Talk:Republic of Texas (group)

Untitled

Come on, this article was clearly written by a member or supporter of the RoT group. Where's the fairness? This is biased.

---

Removed the following text: Texas flies its flag at the same height as the US flag (unique among all the states). This is an urban legend. snopes

For the article: "Parallels can be drawn to the sedevacantist heresy of the Catholic Church." That POV? 68.39.174.39 01:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV? While the sentence seemed odd to me too, when I read the sedevacantist article I could see the parallels. Perhspa the sentence could be better written by explaining what those apralels are. -Willmcw 05:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Calling the sedevacantists' viewpoint heresy is probably POV, since it's open for debate whether they are correct or not. Removing that word should eliminate the POV, I think. --Myles Long 14:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've re-worded it to drop the "heresy". Cheers, -Willmcw 19:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Is it, though? Heresy is simply holding a viewpoint at odds with the orthodox or commonly accepted one--it does not mean that the view is necessarily wrong. Kurt Weber 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The US did not negotiate any May 3rd treaty with Texas, it does not recognize passports from the "Republic of Texas," and the "Austin Judgment" referred to was not written by any US federal court. It's not even a good forgery. I have removed all of these claims from the article. Gazpacho 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dose Texan indipendace realy have the support of all 12,000,000 or so Texans? Opal-kadett 20.36 UTC.

No way it is even near that amount. Texan here holmes, I don't support it and know of anyone who wants to seperate Texas from the USA.

Two Removed Sentences

I removed these two sentences as I could find nothing to verify them:

"Therefore, the vote has never been upheld and Texas has been considered a Captive Nation of War according to the World Court (1991). The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case as it did not have jurisdiction over Texas."

If someone can show a clear World Court ruling that Texas is legally a captive nation of war, please provide a citation via a link to the Internation Court of Justice site. As far as the US Supreme Court claiming it has no jurisdiction over Texas, this would appear to be in error. The Supreme Court hears and rules on cases from Texas often. Can some one show any SC ruling where the SC argues it has no jurisdiction over Texas? LarryQ 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction

• The final battle of the American Civil War took place with the invasion of Galveston in 1869. Federal troops advanced into Austin, marched the Congress out on the lawn in front of a firing squad and threatened to shoot every member if they did not vote to restore statehood.

A battle has to be between two opposing forces. Did the federal troops meet armed opposition? Were bullets fired? This does not appear to be a battle, and eev if it were, it's not clear that it'd be a battle of the war or of Reconstruction. -Will Beback 00:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this appears to be in error. The Civil War ended in 1865. I changed War between the States to American Civil War but did not catch this. This was definetly reconstruction... LarryQ 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

The trivia section reads like a manifesto against the US Government. NPOV has obviously been abandoned.

Much of the propaganda, urban myth and flat out baloney has been removed from this section.

I removed the whole section, leaving only what appeared to be connected to this group. Most of it was as decribed above, and had no direct connection to the topic of this article. -Will Beback 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged this section for NPOV. Haven't dug through the edit history but either not enough was removed or a lot of the crap was put back in. BIEB!! 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is still extremely POV. The trivia needs to be cleaned up, especially the bit about US Hegemony.Letoofdune 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, removing this whole section would probably be a good idea, because there is a separate page for the Republic of Texas as a nation, and nothing in this section really relates to the modern group. BIEB!! 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Need citation to Texas Monthly survey.

Roadrunner 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed as I cannot find a citation to this...

However, a poll conducted by Texas Monthly magazine in the early 1990s resulted in greater than 70% of respondents supporting secession from the United States.

Roadrunner 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify about McLaren

the section on Richard Lance (Rick) McLaren ranges from dates 1861 to the 1990's. Is this a typo or are we talking about two different people? MarcelloRubini 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a mistake, but it could be clearer. The "1861" refers to events that occured which are considered central to this modern movement. Let's see if we can do some copyediting to improve the clarity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"The McLarens and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison (though charged with several felonies, all have been dropped)." is misleading if not blatantly wrong. McLaren was convicted of kidnapping and is serving a 99yr sentence. Four others went with him at the time and I believe they were released afterwards. Subsequently, eight followers were imprisoned and charged for fraud related to RoT financial activities, only one was found innocent. Wrwindsor 03:39, 3 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp, McLaren is not currently in federal custody. I did not get a match for him in the Texas state prison system either. LarryQ (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

convictions: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=rick+mclaren&sugg=d&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&cid=8581769859170443 Windsor (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

1999 AP story: http://www.amarillo.com/stories/082899/tex_LD0663.001.shtml Windsor (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

2007 prison interview: http://www.oaoa.com/onset?id=1113&template=article.html Windsor (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

removed "(though charged with several felonies, all have been dropped)" since it is clearly incorrect. Windsor (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Republic-of-texas.png

Image:Republic-of-texas.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I want to delete this page. I put all information in Texas Secession Debate.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Republic of Texas (group) shows lots of links. If the page is deleted, I'd suggest replacing it with a redirect to Texas Secession Debate#The Modern Movement. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your "Movement". We are a nation and not a movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyb3roptik (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that this article should be merged into Texas Secession Movement. I base this on the fact that the name Republic of Texas was a recognized sovereign nation that accepted, by majority of vote, to become a state in the United States. The validity of this is thus far undisputed, factions notwithstanding. I have no problem with there being a secession movement. I do have a problem with the infringement of the name of the article with The Republic of Texas. The contents of this article reflect a "movement" and not a country in exile. The above unsigned statement, regardless of personal beliefs, is erroneous as there is currently no recognized "nation" of the Republic of Texas in the U.S. or internationally. I "do not" advocate deletion as that would not be per Wikipedia if the above mentioned links or references are accurate. The contents of this article along with Texas Secession Movement, and Legal status of Texas, all concern the same subject so are certainly related. I suggest merging (not deleting) all three under "Texas secession Movement" which, at this point, is certainly the correct name. Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge request

There is a request to merge this article and Legal status of Texas to Texas Secession Movement. There is some confusion that the discussion was not centralized so please weigh in here with "Support", "Oppose", and any comments. Otr500 (talk) 11:08 pm, Today (UTC−5)

See also

I've removed the following recently added entries:

• Branch Davidians
• Christian Patriot
• Hawaiian sovereignty movement
• Second Vermont Republic
• Texas Secession Debate

The reason given on my talk page by the editor for adding them is "I think the relevance is in the fact that they all form a mutually influential web involving distrust of and destruction by the American police forces, of people both on the left and the right. Waco and Ruby Ridge both led to Oklahoma City, Rainbow Farm, etc." The problem I see is that this 'influential web' concept is subjective. Even though entries can be preferentially relevant according to the guidelines, the inclusion of all of these seems a stretch and it isn't obvious at all to me that Waco led to Rainbow Farm or even Oklahoma City. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you left:

• Alaskan Independence Party
• Christian Patriot
• Hawaiian sovereignty movement
• Second Vermont Republic
• Texas Secession Debate

and removed everything else. Meters (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agh, sorry about that. I'll fix it. My bad. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok,here's what I meant to say should be removed:Christian Patriot

Branch Davidians Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Michigan Militia Militia of Montana Montana Freemen MOVE Oklahoma City bombing Rainbow Farm Ruby Ridge The Turner Diaries Waco siege

Leaving links to articles about secessionist movements, etc. I've also removed Christian Patriot as the article doesn't suggest a link. We shouldn't be using see also links to suggest an idea or point of view, we need better justification for that. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Republic of Texas (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419013203/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fifth Republic of Texas" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fifth Republic of Texas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19#Fifth Republic of Texas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Citing letters

Citation 23 is "U.S. Postal mail delivered to the Hon. Richard Barajas on April 27, 2015." Chief Justice Richard Barajas was a justice in a Federal district court. I'm not sure if this is even verifiable, or if letters are allowed to be cited (I would imagine not; I don't see anything when briefly glancing at Wikipedia's policies). I understand we allow rare books and other hard to access items to be cited (WP:SOURCEACCESS), but this seems too far (does anyone other than the recipient have the letter? Do they even still have it? Don't we need a secondary source?). Also, I'm not sure if we would need a secondary source, or if a primary source would be acceptable if we could actually verify it. I don't want to remove this citation because I am unclear, and thus am seeking confirmation. 2603:6011:9440:D700:35BB:ABA0:C639:D0B3 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)