Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:10, 4 January 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

Texas Ranger Division received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Anecdotes

Has anyone checked out the Texas Rangers' biographies at the Texas State Cemetery Honored Texans section? Many are just vital information, but a few have entertaining anecdotes. For instance:

• A ranger forced to walk to El Paso, stops at the first house he finds, eats 27 eggs in one go before going into town for a full meal
• A man whose vigilantism earned him an invitation to join the rangers and incurred the wrath of the Wild Bunch --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• ...officer's rank meant little to the rangers, for "They were all `generals.' When we detailed a man to go anywhere to make an arrest or do any particular work, we didn't need to send another man with him to tell him what to do." This one includes many quotes, and I'm tempted to look for the mentioned autobiographies.

--Laura Scudder | Talk 22:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Branch Davidians

Not a big LE fan of any sort, but i did find it interesting when reading the transcript of the branch davidian trial (1994?) that texas rangers testified against FBI and BATF, even while on the stand as prosecution witnesses. as i recall, they were basically disgusted by the whole thing. would be a nice blurb for the article, if somebody is looking for things to add. could also work in the classic "one riot, one ranger" saying, or whatever it was. i don't have time, but if somebody wants a lead to the trial transcript, let me know and i'll try to track it down. haven't been able to find it for years, since the site where it was disappeared. SaltyPig 22:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just added the "one riot, one ranger" thing. Interesting. Salty, I don't know enough about the whole Branch Davidian thing to feel comfortable treating that with any authority, but if you find yourself with some time it'd be an interesting addition I think. · Katefan0 23:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

hadn't checked for a year or so. just found that the trial transcript has resurfaced. like i said, i don't have time to go through it all again right now, but i did locate a snippet here, which is mildly representative of a few exchanges re FBI and BATF:

601                       Byrnes - Direct (Mr.  Jahn)                
 3             GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE
 4       DAVID ALAN BYRNES, GOVERNMENT WITNESS, SWORN
 5              DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6 BY MR. JAHN:
10  Q  How are you employed, sir?
11  A  I'm employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a
12  Texas Ranger Captain in Garland, Texas.
            Byrnes - Cross (MR. TINKER)        634
16  Q  All right. It concerned you so much that the FBI was
17  destroying the crime scene, as far as you were concerned, that
18  you did complain to the law enforcement -- the prosecutors?
19  A  Yes, sir, I expressed my concern.

if anybody wants to research, here are two good pages to start from. SaltyPig 09:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Badge.

Took the liberty to clean it up, hope you don't mind, Kate. Shem 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it looks great! · Katefan0 00:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

POV? -- Los Rinches

The reputation of the Rangers is a bit different from the Texan Chicano perspective.--demonburrito 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Since you're familiar, could you maybe work up a couple of paragraphs? · Katefan0 15:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I added the following sentence to the areticle, linking to a discussion by well-known and respected folklorist Americo Paredes on the official Smithsonian Institution website, and Shauri deleted it: From the early 20th century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans called Rangers by the unaffectionate nickname "Los Rinches". AnonMoos 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In whole truth, I didn't actually delete it as such. In fact, I didn't even notice that sentence existed. All the current contents were ellaborated by myself at a Temp page, taking as model the text of the article as of its September 8th version; that is, before you posted it. When I pasted my finished version, your contribution was unintentionally removed. Now that you bring it to my attention, I'll add that information into the article, albeit not as an isolated and unrelated sentence as you originally added it but integrated within its context.

Nevertheless, I want to point out that the issue of the turbulent relation between Mexicans, Tejanos and the Rangers has been widely addressed already, especially at the Early 20th century section. I suggest that you read the article thorougly, and you'll see that it doesn't exactly praise their role in said events. Therefore, it's not like I'm trying to remove sensitive information nor whitewash the Rangers' image, like your post seems to suggest. Thanks for your contribution! - Shauri Yes babe? 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Then it should have been part of your editing procedure to take into account edits made between Sept. 8th and 18th -- when the article not only didn't bear any warning against editing it, but in fact actively solicited users to edit it to bring it up to "featured Texas article" status. AnonMoos 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith, AnonMoos.--Wiglaf 21:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No argument about that. In fact I did take them into account, but unfortunately yours got through accidentally, mostly due to an unfortunate event with an editor who removed part of the text in a somewhat odd event. My bad a thousand times - I apollogize, and I intend to re-add your contribution asap. Are we at peace, Moos? And by the way, what's your opinion about the article itself? See any way it can be improved? Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Statue of Texas Ranger in front of Capitol

I think we should include an image of the statue in front of the capitol. However, this is the best one I can find at the moment that does not have copyright problems. Can anyone find an image where the statue is larger? It can be a very dramatic stature if shot from the right vantage point. Johntex 01:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey John! Good to see your virtual face around here again. I agree it'd be a nice addition. I don't have anything better myself; looked through all my shots of the Capitol and unfortunately that was one I missed. I have a few friends who live in Austin, I'll see if one of them can get a shot of it with a digital camera. · Katefan0 01:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kate! Thanks for the welcome. I vanished unexpectedly for a while - just too much work outside of Misplaced Pages. Hopefully I can contribute steadily for a while... About the statue, my memory is that it has a quotation from Teddy Roosevelt on the base, something about feeling secure knowing that a group of Texas Rangers was protecting his flank on San Juan Hill - but I can't find the quoation either. I did find who made the statue by consulting The Handbook of Texas Online , "Pompeo Coppini...also modeled the equestrian monument to Terry's Texas Rangers (the Eighth Texas Cavalryqv) on the Capitol grounds (1905-07)" I see Coppini has no article yet, so I'll make a stub for him. Johntex 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Understand totally. I'm actually about to take a break myself (going to Costa Rica in about a week). I wonder if there's any way to get the state to license the Handbook to Misplaced Pages under GFDL or fair use; it'd be great to wholesale import that information into stubs. As an aside, one of my dad's ancestors was a Rough Rider; Troop M. At the time he mustered out he listed his home as Indian Territory; must've been a tough customer. · Katefan0 02:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm done here

Well, my friends, I've done my best to improve this article, and I honestly don't think what else to add or expand besides from filling its red links. Also, its current size is 44k, so I believe expanding it further wouldn't be for the better either. I'll try and polish its wording and do other minor enhancements, and please feel free to edit it if you consider it necessary. Thanks, and *hugs*! - Shauri Yes babe? 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

do not edit sign

This is at odds with the notice at the top of this discussion page. It will irritate people. I don't think it serves any useful purpose. Tony 15:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I placed the {{inuse}} tag because I was in the midst of a copyedit of the entire article. It's a common thing to do when making fairly major changes throughout an article that might take a bit of time. If I do a major copyedit of the article and someone changes one word while I'm doing it, then when I save my copyedit it will tell me there's been an edit conflict, and all my work will have been essentially lost. It's just a courtesy to remind people that there is someone working on the page and to please not edit it or their work will be lost. As you can see, I've removed it. It was there for a total of maybe 15 or 20 minutes. · Katefan0 15:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, there's been an edit clash; I've used my version, which covers down to but not including the M-A war. I'm sorry if this causes inconvenience.

I suspect there may be objections at FAC on the basis of racial treatment; extreme sensitivity may be required.

I wonder why you don't delink all the low-value simple years and centuries—no one will hit them, and they make it slightly harder to read. I'll leave this up to the contributors to decide. Tony 15:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's why you either don't edit when someone has placed an inuse tag, or make sure to use the inuse tag yourself when you are making major changes. (Not sure who started editing before whom, but it's largely pointless). This answers why you seem to have reverted some of my copyediting changes. I'll make them again. I'm about to place another inuse tag; are you editing right now? · Katefan0 15:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Style

Tony, a few style points, and some of this may not be from your edits: "president" and other titles or honorifics are never capitalized unless placed directly before someone's name. I.e. "President Sam Houston" (correct); "Sam Houston, the President" (not correct). ndash should not be used when grammatically a hyphen is called for (Mexican&ndashAmerican War is not ok. Mexican-American War is proper). Please remember periods. (US Army -> U.S. Army). Do not use ASCII characters -- please use mdash for dashes, don't copy and paste an ASCII character. I'll be going back through and copyediting for these style issues as well as general precis -- there are too many articles that aren't needed (the Anglos, the Rangers). Best · Katefan0 03:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Kate, and I must take responsibility for a few of the mistakes you point out. Be sure I won't commit them twice :) Shauri Yes babe? 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was going to stay there for days, and didn't realise it referred to that particular point of time. Sorry for the inconvenience. A number of points:

• I'm slightly less disinterested in the topic now that I've read more; you might consider engaging the readers more at the top, by mentioning that the Rangers played a key role in a part of American history that has now been mythologised: the wild west.

Good idea; I'll add a paragraph mentioning this at the lead section. Shauri Yes babe? 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• A map is urgently required, preferably marking the sites of battles and other locations that are mentioned in the text; there are Wikipedians who might assist.

I think this may be a little harder, although not impossible. A map of Texas including all the mentioned locations means a huge number of references, thus requiring a very large map. The time span of the article is also very long (180 years), in which the frontiers have changed repeatedly. Shauri Yes babe? 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The map: exclude the less important locations and borders so that it's not overly cluttered. It does need to be larger than most of the existing pics. A large number of references for the map—why? Just reference the first one, and then the reader knows to look. Or you could use numerals on the map to reduce clutter, and reference every location with the corresponding numeral in, say, square brackets. Tony 13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea. I'm not familiar with any users with expertise in making maps, tho. Any chance that you know anyone who might help us? Shauri Yes babe? 14:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• References also urgently required. It's a matter of determining their density; the fewer you can get away with, the better, because the superscript numbers are a little intrusive; but you need to reinforce the credibility of the text by spreading some numbers throughout the article at strategic points. (Otherwise, this will kill it at the FAC stage.)

I'll address this asap. Personally, I love Footnotes and References, so I'll hold myself and add only a few selected ones at particularly sensitive and important points. Shauri Yes babe? 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Can someone check through the copyright of all of the images? I know someone who might assist if there's any doubt (otherwise, he loves to kill off FACs).

To the best of my knowledge, currently all of them qualify to be used properly. Please help me determine if I'm mistaken. Here's the copyright status of the images:

• Image:Rangertx.jpg: taken by a particular Texan user and available at Commons. I first spotted this picture at Yahoo! Groups: Terry's Texas Rangers and contacted the person who had posted it. At my request, he was kind enough to send me a high resolution version, and later he uploaded it into Commons himself. Just in case, all this information is easily verifiable if needed.
• Image:Texrangers.jpg: PD (around 1845). This image, along with more unused material was also provided to me by the same Yahoo! user. I've just done a small research on its sources and I've discovered that it's available at several webpages like these: , and it's part of the Culver Pictures collection. Therefore, I've taken the liberty of adding this information to its description.
• Image:Hays.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like .
• Image:Ripford.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like . Also used as cover illustration for Ford's autobiography Rip Ford's Texas .
• Image:Txrangers.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like .
• Image:McNelly.jpg: PD. Its availability on the web is limited to the credited website and many of its subpages, but it has also been used as cover illustration for books like Captain L.H. McNelly - Texas Ranger: The Life and Times of a Fighting Man by Chuck Parsons and Marianne Hall Little .
• Image:Rangers1915.JPG and Image:Brownsville1920.jpg: Copyrighted by Center for American History, The University of Texas, with properly credited source. The copyright owners allow the use of the image providing that they are credited, as they are in the images' description pages. See Restriction of use.
• Image:LoneWolf.jpg: great, all the web sources for this image have gone offline :( The picture seems to have been originally included in the book Lone Wolf Gonzaullas: Texas Ranger by Brownson Malsch , but without other sources, it could only be used under Fair Use rationale (it's around 60 years old); or perhaps it could be changed by another uncopyrighted picture of Gonzaullas, of which some exist.
• Image:Coffman.jpg: Fair use. Press release image of the DPS upon the appointment of Captain Coffman as Chief of the Texas Rangers. Not sure if I've tagged it correctly tho.
• Image:Txrangercallicot.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like .
• Image:Txrangers3.jpg: PD since it's some 110 years old, albeit its current source is the only place where I've been able to locate it so far.
• Image:Sambass.jpg and Image:Barrowparker.jpg: PD. Widely known and published pictures, available at a huge number of websites.
• Image:Txrangerbadge.png: Uploaded by Shem Daimwood under GNU Free Documentation License.

Your input in doublechecking the status of these images and making suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Shauri Yes babe? 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, the images look good. However,

• Image:Brownsville1920.jpg and Image:Rangers1915.JPG are not copyrighted-free-use. The "restrictions" page you link to says that they may be used under fair use for educational and scholarly purposes. However, the images were created in 1920 and 1915 respectively, so if they were published before 1923, they are in the public domain. If not, they might not go into the public domain until as late as 2048. Probably the best thing to do is to tag them as "fair use", and link to the copyright statement at .
• Image:LoneWolf.jpg needs a source indicated, and the copyright status verified. If it isn't public-domain, and there are public domain images of him, it should be replaced.
• Image:Coffman.jpg: Fair use, and correctly tagged. Needs a rationale, though.

--Carnildo 05:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the input, Carnildo. I'll put your advices to good use :) - Shauri Yes babe? 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Where you mention elections, can you add just a little about the limited sufferage? (Male adult property owners?)
• Middle-name initials are an artefact of the 20th century (US social security registration). It would be much nicer to have just first and last names in all cases, unless disambiguation or common usage are at issue.

We typically call people what they called themselves. Michael J. Fox prefers to be called Michael J. Fox, and indeed, the main article is Michael J. Fox, not Michael Fox. This is just one example but I'm sure there are others. · Katefan0 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My own personal belief is that middle-name initials were commonly used at the time; or at least, by people related to the article, and generally in the United States. As examples, I'd like to point out the following documents of the Texas State Library:

• Letter to Texas Ranger Capt. John Salmon Ford, addressed as "John S. Ford"
• Letter signed by Ford, same usage
• Letter mentioning John Robert Baylor (Indian fighter, 1859) as "John R. Baylor"
• Letter to James Webb Throckmorton (Texas governor, 1866), addressed as "James W. Throckmorton" .
• Letter to Branch Tanner Archer (secretary of war of the Republic of Texas, 1840), addressed as "Branch T. Archer" and a scrap from the Texas Sentinel making the same use .

These are just a few examples. Many other cases (in fact, a large quantity of them) can be observed by browsing through contemporary documents. Just my two cents. Shauri Yes babe? 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed the dots from 'U dot S dot' because no one but Americans use them, and even in the US, the more attractive, easier to read 'US' is becoming more common (see even the Misplaced Pages copyright tag for US Government images). Tony 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I find "no one but Americans use them" to be a strange argument. This is about an American institution, and Misplaced Pages style says that articles about American things should use American English. Similarly, the London Underground article should use British English. Beyond which, the Misplaced Pages:Manual of style says this: When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. The style should be changed back. · Katefan0 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just one final pseudo-point -- Tony's other points are well considered and we should think about how to deal with them going forward. · Katefan0 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at United States to see 'US' without the dots. Also please note that the CIA's World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) uses 'US' without the dots; you can't get more central to US usage than that, surely. Misplaced Pages's MoS is only a guideline, and you'll see some robust discussion over the last few months over the issue, which is as yet unresolved. Michael J Fox is from the 20th century; I'm talking about the 19th-century people in the article, who'd have have found the usage unusual.

Well, Misplaced Pages isn't consistent unfortunately. That another article uses mistaken usage really shouldn't bear here. The MOS clearly states what the style should be. Though it's disputed, it's not yet been so disputed that the MOS has changed. Therefore I see no reason not to follow it. Saying it's a guideline and not a policy is hardly a reason not to follow the manual of style, nor is pointing out other articles that use the incorrect style. I fail to see how the CIA Factbook should be seen as some sort of definitive yardstick -- the Associated Press stylebook uses U.S. in all cases. If you want a nationwide style yardstick outside of Misplaced Pages, I'd think that is more appropriate. · Katefan0 15:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that your label of 'incorrect/correct' reflects reality. American usage is inconsistent, both in and outside Misplaced Pages. All the more reason to be on the leading rather than following side of the issue, taking the psychology and aesthetics of reading as your yardstick: removing the dots makes the text slightly easier to read and looks better on the page—those are the reasons for this change in usage over the past few decades. I don't want to argue about it any more; I've put my case. Tony 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the MOS is quite clear, as is AP style, regardless of what you personally think is more readable. We can agree to disagree as you like, perhaps we should open an RFC on the matter. · Katefan0 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to quote chapter and verse from MoS manuals, note that all of the major ones specify no spaces either side of m dashes. Tony 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oldest? Yes

I'm sure Texans are suitably proud of this force, but the article on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary states that they were created in 1729. However, the RNC website has Est. 1871 as part of its banner, and its history section only says that it dates back to the "early 1800s". This last statement would suggest that the Texas Rangers article's boast might not be completely safe. Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, but the claims of a longer history seem doubtful from my (very) basic knowledge. As far as I know, although their roots did preceed the Texas Rangers, the RNC as such only exists after 1871, an information that matches the date at their banner. A very small research has led me to the History page of the official RNC Association website, where this idea is confirmed. The following excerpt from that page appears clear to close the issue, in my humble opinion: The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) is the oldest police force in Canada, which has roots dating to 1729, and was reorganized in 1871 to become the Newfoundland Constabulary. However, I must thank you for bringing up a very interesting point. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The date of 1729 reported in the current version of the article is from a time when Newfoundland was still being periodically swapped between French and British control, the British taking permanent control after the French and Indian War. In addition, the editor that originally added the claim that the RNC were the oldest only claimed a date of 1833 for the initial formation and 1871 for official creation. Until some source can be provided that a single police force could survive a couple of military invasions, I would tend to side with the Texas Rangers in this dispute. --Allen3  02:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been lucky enough to speedy contact user Jcmurphy, who happens to have deeper knowledge of the issue. After an exchange of information, we've agreed upon the fact that the Texas Rangers are indeed the oldest law enforcement agency in North America, while the RNC began to function as a modern civil police force earlier (at its foundation in 1871). The TRs retained their profile of a semi-military force for some years past that date, and didn't acquire full police functions until the 1901 law. Jcmurphy has also modified the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary article to reflect this distinction.

Conclusion:

• the TRs are the oldest law enforcement agency in North America
• the RNC are the oldest police force and the second oldest law enforcement agency in North America

Hope this clears the matter. Shauri Yes babe? 14:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ranger "Volunteers"

Shauri, in the section on the Mexican Revolution, I believe those new Ranger units you mentioned at the time were known as "Ranger Volunteers" because they were supposedly made up in large part of "Volunteer" militiamen. In reality they consisted in large part of thugs and even criminals, which resulted in the attrocities you recount and a stain upon the Texas Rangers' reputation as a whole. In fact, there is a debate now about whether these "Volunteers" should be considered real Rangers at all. Some even go so far as to say their actions helped provoke Poncho Villa's raids, or that some of the crimes blamed on him might have been really been the work of the "Volunteers" themselves. This is speculation, of course (With perhaps a bit of good old Historical Revisionism mixed in :). But the fact remains, these were some rough, nasty hombres. Only wish I could recall where I heard/read about them. I know it was also mentioned in a show on the History Channel here in the States a few months ago. But I'm loathe to cite such things as references. Did find this rather interesting looking book, though- Review: Captain L.H. McNelly, Texas Ranger *HUGS* to you my friend, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent info, my dear Ghost, which I will get to check asap. It sounds rather consistent with the historical facts, so it wouldn't suprise me in the least to find a mention in some sources. As you say, it'll be important to have reliable references for such a sensitive topic, especially if we intend to present this article to FAC. Regarding that book on McNelly, yes; I've also read that review, and I wish I could get my hands on it ;) I find the figure of McNelly somewhat fascinating (not as much as Hays tho). I hope to eventually turn Leander H. McNelly into a wider article with merits of its own. Feel like helping in the task? ;) Hugs, and thank you so much for your kind support at my RfA! Shauri Yes babe? 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why it would be my honor and pleasure to collaborate with you, sweet Shauri! Though I must admit, I have yet to see that Texas Ranger movie about McNelly. I should now, though..for "Research' purposes ;) But we both need to find/make the time. You are giving SHJ a rewrite and I've got the whole WikiProject:battles thing going on now (Where Spawn Man has dragged me into WWI...MEEEEDIC! :). But somehow I'm sure we will. Let me know when you are ready and I'll offer you whatever info,ideas and general support I can muster. In the meantime I offer you *HUGS* from your DooD Ex Machina --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Commas

This article uses too many commas. Can I fix it? --216.191.200.1 16:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure! Be our guest! Feel free to improve it any way you deem necessary. I recommend that you create an account, and you're welcome aboard. And remember: edit like the wind (as my friend Katefan0 says) and be bold! Shauri smile! 20:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Loyalty Rangers, Los Rinches

The article is great as it is but I feel it could be greatly expanded. For example there is only the smallest reference to the so called "Loyalty Rangers." These "rangers" were groups of men deputized by Texas Rangers that were often responsible for many of the atrocities that the Texas Rangers are blamed for during the Mexican Revolution.

Also opinion of the rangers by border dwellers in general, including Mexican Americans, could stand to be expanded upon. Many inhabitants of the border were disgusted by the acts of certain ranger units.

It is also long since time to call Frank Hamer's murder of Bonnie Parker. She was not wanted anywhere for any capital offense, had not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, even fired a shot at anyone, and ther was NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR HER EXECUTION BY FRANK HAMER, who cold bloodedly murdered her by shooting her to pieces whiel she screamed in agony. And for this, congres gave him a citation. We are sure a great country, lol.

Jovita Idar's well documented experience with a group of "outlaw" Texas Rangers could also be included along with some of the more "interesting" atrocities that the Texas Rangers are blamed for. If there is space for famous Texas Ranger cases, why isn't there space for these incidents?

I am in the process of gathering sources about this time period in the history of the rangers but I don't doubt that some of these are in Spanish and taking notes from those books could take some time. Is anyone else in the process of doing something similar? Mosquito-001 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it could use some balance in that area. It's not a subject I have any special knowledge of, but if you do please feel free to contribute. also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages; you can do this quickly by typing four tiles in a row (~~~~) For me, I type four tildes and it spits out this: · Katefan0/mrp 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Article too large?

When I edit, I get the little notice that this article is larger than usually deemed appropriate. I wouldn't mention it but then I notice people in the Talk here complaining about edit clashes — that's yet another good reason to break the article up a little, eh? wknight94 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonnie Parker

It is also long since time to call Frank Hamer's murder of Bonnie Parker. She was not wanted anywhere for any capital offense, had not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, even fired a shot at anyone, and ther was NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR HER EXECUTION BY FRANK HAMER, who cold bloodedly murdered her by shooting her to pieces whiel she screamed in agony. And for this, congres gave him a citation. We are sure a great country, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldwindybear (talk • contribs)

This is a signed explanation by oldwindybear who challanges the revert, respectfully, and asks this encylclopedia to take the bold step of printing fact instead of legend, law instead of propaganda for a sickening murder. Hi Kat, this is oldwindybear and let me explain the lack of legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker, and you can then decide whether your revert was right. I am a certified paralegal, with 2 degrees in history, one in paralegal studies, and another I am finishing in law and ethics. I went to the library of congress, and studied the laws of the states of Texas and Louisiana, and the United States Code, during the period in question, 1932-1934. There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture. Unlike today, they did not have accessory in the first or second degree, nor conspiracy to committ murder, as we do today. Further, I went to Louisiana, and had previously checked the extensive library at teh University of Houston, where i graduated from, and the University of Texas library on the Department of Corrections -- and there were no warrants in effect in any jurisdiction for Bonnie Parker for Murder, or any charge which could have possibly justified use of lethal force. Further, no historian has ever alleged she fired a shot at anyone. No one --no offense to you -- wants to accept what this means, and bell the cat. 1) If she had no charges pending which allowed the use of lethal force; 2) had committed no act which could have resulted in such charges; then 3) the killing of her was unlawful homicide under the laws of all three jurisdictions, both then, and now. Politics ruled the day then, and she was swept into history as just another victim of a society which has one set of rules for the rich and powerful, and another for poor kids from the Dallas Viaduct. My research is without flaw, and seriously, IN 72 YEARS NO ONE HAS ALLEGED OTHERWISE. Isn't it time for wikipedia to tell the truth? I ask you to allow me to put in the flat facts that exist, not the phony story the government pawned off to justify this girl's murder. Are we here for facts? If we are not, I will stop writing for the encyclopedia, because there is no point. No matter how much proof you bring, you chose to print the legend, not the facts. Please take the right step, and print the truth,oldwindybear2:34 1/5 (I live outside dc, email me at j1994r89@hotmail.com to discuss this, please -- isn't it time someone told the truth? I reverted part of your revert, telling only what i can factually and legally prove. Are you interested at all in the truth? oldiwndybear 1/4 9am

Hi bear, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, I had to revert your changes again. It's not that the question of whether there was a legal basis to kill Parker can't be included in the article. It's that such assertions must be properly sourced to something that's already been published. While I greatly respect the amount of research you've done, and read with interest your findings, unless that research has been published somewhere in some reputable publication, we can't use it. It's simply against Misplaced Pages's policies. I mean you no disrespect in saying this, so I hope you won't take it as such. You inserted: There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture. The way to properly insert and attribute this statement would be to say "In the book TITLE, AUTHOR argues that there was no legal basis for the use of lethal force against Parker. (link to citation)".

Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies that prohibit original research, require all assertions of fact or opinion to be sourced to published material and require those sources to be considered reliable, as well as Misplaced Pages's policies requiring articles be presented from a neutral point of view. Opinions such as "While Clyde died instantly from a head shot, posse members report Bonnie screaming in agony. For this, Congress awarded Hamer a citation!" are simply not appropriate for Misplaced Pages in any shape or form. If you have a source for someone criticizing Hamer, that can be properly summarized within the article. But we can't just have the article making a statement of opinion like that without it being attributed to a published source.

This may seem counterintuitive, but Misplaced Pages does not strive to "tell the truth." It strives to present all sides of a debate by summarizing published material. The hurdle here is verifiability, not "truth," because "truth" is inherently subjective and a Misplaced Pages article should take no sides in a dispute. From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~). This will make it much easier for you and everybody who reads your comments. · Katefan0/mrp 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

>(scribble)</ this is oldwindybear the trouble is that there is NO BOOK that says this -- what there is consists of the laws of the states involved, the US Code, and the legal record, including warrants. I understand your point, and to a certain extent, sympathize with it. But what you are saying is that because no author saw a profit in exposing the corruption active in Texas at the time (and as a texas resident, as I was, you know that existed!) that the law does not matter, the library of congress does not matter, nothing matters, because a fiction writer did not write it in a novel. That is NOT the way an encyclopedia is run! All I can do is resign in protest, retract the contribution I was going to give, and urge my fellow veterans on our websites, (Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars) that wikidpedia is not interested in the truth, won't accept facts, but demands that someone write them in a book! Why not cite me? I wrote a paper for college called "The True Story of BONNIE and CLYDE, Murdered by the Government, May 23,1934" for the University of Maryland! Kate, you seem sincere -- don't you see the dicotomy in what you are saying? You admit that my research is probably valid (and you know reasonably it is, or someone in the last 72 years would have found a warrant for Bonnie, or cited a statue she violated somewhere that justified lethal force apprehension! Instead, you say, damn the facts, we publish the legend, That makes wikipedia a joke, i am sorry to say. i won't try to tell the truth anymore in wikipedia, because wikipedia is not interested in giving students or others seeking knowledge the truth, it is interested in being policitcally correct, and that is sad, I bow out, I am not interested at my age in political correctness, but the facts, Ma'am. just the facts...oldwindybear

• Old requests for peer review