Grande

I dispute this, because I remember reading a map over the bill over health care, many Congressmen from the region voted yes on it, most conservative Democrats didn't vote for it.

• I support your change, since the source at the end of that sentence is a map with no mention of the flavor of Democrat. Abductive (reasoning) 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by conservative Democrats. Western Pines (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Modern Texas section

The paragraph that says: "Respectively one eighth of all texas live in a major metropolitan area such as Houston, Texas. The Dallas Fort Worth Metropolitan Area is the largest in Texas. While Houston, Texas is legally the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest city in the United States, the Dallas Fort Worth conglomerate is much bigger than Houston, Texas and all surrounding suburban areas." Should be the last paragraph in that section, since the following paragraph continues where the previous one left off.

Also, WAY more than one eighth of all Texans live in a major metropolitan area. Just Houston (5.7 million) and Dallas-Fort Worth (6.3 million) combined have half the state's 24 million population. Adding to that San Antonio (2 million), Austin (1.6 million), and El Paso (700 thousand), puts the number over 16 million. So it should say "two thirds of all Texans".

Here's my proposed revision:

Respectively two thirds of all Texans live in a major metropolitan area such as Houston. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area is the largest in Texas. While Houston is legally the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest city in the United States, the Dallas-Fort Worth conglomerate is much bigger than Houston and all surrounding suburban areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKW 85 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. You are right. Go change it. Oldag07 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I would, but I don't have access to the edit page for Texas. --DKW 85 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with one word in the article, which also happens to be mentioned in the discussion page. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is not MUCH larger than the Houston metropolitan area. It is definitely larger, but not MUCH larger. I would delete that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gar59 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide either population figures or square mile figures to justify the 'not much larger' claim? According to the Wikipedia article on DFW it encompasses 12 counties and 6.7 million people. Where as the greater Houston area article says it has 10 counties and 5.7 million people. So DFW has 17% more people and 2 more counties? Is that 'much larger'??Willbennett2007 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cities and towns section.

Can someone please do something about the picture of Houston? It looks out of place and is clipping the text above it slightly. Thanks. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the left. The religion infobox causes the misalignment. Postoak (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthem box needed

Hi! everyone. Can someone go to the page for England, here: England and look at the box where it says: "Anthem: None (de jure) - God Save the Queen, Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory (de facto)"? Can someone add such a box for Texas, as per the guidance of the user below? Thank you! Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Penny, actually Texas does have an anthem: Yellow Rose of Texas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)" (Quoted from: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:England#Anthem)

I don't think that's true: The Texas State Library and Archives Commission website says that the state song is "Texas, Our Texas", per Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6, 41st Legislature, First Called Session (1929). They called it the "state song" not the "anthem".

Anyway, there's a separate List of Texas symbols article, so we don't need to list them here. – jaksmata 21:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you strongly. The problem is the user I mentioned, and many others, DO think that countries/territories should be listed on the wikipedia as having any song as an anthem on the whim of some people. And won't allow any editing to the contrary. As my links show. Although it just seems to be Britain they apply this to. Regards. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

England is a country, while Texas is just a state in the USA. Dffgd (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters for this page, but the English understanding of "country" is different than the U.S. understanding. England is part of the United Kingdom. A "national" anthem for a sub-state entity is about equivalent to a state song. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Most cities over a million

{{editsemiprotected}}

California now has three too. San Jose's estimated population for 2009 was 1,006,892

It's true that San Jose, California has a source giving that population. But I can't find where in this article it mentions "cities over a million". Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Y I changed it. – jaksmata 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Geography

I haven't been to this page in a while. I find that the introductory paragraphs have more information than the geography section.

Due to its size and geologic features such as the Balcones Fault, Texas contains diverse landscapes that resemble both the American South and the Southwest.[10] Although Texas is popularly associated with the Southwestern deserts, less than 10% of the land area is desert.[11] Most of the population centers are located in areas of former prairies, grasslands, forests, and the coastline. Traveling from east to west, one can observe terrain that ranges from coastal swamps and piney woods, to rolling plains and rugged hills, and finally the desert and mountains of the Big Bend. Due to its long history as a center of the American cattle industry, Texas is associated with the image of the cowboy.

I propose moving the paragraph to the geography (minus the cowboy sentence), and removing mention of the geographic regions, something that belongs in the Geography of Texas page. As for a mention of geography in the introduction paragraph, I propose, a more concise:

Texas stands at the intersection for multiple different geographic and climate zones. The eastern sections of the state that border the Gulf of Mexico, are of lower elevations, have higher temperatures, and have far more precipitation than the western portions of the state. The state has no natural large lakes, however, it has 15 major rivers, and over 100 artificial reservoirs

I know it needs work. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)