Talk:Texas Ranger Division/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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(scribble) 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(scribble) 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(scribble) 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: [1] [2], 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 [3].
  • Image:Ripford.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like [4]. Also used as cover illustration for Ford's autobiography Rip Ford's Texas [5].
  • Image:Txrangers.jpg: PD, available at the credited source and other pages like [6] [7].
  • 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 [8].
  • 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 [9], 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 [10] [11] [12].
  • 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 [13].
  • 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(scribble) 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" [14]
  • Letter signed by Ford, same usage [15]
  • Letter mentioning John Robert Baylor (Indian fighter, 1859) as "John R. Baylor" [16]
  • Letter to James Webb Throckmorton (Texas governor, 1866), addressed as "James W. Throckmorton" [17].
  • Letter to Branch Tanner Archer (secretary of war of the Republic of Texas, 1840), addressed as "Branch T. Archer" [18] and a scrap from the Texas Sentinel making the same use [19].
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia style says that articles about American things should use American English. Similarly, the London Underground article should use British English. Beyond which, the Wikipedia: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(scribble) 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(scribble) 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 (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) uses 'US' without the dots; you can't get more central to US usage than that, surely. Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, I'd think that is more appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble) 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 Wikipedia. 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(scribble) 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article should take no sides in a dispute. From Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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(scribble)/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

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia's policies are not bendable. I wish you all the best of luck. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to insult you; You seem nice, though I see you as a bureaucrat who is acting within a framework that is NOT THAT of an encylopedia! Sorry, but review the standards for Collier's, or other encyclopedias. Their ultimate goal is the presentation of the facts as they are best known. This is NOT the goal of wikipedia. I don't mean this against you personally -- quite the opposite, you seem quite pleasant. I believe the entire structure is geared not towards producing a fact based encyclopedia "encyclopedia as defined by dictionary:Dictionary en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (ĕn-sī'klə-pē'dē-ə)A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically" With all respect, wikipedia does not come close to that, editing facts you know are ture out because instead of relying on statatory law, and newspaper records, you say it has to written in a non-existent book?" You cannot be serious, this is merely a power play based on politocal correctness. This is the time and place to change "rules" which have no basis on running an encyclopedia, prevent a "comprehensive reference work" and exist only to serve political purposes. oldwindybear

Bear and I have had some good talks lately and I think he understands better now why [[WP:NOR}] and WP:V exist. See his talk page for details. Thanks salty, good to see you around. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarify?

Just something I noticed, but you can't "officially" dissolve something if it hasn't technically been "officially" created. Any chance of a date of officialism or something? --RBlowes 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet learned how to speak spanish but...

I said earlier that more viewpoints of the rangers needed to represented in this article. I've found a few spanish books that deal with ranger atrocities but I did find one very good site with something to say about the rangers' less than savory past. Quoting from http://www.houstonculture.org/hispanic/conquest3.html

"No history of the U.S. conquest of Mexico is complete without an account of the atrocities committed by the notorious Texas Ranger companies, dubbed Los Diablos Tejanos by the Mexicans they terrorized. These paramilitary gangs conducted a campaign of death and destruction in the Mexican countryside which left a legacy of hate that survives to this day. The vast majority of the 700 Rangers who volunteered for service in Mexico were jobless desperados from the Texas frontier who would do anything for money. They were recruited and led by Texans who were seeking revenge for what they considered wrongs committed by Mexicans at the Alamo, Goliad, Santa Fe, and Mier.

Los Diablos killed and pillaged indiscriminately. Armed with the latest rifles and revolvers, and wielding vicious Bowie knives, the Rangers operated beyond the control of the U.S. Army from the day they reported for duty. Dispatched as scouts in northern Mexico by General Taylor, the Texas mercenaries roamed the countryside, raiding villages, plundering farms, and shooting or hanging unarmed Mexican citizens.

On July 9, 1846, George Gordon Meade, a young army officer who, like Grant and Lee, served as a general during the U.S. Civil War, wrote a scathing report on Ranger misconduct in his area of responsibility:

They have killed five or six innocent people walking in the street, for no other object than their own amusement.... They rob and steal the cattle and corn of the poor farmers, and in fact act more like a body of hostile Indians than civilized Whites. Their officers have no command or control over them." This is a beautiful wiki article so I would feel bad just going digging into it and mucking it up but surely there's a way to include this new information. Mosquito-001 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay added some stuff in. Feel free to edit it but I don't think it should be deleted. It's an important part of Texas Ranger history.Mosquito-001 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the section, the other day, as an unsupported statement. This was called 'vandalism' on my part.... So I will be more gentle and tag it as TotallyDisputed-section. After some time we will see if anybody can back up this section with proof and a citation to a verifiable, primary source. If it can't be verified, it should go.
Mytwocents 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean the source on the bottom? I noticed you deleted the section yet left the source up. I also called it vandalism because you did it without discussing it on the talk page even though that section was discussed on this page and has survived numerous edits. Please try to be more courteous in the future Mosquito-001 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the source on the bottom. It doesn't list where the original information came from. Please leave the tag, so other editors can see it and act on it. You may not be aware that accusing another editor of vandalism is bad form, and goes against the wikipolicy to assume good faith
Mytwocents 05:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the tags. The claimes of TR atrocities and bad actors need more than an apparantly self-published article by Richard D. Vogel titled Stolen Birthright: The U.S. Conquest and Exploitation of the Mexican People[20]. I've read the article, and it makes claims I can't find anywhere else. "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." If some elements of the Texas Rangers committed atrocities there should be a multiple sites that tell the tale. Are these stories factual? Can someone find a WP:RS to back up these claims? Mytwocents 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I must agree that the Vogel article does not qualify as a reliable source. The claim in the opening sentence that the Mexican–American War was "the first U.S. war of aggression against a sovereign nation", ignoring the border disputes arising from the American annexation of the Republic of Texas, makes it quite clear that the article is at best a partisan source. Without independent confirmation of the claims from non-partisan sources the disputed section should be removed. --Allen3 talk 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As no one has disputed the assertion that the Vogel article does not qualify as a reliable source, I have removed the section of text. --Allen3 talk 01:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Massacre?

From "Christopher Carson" by John S.C. Abbot, published 1874 by Dodd & Mead:

When about half-way across the plains, they struck the great Santa Fe trail. Here Carson and his companions came upon an encampment of Captain Cook, with four companies of U.S. Dragoons. They were escorting a train of Mexican wagons, as far as the boundary line between the United States and New Mexico. The region was infested with robber bands and it was deemed important that the richly freighted caravan should not encounter harm within the limits of the United States.

The Mexicans, were apprehensive that, as soon as they should separate from their American protectors, they should be attacked upon entering Texas, by a large body of Texan Rangers, who, it was reported, were waiting for them. They therefore offered Kit Carson, with whose energetic character they were well acquainted, three hundred dollars, if he would carry a letter to Armijo the governor of New Mexico, who resided at Santa Fe. This letter contained an application to the governor to send them an escort. To convey the letter required a journey of between three and four hundred miles through a wilderness, filled with hostile Indian bands.

. . . he reached Taos, much exhausted by his impetuous ride. He immediately called upon the mayor of the town, to whom he delivered the dispatches, and he at once sent an agent with them, down south a distance of about thirty miles to the governor at Santa Fe. He waited at Taos the return of the messenger to recruit himself and horses in preparation for his ride back. The response was that Governor Armijo had sent a hundred Mexican dragoons to seek the caravan, and that he was about to follow with six hundred more. We may mention in passing, that this company of one hundred men, were attacked after a few days' march, by a large body of Texan rangers, and were all massacred except one, who escaped on a fleet horse.

Governor Armijo and his dragoons, as they were on their way, learned of this massacre, and hearing exaggerated reports of the strength of the Texan Rangers, retreated rapidly to their fortification at Santa Fe. The governor, in the meantime, entrusted dispatches to Carson, thinking that he, by riding express, could reach the caravan before the governmental troops could come to their aid.

If you put this edit inside the article, I'd be willing to support it against the edit warring that seems to have shaped the content of this article. This article has a bit too much pov to the point where it should be called "myths of the texas rangers." Mosquito-001 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your concerns that the use of a 19th Century dime novel as a reliable source will be challenged are well founded. The nature of the genre was to sensationalize the primary subject of the publication and the lines between truth and fiction are frequently blurred. You may read the full text of the cited work at Project Gutenburg if you wish to read the work yourself. --Allen3 talk 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that a well respected museum was challenged for not supporting the myths of the texas rangers, why not this book. Do you have any evidence that this is a dime novel or are you inserting your own assumptions? Right now this article's extreme pov is being shaped by any source that supports texas ranger myths, regardless of the reliability of the source. I do not see the harm in allowing such leeway for the opposition. Mosquito-001 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not have evidence that the text was published in an orange cover and sold for a dime. That being said, I have read enough of the text to see that it does not come close to being an unbiased text and contains numerous sections that defy credibility (I did like the part in the fifth chapter where Carson fights off two Grizzly Bears with a club at night although there is no explanation of why two naturally solitary animals were doing joining forces to attack Carson). You might also wish to consider that Texians killing a company of one hundred Mexican dragoons entering territory held by the Republic of Texas under the terms of the Treaties of Velasco could be described as repelling a military invasion instead of a massacre. --Allen3 talk 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That last statement of your's sounds like it could be the root of some of the pov in your edits. From the mexicans pov, the dragoons might have been entering Mexican territory under threat of invasion from U.S. The massacre also matches up with other atrocities that the Texas Rangers were known to have committed at the time(which are curiously absent from this article, I wonder why). Of course the whole story from the Abbot book can't be included in wikipedia due to the fact that many "non-fiction" books did tend to exaggerate for the sake of entertainment. However I wonder if this Texas Ranger story can't be included, why do the editors insist on including the "Diablos" story in the article? The Texas Rangers were called "Diablos Tejanos" by Mexicans as a term of derision but only the myth regarding the title was included in the article and the only source was a jingoistic reporter who wrote it near the time of the Mexican-American war. That's my point: You can't place limits on only those edits that don't meet the "myths of the texas ranger" criteria. Mosquito-001 20:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If the recognition that the Texians might have a different slant on things than the Mexicans during a time period that Mexico refused to recognize Texas' independence and territorial claims indicates a POV, then so be it. Such a POV does not change the fact that there is no way to know how much embellishment was added to the section. In addition, if your goal is to document atrocities committed by the Texas Rangers you should be looking into why Zachary Taylor dismissed the Rangers that were protecting his supply lines during the U.S. campaign into northern Mexico. --Allen3 talk 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Houston Institute of Culture, in a section that was deleted off this page(supposedly for not buying into the Texas Ranger myth), Taylor dismissed his rangers and even tried to have them arrested. Taylor did this after hearing of the atrocities Texas Rangers committed at a nearby mexican village. Mosquito-001 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered that what you refer to as "buying into the Texas Ranger myth" is nothing more than a desire to ensure that this article only uses material that is verifiable via reliable sources and presented in a neutral manner without resorting to original research? --Allen3 talk 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I did...and then I read the article...and then I reviewed the edits and the reasons they were made. Finally I went to the talk page and shared my concerns. I now am seriously considering that the page was tailor made to suit a particular pov which is that of the texas ranger mythology rather than the historical agency. Please prove me wrong by seriously considering reverting some of the more obviously pov edits or letting others do so. Mosquito-001 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The Abbot book, published in 1874, seems to be a popular work of non-fiction intended for a general audience, who apparently would not be surprised by the use of the term "massacre" to describe this action on the part of the Texas Rangers. It's probably closer in time to the actual events than any of the other sources cited in this article. It seems unfair to apply 21st century standards of historical style to a work published in 1874. It's certainly pertinent as it relates to late 19th century perceptions of the Rangers. There's no reason to believe Abbot holds any particular bias on this subject. --Kstern999 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is unfair to expect 21st century standards of a 19th century text. It is equally unfair to pull the 19th century text into a 21st century context without pulling appropriate background along with the text. --Allen3 talk 13:21, 8 November 2006 (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(scribble) 01:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Kate! Thanks for the welcome. I vanished unexpectedly for a while - just too much work outside of Wikipedia. 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 [21], "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 Wikipedia 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(scribble) 02:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to say so, but as nice as that monument by the Capitol is, it has no relevance to this article: the CSA unit that the monument commemorates, the Texas Eigth Cavalry, was nicknamed "Terry's Texas Rangers" and had no actual connection to the Texas Ranger law enforcement organization.D.van.yveren 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Official vehicles for the Texas Rangers

On "Walker, Texas Ranger" Chuck Noris drove a Dodge Ram W-3500, but what do real-life Rangers drive?...is it a white Chevy Tahoe or Impala?...please advise.

Thanks, Baldwin91006 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my guess:the GM K-Series SUVs(Chevy Tahoe/GMC Suburban), where IMO they should be driving white Ford Ranger Supercabs...anyone else have the correct answer?...Michaela92399 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

clarification

i'm a little insulted that the entire article about the texas rangers glorifies them, with a small little disclaimer at the bottom of how they were responsible for targeting and killing mexicans during their history.

in the VERY least, this fact should be mentioned in the introduction, during the historical time period it was taking place, and CERTAINLY not at the end in a few paragraphs that most people won't even get to.

it's a pretty big deal and i'm very disappointed that this fact was neglected from the original article.

````sara ines calderon, 9/10/07, austin, tx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.137.125.212 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article contradicts with police

This article contradicts with police, which says the Virginia Capitol Police is the oldest police department. BlueGoose 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed. There's no case for it being older than either the Virginia Capitol Police or the US Postal Inspection Service. -Will 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, both of you are wrong, my friends - The Virginia Capitol Police article clearly states that it is the "oldest police department", and the United States Postal Inspection Service claims it is the "oldest federal law enforcement agency". This article asserts that the Rangers are the "oldest law enforcement agency", and hence there exists no contradiction. I believe you're mistaking the very different nature of each organisation, which is depicted accurately in terms of jurisdiction and functions at each of the above statements. Let's ellaborate.
BlueGoose, the Virginia Capitol Police, while tracing its origins back to 1618, was effectively dissolved in times it was still being called the Virginia Public Guard. It was disbanded in 1869 and reconstituted again in 1884, thus rendering the claim at the VCP article invalid in terms of "being the oldest law enforcement agency". The assertion of being the oldest "police department", (which is entirely different due to the inherent quasi military nature of the Texas Rangers until the beginning of the XX Century, and the federal status of the US Postal Inspection Service) can be debated at the proper article's Talk page. Reference: Virginia Historical Society.
A small research leads me to believe you are also wrong, Will. While the United States Postal Inspection Service has an origin in the appointment in 1772 of a single agent (and thus not an "agency"), it wasn't constituted until 1830 as the "Office of Instructions and Mail Depredations" (see the chronology of the USPS at its official page). This official website also sustains that the USPS is "one of the oldest law enforcement agencies in America", which is very different from asserting that it's the oldest one. This is consistent with the contents of its article at Wikipedia, which states that is the oldest "federal" law enforcement agency.
However, I have not reinserted the disputed paragraph, given the fact that the Texas Rangers were "unofficially" constituted in 1823 (despite that Texans usually consider it its foundation day) and formally created in 1835, the point still remains debatable. - Phædriel ♥ tell me 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Debatable, yes, but the article is probably better off without the assertion, since it lies all in one's definitions of "law enforcement" and "agency." -Will 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Will, I agree with you that most people without technical knowledge of the difference (which is very big) can see a contradiction where in fact there is none. The only debatable point comes in fact whether we accept the 1823 foundation date as the effective creation of the Texas Rangers or not. Yet I concur with you that, for clarity purposes in the eye of non-expert readers, the article is better off without that sentence - and that's exactly why I preferred not to reinsert it. Keep in mind that, being a member of a law enforcement agency myself, I can't help but to notice the difference ;-) Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ tell me 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the skinny---the statement has apparently been lifted from the nationally syndicated radio series, When Radio Was, wherein whenever an episode of the Joel McCrea--starring program Tales of the Texas Rangers was aired, then--host Stan Freberg would say this, but his copy inadvertently left out the key word "state." A relatively recent episode of the game show Jeopardy! got it right. The claim is that none of the 50 states has a law enforcement agency of its own that is older than the Rangers. City, county, and federal entities don't come into the equation. (Jeez, this thread is well over a year and a half old!) Ted Watson 20:27, 20 September 2007 (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.[22] 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 talk 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)

A small point, about Halifax Nova Scotia. The area has been policed from 1749. The Halifax Police Department was formally established on October 28, 1864 142.177.141.226 12:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)harleymcc

What about the United States Marshals Service? "The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshals were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789", "United States's oldest federal law enforcement agency." That would seem to clearly show that the Rangers are not North America's oldest law enforcement agency. Rillian 12:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I always thought of the USPS's Postal Inspectors as the oldest federal law enforcement agency. Then again maybe federal is the key word there. Their web page - Postal Inspectors About Us Page - lists them as "one of the oldest" law enforcement agencies. It also mentions that they were founded by Benjamin Franklin who died in 1790 (long before Austin's Rangers were created and even before Stephen F. Austin was born in 1793). I'm not sure where RNC fits into the whole thing. But reguardless, the claim that the Ranger Division is the de facto oldest should be changed. -Uncle Bex (from work)
Gentlemen, can I point you to the same discussion that is being held at this very thread, a few points below? Indeed, the matter is subject of a serious debate, depending of one's conception of "agency" and the federal, statewide or local jurisdiction of each organisation. I was under the impression, however, that all mention of the TRs as the oldest law enforcement agency in North America had been removed, in order to keep the disputed claim out of the main article - if it's still there (haven't checked today) the article would simply be better off without it. Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ tell me 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, all mention to the disputed fact is already gone, and thus I think the point should not be re added for the moment, due to the inherent debatable nature of the assertion. Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ tell me 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Virginia Capitol Police consistently date themselves to the establishment of the force at Jamestown, Virginia in 1618. The title they claim, and here's a source, is "oldest police department." How does the TRs claim of "oldest law enforcement" in the US or NA stand? They are also a "state-level" "law enforcement agency."--Patrick Ѻ 00:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Company G

I have changed the article to reflect that Company G is now headquartered in McAllen, after Legislative realignment. Newguy34 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So what about the part that says Company G is part of Company H and responsive to Company H's captain... but in the location listing it shows Company G having its own captain (and separate HQ as you note)... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.99.4 (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

One Ranger, One Riot Quote

Speaking from family history, this quote should actually be attributed to John Coffee Hays. This is the story as my great grandmother told it to me. The governor of Texas and California were related, cousins if I recall correctly. I forget precisely the dates, but your researchers should be able to verify this information. At the time there was a riot in San Francisco. The Governor of California asked the Governor of Texas for help in quelling the riot. The Texas Governor telegraphed back that he was sending Texas Rangers. Due to the telegraph short hand, the Californians thought that all the Texas Rangers were coming. The California Governor and a bunch of city officials from San Francisco go to meet the train, which is arriving very early in the morning. John gets off and the officials start looking for the rest of the Rangers. John politely asks them what they're looking for. Once they explain, he looks at them and comments, "You got one riot. You get one Ranger." They, of course, have an absolute fit, but he advises them to stay out of his way and let him do his job. With the liberal use of his shotgun, the city is quiet by nightfall that night.

You can check with the Texas Ranger's Museum in Waco, TX. My father donated John Coffee Hays' side arms to them a few years ago.


I am sorry to disappoint you, but there is no credibility to the account you have given. The entire quote is a myth, which is why neither Walter Webb nor Robert M. Utley mentions it (except to say it never happened). Please don't take it personally, I have had to debunk myths involving rangers to my own family members, as well. And the account in the article is wrong also, but for completely different reasons than you mention here. Take care. 208.191.153.13 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (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(scribble) 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)

moos discussion of conflicts between rangers and Tejanos is completely valid, though the source cited is problematic. Paredes work is well known to be folklore, not history. It does not accurately document Gregorio Cortez' well known criminal exploits throughout the west, and it incorrectly blames rangers for his troubles. the well documented historical facts are that Cortez's troubles where with local law enforcement official (many of whom where also Tejanos)that the rangers only arrested him on an outstanding warrant, and then PROTECTED him from lynch mobs while he awaited trial. The reason that rangers often get blamed for Cortez is that "Los Rinches" was not only reference to rangers, but to cops in south texas, generally. this fact was lost to many over time, who began assuming that everytime a Tejano complained about abuse at the hands of "Los Rinches," that they always meant rangers. Cortez was not the only case where the rangers have been unfairly. Even a contemporary NYT article blamed rangers for the shooting of popular Mexican Revolution era General Pascual Orozco. There were no rangers involved, only military and local law enforcement. 208.191.153.13 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2008 (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)

they were not called "volunteers." They were (and are) called "Special Rangers." during the period you mention there were also "Loyalty Rangers." the reason that there is dispute as to whether they should be considered "real" rangers is that they were not on the state payroll and not subordinate to the regular rangers chain-of-command. "special ranger" commissions did come with full law enforcement authority (including to carry handguns) at the time, and under some governors (most notably "ma" and "pa" ferguson) were handed out by the hundreds and even thousands as political patronage, regardless of the recipient's qualifications or criminal history. while many of the atrocities blamed on the rangers can doubtless be attributed to such ner-do-wells, regular rangers during that period are also documented to have committed criminal acts, including murder. however, that digression is to in-depth of a discussion to have here. 208.191.153.13 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2008 (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.

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(scribble)/mrp 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

for the short answer to these questions, please see my comments above in the sections "POV Los Rinches" and "Volunteers" there are plenty of books that document this time period, including Robert M. Utley's "Lone Star Lawmen: The Second Century of the Texas Rangers" and a book entitled "Texas Rangers and the Mexican Revolution" just to name two.208.191.153.13 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2008 (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(scribble) 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)

good work, salty pig! not only did the rangers investigate and testify that the FBI did, in fact, use incendiary devices at waco, but before the siege ended in so many deaths, koresh had agreed to surrender to the rangers, but the FBI wouldn't go along with it. Koresh's atty, dick deguerin, testified about that fact at length in the 1995 hearings held in D.C. Look for this info in Mike Cox's next book, Texas Rangers: Wearing the Cinco Peso 1901-2008, due out next year from Forge. 208.191.153.13 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Waco Siege

Did Rangers fight in the Waco Siege? 76.81.219.135 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they did not fight there, but they did conduct the homicide investigation after the initial raid, and the investigation of the crime scene after the FBI assaulted the compound. not only did the rangers investigate and testify that the FBI did, in fact, use incendiary devices at waco, but before the siege ended in so many deaths, koresh had agreed to surrender to the rangers, but the FBI wouldn't go along with it. Koresh's atty, dick deguerin, testified about that fact at length in the 1995 hearings held in D.C. Look for this info in Mike Cox's next book, Texas Rangers: Wearing the Cinco Peso 1901-2008, due out next year from Forge 208.191.153.13 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is sensational and seems to contradict itself

Just take a look at this passage:

"Before the decade was over, thousands of lives were lost, counting Texans and Mexicans alike; although by far, the wanton rape, murder, and execution of innocent civilians fell greater upon the former. In January 1919, at the initiative of Representative José T. Canales of Brownsville, the Texas Legislature launched a full investigation of Rangers' actions throughout these years. The investigation found that from 300 up to 5,000 people, mostly of Hispanic descent, had been killed by Rangers from 1910 to 1919 and that members of the Rangers had been involved in many sordid misdeeds of brutality and injustice.[17]"

To deem one side the most bloodthirsty when there was a lot of murder on both sides is not neutral.

66.91.224.203 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To deem one side the more bloodthirsty when that one committed "by far" more actions than the other, and to cite a reference for that, is not a lack of neutrality on the part of the article, but the situation being covered. The Allies committed some atrocities in World War II, but that wouldn't make a statement that the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese were far worse worthy of a neutrality challenge. I am a Texan several generations back, with two Rangers on my family tree, yet I do not find this passage objectionable. Ted Watson (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ted Watson on this. The assertion is backed up by fact and citation. Johntex\talk 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

actually, it is the last phrase in that quote that is historically indefensible. There is no documentation to accurately count the number deaths during the period, much less proof of who caused each one. Modern scholars regard the total # to be in the hundreds, not thousands, which wa simply undocumentable hyperbole that just got to be repeated over the years without any basis in fact. find a list of names of the "5000" deceased and then we can start a discussion to the contrary. the claim that the deceased were all "innocent civilians is also unprovable, as mexican revolutionaries were well known to regular cross the border in violation of state, federal, and international law, and to have killed tejanos who refused to support whatever faction with which they were aligned. additionally, common criminals took advantage of the chaos caused by the mexican revolution to engage in theft and murder on both sides of the border, and instigators of the "plan de san diego" also committed atrocites against anglos in south texas 208.191.153.13 (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I don't want to make a big deal about it by putting this page through a FA review, but the web sources on this page need to be in citation from, or citation templates. i'd pitch in, but right now, i am very occupied with the Texas page. Oldag07 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

High profile cases

Any need or desire to include a paragraph about Henry Lee Lucas? QueenofBattle (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

King of the Hill

There has been quite a rash of ANon IP fans (apparently) of the now-defunct TV show King of the Hill who keep inserting a bit about some charcater revealing that he is a Texas Ranger. Folks, let me be clear on this: find a source and insert it. Please. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Split

If you're going to go to the trouble of reverting and adding tags, at least make an effort to start a discussion... Anyway, I propose that the following is inserted in the place of the previous history section. It might have to be cut down further. ninety:one 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It'll help avoid the need for an [expand] tag. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rangers' badges and uniforms

"Modern-day Rangers (as well as their predecessors) do not have a prescribed uniform; rather, they wear what they please."

The above statement is not true. The Rangers do have a dress code when they are on duty. The following is from the DPS/Texas Ranger Manual:

"The appropriate clothing is deemed to be conservative western attire. Other than western attire may be acceptable if such is of a conservative nature and blends with the expected western clothing. To be dressed appropriately, Rangers are required to wear a western hat, a dress shirt, a tie, a dress coat, appropriate pants, western boots, and the official Texas Ranger badge pinned above the left shirt pocket. An approved handgun should be worn in the waist area at all times."

The only time this differs is if they are conducting a manhunt, crime scene search, surveillance or tactical training which would require a more military-style outfit (shirt, camoflauge pants, boots, etc.), aka BDU's.

Just an FYI.

204.65.230.109 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)tejanita1


Concerning:

On October 17, at a consultation of the Provisional Government of Texas, Daniel Parker proposed a resolution to establish the Texas Rangers, totaling some 60 men distributed among three companies, and known by "uniforms" consisting of a light duster (clothing) and an identification badge made from a Mexican Peso.

I can find no reference or source for the "uniform" details here.

I would be very interested in such a source. Could the author please reference this?

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregiles (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Special Rangers and SPecial Texas rangers

WHy do these paragraphs keep getting removed? They do exist. Read the official State of Texas sources--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

They keep getting removed because they are a relatively minor, not notable factoid that has little to do with the history or current organization of the Texas Rangers. Enough with the POV forks here. Plus, the text that has been inserted and re-inserted is plucked directly from the sources, which is a copyright violation. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Not notable as deemed by you QoB? Ever live in Texas? They are very notable, if you knew anything about the Cattle Cops etal.--71.162.161.175 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and a copyright violation to boot. And, yes, I have lived in Texas. And yes, I am well aware of the Cattle Cops, which is why I know they are not notable or relevant to an article about Texas Rangers. If you want them to have their own article, write the damned thing. If you want to add this material to the T&SWCA article, have at it. But, it doesn't belong here. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the Texas Rangers, the State Police of Texas?

Just for clarity, why does this article not say they perform the functions of a state police service? The only thing that seems to be majorly different is the name i.e. rangers. Is this exclusion of the word state police to avoid confusing it with the previous agency, the Texas State Police that was only in operating in name for less than two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.250.2 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They are not the state police, per se, but are a part of the Texas Department of Public Safety, which is the state-wide law enforcement agency. The Rangers operate more like the FBI for the state of Texas. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Disrepute of Texas State Police?

Quote from the article:”Texas State Police, who soon fell into disrepute, and were disbanded only three years later in 1873". The real reason was that the TSP was controlled by the Republicans, employed African-Americans and brought to justice criminals who killed, raped and assaulted African-Americans. Previous studies claiming otherwise suffer from bias against Republicans, African-Americans, and the United States and are in fact attempting to rewrite history in favor of White Supremacy and Rebel Government. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pistol or revolver?

In the section about John Wesley Hardin, the handguns used are called pistols. Perhaps it was pistols, but I think it is far more likely that they used revolvers as almost everybody did at the time. If it is not known what kind of handgun they used, maybe it's best to just call it "handgun". Urbanus Secundus (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

====There's two kinds of modern "pistols", skippy. Revolvers and semi-automatics. Revolvers are always "pistols" but "pistols" may not necessary be revolvers. The article is correct as written.

As the military are an official entity created to protect the new government, a militia serves to protect the people. Therefore, the Rangers should not be considered a law enforcement agency but a militia that was created to keep the Comanche Indians at bay while the official military of Texas fought Santa Anna and the Mexican army. ~Uncle Emanuel Watkins~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.183.240 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Texas Ranger Division

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Texas Ranger Division's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wtha":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Taft-Diaz Assassination Attempt

The sources referenced state that a serious threat was made on the life of two Presidents in 1909, stopped by Pvt Moore and Major Burnham. The changes made to the article are no longer consistent with the reference sources. Is there a source that supports the assertion that there was no attempt made on the lives of Taft and Diaz? Ctatkinson (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The text states that a man in the Texas crowd had a gun. Well that's Texas. There is no statement that he tried to shoot Taft or Diaz or anyone, nor that he planned to. Instead we have long details that tell zip about the Rangers. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What is your source? You must be reading a different source. The cited source states the following (p.16): "There is evidence, in two independently corroborating reports, of at least one planned assassination attempt. At the El Paso Chamber of Commerce building, just before Taft and Diaz met there, Burnham noticed what he described as a sinister looking man writing in a notebook. He signaled a Texas Ranger, Private C.R. Moore... Moore slipped his arm through the arm of the suspect and Burnham grabbed the wrist. Quickly flipping over his hand, Burnham and Moore discovered that the pencil sticking out between the first and second fingers was a actually the muzzle of a pistol especially designed to be hidden in the palm of the hand. The Texas Ranger report of the incident identified the weapon as a pencil pistol, an assassins weapon.... "A major tragedy -- and international incident -- had in all probability been averted."

The text you deleted satisfied Wikipedia:Verifiability and it was from the most reliable source cited by WP:SOURCE, that is, an academic and peer-reviewed publication. Editing from a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic -- and this source clearly satisfied this criteria.

I will revert the prior text and it should not be deleted unless there is consensus. If you have additional data to provide, bring it to this talk page for discussion. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I will revert the prior text and it should not be deleted unless there is consensus. If you have additional data to provide, bring it to this talk page for discussion. Ctatkinson (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Texas Ranger Division. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Texas Ranger Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Information on my family history

I am curious to now if there is a list of Texas Rangers from the late 1800's to the early 1900's. It has been said that my great grandfather Frank Carter was a Texas Ranger. I have looked for any information to support this rumor, but have yet to find anything that supports our family story.

I am told that he Frank Carter was a Texas Ranger, who was shot and killed in a Poker game gone bad.

Can you help me find any info on this?

Thank You,

Ignacia Carter Garza ignacia.g.garcia1@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacia.Gracia (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This site will not have the information you are asking, you would be best to contact the Texas Historical Society or the Texas Ranger Museum[23]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Subsection to History: Racism - comments

The current History section seems incomplete with no mention of the racism of the Rangers that lasted well into the 1920's, lynchings, or massacres. With these incidents being very common in the record in the 1800's, particularly in regards to the 'Range Wars' and 'Boarder Raids', it seem that a separate subsection could be used to address these issues, without disparaging the entire record of the Rangers.[24][25]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Such as highlighting events like [26]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi C.W. Gilmore. I've created a distinct article for the Canales Texas Ranger investigation (and for JT Canales while I was at it) and linked it inline. More could probably be done, but I think it's an appropriate handling. Let me know what you think! - Owlsmcgee (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. I was reading up on the background for The Longoria Affair and keep coming across different mass killings and even some clearing of the Tejanos from the Nueces Strip as Dr. Patrick Carroll calls it. This and the way the Texas Rangers did the bidding of the new Anglo powerful ranchers in that part of South Texas regardless of the legality of their actions, made me wonder it this deserved a sub-section in their history. Thanks for the links and the help with the page, I hope to pay this page more attention in the near future.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I saw this conversation and I have a couple of resources that could be helpful: The first is a 2003 article from the Journal of Social History [27] that talks about lynchings of Mexicans in general, but does mention the Texas Rangers specifically a couple of times. For example, from pp. 416-417: "The most systematic abuse of legal authority was by the Texas Rangers. Their brutal repression of the Mexican population was tantamount to state-sanctioned terrorism. Although the exact number of those murdered by the Rangers is unknown, historians estimate that it ran into the hundreds and even thousands." There's also a Slate piece from last year [28] that talks about this and links to historians in Texas doing research on the topic. 73.200.119.42 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to add on, now having read the articles you wrote about JT Canales and realized that you had already covered the articles I had linked previously, but I have found that a book was published this summer about the topic by a prof at UC Boulder titled The Lynching of Mexicans in the Texas Borderlands. [29] The author himself mentions that he is the second person to publish in this topic, so unfortunately that might explain why there's not that much more info out there on this subject (the other book is Forgotten Dead by William Carrigan and Clive Web). I might try and get a copy of the book and read it in my (non-existent) free time, but it looks like almost all of the scholarship on this has been in the last ten to fifteen years (and that's being generous). 73.200.119.42 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Lucas Serial Murder

Information about the Rangers investigation of the Lucas “serial killer” case is conspicuously absent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonediving01 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is the blatant racist agenda of the Texas Rangers ignored on this page?

Texas Rangers have historically been key in "keeping minorities in their place". Why is this integral part of their identity absent from this page? The rangers have committed various atrocities against minorities and they should be recognized rather than painting the rangers as mythic texas cowboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.135.166 (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples or reliable sources? QueenofBattle (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/pkcfl.html

"The Ku Klux Klan, the White Caps, law officials, and the Texas Rangersqv, all acting as agents of white authority, regularly terrorized both Mexican Americans and black Texans"

"Gov. R. Allan Shivers, who opposed the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, went so far as to call out the Texas Rangers at Mansfield in 1956 to prevent black students from entering the public school (see MANSFIELD SCHOOL DESEGREGATION INCIDENT)."

"In 1911 Mexican-American leaders met at the Congreso Mexicanista in Laredo and addressed the common problems of land loss, lynchings, ethnic subordination, educational inequalities, and various other degradations. In 1919 the Brownsville legislator J. T. Canales spearheaded a successful effort to reduce the size of the Texas Ranger force in the wake of various atrocities the rangers had committed in the preceding decade." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.251.50 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Though I don't advocate sensationalizing this information, it seems that there is some interesting history along this line of inquiry that is readily available and should be included. Probably should wait until after the FAR improvements are made. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Given the current controversy over if the Texas Rangers baseball team should change its name due to the Texas Rangers Division's aforementioned racist past, I think that addressing this issue on the page should become a priority. TheGalach (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

History of racism and brutal methods not adequately addressed

The Texas Rangers' history of racist and brutal treatment of Hispanics and African Americans has been well documented and would seem to warrant its own section, rather than the one or two references currently scattered throughout the page.

TheGalach (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please we need help editing this page. I'm hoping there's been a "changing of the guard" on this page but for now it seems to be more "the myths of the texas rangers" than anything else Mosquito 02 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply to TheGalach and Mosquito 02: I agree with you; here are my suggestions. I think the better documented cases (eg: La Matanza (1910–1920), Porvenir Massacre) would merit short sections (single paragraph) in History. It's important to remember this is a summary page that should summarize information and point readers to more detailed pages such as History of the Texas Ranger Division (where more detailed content (~3 paragraphs), as well as more incidents, can be listed) and then pages on the individual incident (where a specific topic can be fully expanded to whatever size is supported by sources.). For in-depth content Wikipedia should always follow this form: Summary Page (eg:Texas Ranger Division) >> Sub Topical page which is often an expansion of a section on a summary page (eg: History of the Texas Ranger Division) >> Detailed Page (which is often an expansion of a section on a topical page (eg: Porvenir Massacre). This allows readers to start with an overview and then move to more in-depth pages if they desire.
The key to making sure information is not removed is 1) making sure it is well-sourced with the most up to date material possible. Make sure to stick to the facts alone, not include any opinion or hyperbole, and cite a source with page numbers for each fact (see WP:CITE, WP:V. 2) writing in a neutral encyclopedic tone WP:ENTONE. Proper tone can be difficult when talking about an atrocity, but it can be done. Operation Reinhard is a good example of how to achieve a neutral encyclopedic tone when writing about subjects where an editor naturally wants to express outrage.
For sources remember WP:RS. I'd recommend starting with:
  • Martinez, Monica Muñoz. The Injustice Never Leaves You: Anti-Mexican Violence in Texas. Harvard University Press (2018). ISBN 978-0674976436
  • Harris, Charles H. III; Sadler, Louis R. (2004). The Texas Rangers And The Mexican Revolution: The Bloodiest Decade. 1910–1920. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.
  • Swanson, Doug, J. Cult of Glory: The Bold and Brutal History of the Texas Rangers. Viking Press, (2020). ISBN 978-1101979860
Take your time and go slow, resist the temptation to make sweeping changes all at once. Large changes or lots of small changes made over a short period of time are more likely to have errors in tone or substance and be challenged. This is just my advice, but I think it's good advice. Feel free to leave a message (with a ping) on my talk page if I can answer any questions. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  01:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Bultar Swan

Bultar Swan is a Jedi from Star Wars. She has a green lightsaber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Popeye (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas_Ranger_Division/Archive_1&oldid=1116148579"