Talk:Stephen F. Austin

Was he four or five when "his family moved forty miles west of the Mississippi River"?

Someone keeps changing the number. Xiner (talk, email) 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great question. I didn't touch the last change by the anon since it is mathematically correct - according to that date (June 1798), he would have been four. I just can't find a cite for that date. To make matters worse, the three major references/external member of the tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.229.196 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen F. Austin

He has done so many things in Texas and many others historyback then

Words can not explain what he has done . Thanks to him life is much better for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.135.34.101 (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going through this article to improve the information where citation is needed. I will be asking Draeco (who adopted me) to verify my work on this article about such an important person. Thank you. Bull Market 14:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

While I did not write the original article, some requests for references are more than two years old. I am open to adding back any information removed if someoe comes forward with references or citations that can verify the claims made. Thank you.

For example, I have found no reference to Hawkins being the decisive persuader of SFA to carry out the Empressario grants and colonize Texas.Bull Market 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening Bio Unclear

Especially the sentence "He was known as the Father of Texas, led the second, but first legal and ultimately successful colonization of the region by bringing 300 families from the United States."

This needs tidying up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc22233 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

when was stephen f austin born and when did die and where — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.146.225 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen F. Austin Mexican citizenship

Stephen F. Austin was granted Mexican citizenship on March 9th, 1824 and probably baptized a Catholic to receive the land he claimed in his father's name. The 300 families to whom he granted land had to abide by the same guidelines. It might be worth investigating these claims to insure the integrity of the article.http://www.cah.utexas.edu/texashistory/annex/view.php?wrkid=txu-crra-2a149-03091824&pn=1 This link shows a copy of the original document. I am not good at citing rules, and I do not want to infringe any laws by using somebody else's materials, but surely you can investigate. Thank you! --66.199.62.19 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Monica Mata

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen F. Austin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000210020912/http://www.co.hidalgo.tx.us/ to http://texashistory.unt.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 21:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mexican link

please change ((Mexican)) to ((Mexico|Mexican))

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Austin as an "American Empresario"

He moved to Spanish territory and his father became a Spanish citizen, changing his citizenship as well, as a child. 1803-1812 They were still Spanish Citizens, there is nothing written that his family changed back to American citizenship. AFter 1822 when he moved to Mexico, not Texas, since the region was still considered Couhilla part of Mexico. This is where everyone gets this wrong. He moved to Mexico and not Texas, and was a devoted Spanish Citizen. He died a Spanish Citizen, not an American citizen. He wanted nothing to do with the rules of America and tried to change the rules everywhere he lived (Arkansas, Louisiana). He was a despot, and not my fellow American. Please get this correct in your files. He was a Spanish citizen for since he was 4 or 5 years old and there is no proof that he ever dropped his Spanish citizenship and or declared his double citizenship.

   Tewoodson (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Timothy E Woodson

Consensus Request

I am requesting that the 20:15, 21 July 2017 version of this page, which I contributed, be restored in full.

Not only was the edit made in good faith, but it was also cited with five reputable sources. The edit was uncontested for 10 days, until Montanabw reverted it citing my need for "better sourcing." However, there is some context to express here:

Montanabw recently reverted an entire edit I made to a different page. It was an edit that had been cleared by three previous editors, and one for which I received encouragement and support. However, my edit was on a page that Montanabw has been the primary editor for the last 10 years. This is relevant given Montanabw's established history of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I provided solid sources and learned of no issues of the edit until Montanabw appeared, and reverted my entire edit, which included sections about cowboys of color, cowgirls of color, and homosexual cowboys. Then this happened...

Initially Montanabw said he/she reverted my edit to "Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material." When I challenged this, he/she then said, "Discussion is appropriate." Then, he/she disregarded by edit with his/her opinion that "There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources." Yet, in the same breath, he/she implied that my sources weren't, in fact, the issue, but that, "This article is in need of careful development..." After that, he/she accused me of copyvio. And then, on the Talk page, he/she listed off a myriad of "other" things I supposedly violated.....including several of my edits not being "very good." While the target of his/her accusations kept moving, the accusations were also illogical given that, if I was guilty of these things, at least a few of them would have been flagged by the copyviol tool I used (which was provided to me by other admin) when I submitted the edit, or by any of the three admins I asked to check it when I submitted it. While I thoroughly refuted Montanabw's accusations, and am working to get my full edit restored on the Cowboy page...Montanabw belittled me i.e. "...you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around here," and seemingly followed my edit history to this Stephen F. Austin page with an obvious intent revert my edit. Otherwise, it's quite a coincidence that Montanabw, who has never been an editor on this page, suddenly appeared and took no issue with any other edit on the page...only mine.

My edit to the Stephen F. Austin page was primarily on slavery, which was the largest economic driver of Austin's colonies. This is important, as it was a practice that Mexico opposed and tried to ban (twice). Austin viewed this as government overreach, and it was a big factor of the Texas Revolution. This is important, and it should not remain omitted from this page, as it distorts history, along with Austin's motivations. However, Montanabw reverted my entire edit, chastising me for needing "better sourcing." After I noted that the reversion was petty, Montanabw restored one sentence, and used two of my references for his/her own edit, which doesn't make any sense because if my edit needed "better sourcing" to begin with...and my sources were so bad as to necessitate the entire edit to be reverted in the first place, then why restore any of the edit or restore any of the sources?

That said, these are the sources I used for my edit:

1. Texas State Historical Association
2. Cambridge Scholars Publishing (#4 in the Library of Social Science's ‘World’s Top Ranked Publishers’ List)
3. Hardin, Stephen L. (1994). Texian Iliad – A Military History of the Texas Revolution. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-73086-1. OCLC 29704011
4. Lack, Paul D. (1992). The Texas Revolutionary Experience: A Political and Social History 1835–1836. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 0-89096-497-1
5. Stuntz, Jean A. (2012). "Tejanas: Hispanic Women on the Losing Side of the Texas Revolution". In Scheer, Mary L. Women and the Texas Revolution. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press. ISBN 1-57441-469-0.

I concede that I could have clarified three of the above better; however, Montanabw never gave me the opportunity to do so. Rather, Montanabw implied that my sources were not reputable.

So, I decided to ask for consensus to restore the 20:15, 21 July 2017 version of this page for three reasons:

1) I fear that, by trying to edit and re-submit, Montanabw may just revert me again for "some other" reason, and the target will remain elusive.

2) Montanabw is an has a well establish edit history, and the power to go with it, so getting into a back-and-forth seems futile.

3) I am fairly new at this, as my history of edits have mostly been minor, and am trying to keep my budding history/record as a contributor in tact.

So, I'm coming to the Wiki community because I believe in Wiki's Five Pillars and because I think my contribution here is important...and worth fighting for. Thx Justbean (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean, "restore my edit in full." The correct guideline is WP:BRD. Here, there was clearly a very long, unfocused set of edits that went well beyond anything to do with Austin. I reverted but then went in and restored part of the new content where it seemed appropriate and potentially useful. The entire history of slavery in Texas is beyond the scope of this article and so it needs to go elsewhere. The rest I think needs to be reviewed by those who have edited this article more often, as there may be additional problems with even the remaining content, but as it has been pointed out, I do not regularly edit articles about Texas history, so other eyes with greater expertise may be useful. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw, as mentioned, I know "Consensus" does not mean, "restore my edit in full." However, I requested the restoration because the edit stood for 10 days, without issue, before you reverted it. If there was an issue with the content, I think those who regularly edit/know this Page/History would have pointed it out in that time. Also, this was far from the entire slavery in Texas, so that's not fair, or even accurate, to say. I literally contributed 13 sentences that put the importance of slavery in context of this page. Without slavery, Stephen A. Austin does not exist...as there would be no economy, which would discourage other settlers from coming to Texas. And, without slavery, there would likely be no Texas Revolution. So, it was vital to the development and success of Austin, as a man...and Austin as a city. To take exception to fewer than 15 sentences providing context for that...well that's, in part, why I'm requesting the full restore. Thx Justbean (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So the article doesn't have a lot of watchers. My position is that I restored part of what you wrote, but the rest is beyond the scope of this article, plus the use of sources was not simply the quality of the source, but how it is used. We have wikilinks to direct readers to other articles where things such as Slavery in Texas are explained in more detail. So, 13 sentences in this context was more than needed. There may be room for some expansion, but focus on Austin himself. Try adding ONE paragraph of focused content and let's see how it goes. Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thx Montanabw! Appreciate that. Will take a stab at it. Justbean (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Retry

Montanabw, I've given this edit another shot. I created this page: Talk:Stephen F. Austin/Temp

Rather than add one paragraph, I thought working an edit, on a separate page, could be helpful before I posted it. I took your advice and wrote about slavery, in relation to Austin himself. My edit clocks in at about the same word length as the Empresario section. I ask that you don't knock me on length, but look at accuracy and context. The thing is...slavery, and its effects, were major for Austin...without slavery, Austin doesn't have a colony, immigrants or an economy. And this is not accurately reflected on this page now.

I did a lot of research and tried to construct a solid narrative/flow of information. I would appreciate your feedback and, if it flies with you...I'd love to add it.

Prior to my initial edit, there was nothing about the importance/role slavery played with Austin...and what currently stands is positively biased toward Austin. Information exists that counters such a rosy picture. He was a man of his time, and a wealthy one at that. That information and context is missing on this page, despite being easily available. So...I hope my effort is strong enough to contribute to a useful/informative addition. Thanks! Justbean (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is to not go into a complete history of slavery and cite only to sources that specifically address Austin... it's not a matter of whitewashing content, it's a matter of meticulously sourcing content so that the article is balanced and reliable. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

... uh, it's extensively sourced. Mostly to four works that actually have Stephen Austin's name in the title.

If that's your concern, I'd say it's been addressed and the draft should be moved to article space. ApLundell (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Just because it's sourced does not mean it's relevant. Many biographies go into the historic background of the subject, that doesn't mean it is necessary to do so in a wikipedia article -- we don't have 500 pages to work with here. See WP:UNDUE. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Genocide against Karawanka people

Austin seems to be documented as one of successful genocide planners against Texas Indians whose land he stole. Should be mentioned. ref F Todd Smith (2006), From Dominance to Disappearance, The Indians of Texas..., page 127 Kipala (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

I believe there are incorrect dates/ages in the STEPHEN F AUSTIN article on Wikipedia. Specifically, the article states that Austin was age 24 when he led the "Old 300" to Tejas, yet it also says that this trek occurred in the years 1821 to 1825, and that Austin was born in 1793. If he was born in 1793, that would make him ages 28 to 32 during this migration. Clearly his birthdate, age at migration, and/or the time-frame of the migration is incorrect.

Thank you. 2603:900A:780:2200:450A:6061:572B:5714 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Parkwells: you added his age at that time with this edit. Was the age taken from the Todish source given for that material, or was that a typo? Kuru (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Three years later, I have no idea. You are welcome to change his age at the beginning of the migration to be consistent with his birth year. Thanks for catching that.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Understood; I've just dropped the age for now. Kuru (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding his Spanish Name?

It appears Austin signed his name "Estevan" on documents in Spanish Thegunkid (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

arrest of stephen f. austin

he got arrest in 1834. for sending a letter to start a new goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.157.40.94 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

need to change the year he settled in Texas form 1825 to 1824. EthanJB1322 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

White supremacist

OK, any RS that say he was one, he might well have been but we need RS to say it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:@Levivich:@Doctuh:@Qwirkle:

Slatersteven, I am not sure whether this is a question or a statement, but here is my answer nonetheless. I think two policies makes the course of action very clear. The first policy concerns the inclusion of categories to an article. Per WP:CATVER, any category must conform to statements in the body of the article which cite an RS. There is no way to avoid making editorial judgements regarding rephrasing of texts; in fact, it is a Wikipedia requirement that we avoid close paraphrasing. This is where a second policy is relevant. MOS:WTW says, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint."

The MOS designates a special category of words-to-watch under the header of "Contentious labels," or alternatively linked as MOS:LABEL or MOS:RACIST. "White supremacist" should fall under MOS:WORDS: "racist," "neo-Nazi," and "terrorist" are all examples of contentious labels specified by the MOS. While not strictly proscribed, the MOS establishes a higher standard of care for such labels if they are to be used in articles: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Notice that it says "widely used by reliable sources." One RS does not do the job according to this policy. Second, the policy is explicit in tying these statements from RS's to "describe the subject." Therefore the burden for characterizing Stephen F. Austin in the article as a "white supremacist" is many RS's (or an RS which claims that this is a widely held view among historians) calling Austin a "white supremacist," and such a claim should "use in-text attribution."

In conclusion, if the Stephen F. Austin article should only cast him as a "white supremacist" if there is a consensus of reliable sources (and they should be historians) that state Austin is a white supremacist or a credible historical survey that claims that there is a historical concensus for this claim. This is the standard for this expression to be included in the article per MOS:LABEL. And if it can not meet this standard for inclusion as in-line text, WP:CATVER says it should not be included as a category. This not my opinion. This is policy. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes that was my point, if RS do not call him a white supremacist neither can we (even by implication, categories are not their as a get round policy), wp:BLP makes that quite clear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Stephen Austin died in 1836; BLP does not apply here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP does not apply here, but neither of the two policies I cited depended on BLP. If it were a BLP, there would be a greater burden to justify the contentious label. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Opps, still it has to be sourced even without blp.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CATVER and WP:MOS are guidelines, not policies. They provide guidance, but neither of them require any outcome in this case. MOS:WTW doesn't discuss categorization at all, and it's not technically possible to provide in-text attribution (as MOS:LABEL recommends) to a category. CATVER doesn't say that the exact verbiage of every category must be in the article body, or that every category must be supported by an inline citation somewhere in the body. CATVER says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. My opinion is that it's clear from verifiable information in the article why this article was placed in Category:White supremacist politicians. (WP:CATVER, by the way, says if a category is unsourced, to use the {{Category unsourced}} template. That should have been done rather than reverting the edit and removing the category.)

Category:White supremacist politicians is easily verifiable. Googling "Stephen F. Austin" "white supremacist" returns:

Whites who migrated to these southwestern areas usually carried the system of white racism in their minds, propensities, and practices. They applied their white-supremacist, antiblack framing to Mexicans, who were viewed as intellectually, physically, and culturally inferior ... They called Mexicans "niggers" or other racist epithets and treated them in the discriminatory ways they did African and Native Americans. Stephen F. Austin, a white adventurer who founded new Texas communities, viewed Mexicans as a "mongrel Spanish-Indian and negro race."
— Author: Joe Feagin; Publisher: Routledge; p. 241

A frontier created by those whose motivations was also generated from another form of white supremacist economic exploitation. "Texas," Stephen F. Austin had earlier proclaimed, "shall be effectually, and fully, Americanized," which meant, as he concluded, "Texas must be a slave country."
— Author: Ashraf H. A. Rushdy; Publisher: Yale University Press; p. 41

White supremacists first entered Texas when the Mexican government in 1821 granted colonization rights to Moses Austin. Stephen F. Austin later recalled the purpose of this immigration: "[I wanted] to redeem Texas from the wilderness ... to settle it with an intelligent honorable and interprising [sic] people" (p. 3). Of course, what Austin meant through his frontier rhetoric was a "whitening" of Texas.
— Author: José David Saldívar; Publisher: Duke University Press; pp. 64–65

In 1823 Stephen F. Austin, an early Anglo settler who lived in the region soon to be Texas, organized a small group of men, called rangers, to protect settlers and their property ... The Texas Rangers were described as a "fighting force" created by Anglo settlers to fight in the ongoing war for racial supremacy, battling Mexican landowners and indigenous nations ... The Texas Rangers targeted both the "Indian warrior" and the Mexican vaquero as enemies of white supremacy.
— Author: Monica Muñoz Martinez; Publisher: Harvard University Press; p. 10

The Rangers started out as vigilantes. An Anglo-American settler named Stephen F. Austin banded a group of rangers together in 1823 to unofficially defend white land-owning interests in Texas, though the region was still Mexican territory at the time ... The Rangers were a force of white supremacy at every stage in their development.
— Los Angeles Review of Books, reviewing Martinez's book [1]; this text was also quoted by Washington Monthly [2]

There is also Austin's own self-identification statements, such as the well-known 1836 letter I posted at the ANI thread (and that's quoted in the first book above):

A war of extermination is raging in Texas—a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race ... the Anglo-American foundation, this nucleus of republicanism, is to be broken up, and its place supplied by a population of Indians, Mexicans, and renegadoes, all mixed together, and all the natural enemies of white men and civilization ... it is deceiving yourselves and your constituents to believe that the Texas war is not a war of extermination against Anglo-Americans and their principles and interests ... How is this to be done? By exterminating the American population in Texas, and filling that country with Indians and negroes ... I have, in times past, had more kind and charitable feelings for the Mexicans in general, and have been much more faithful to them than they merited ... I am, therefore, for the independence of Texas, and I am so from the soundest principles that move the human heart—those of liberty, justice, humanity, and self-preservation.
— Stephen F. Austin, May 4, 1836

The city of Austin, Texas has recently considered changing its name because of this. [3]

In my view, that Stephen F. Austin was a white supremacist is not controversial and is widely reported by RSes. Adding the category complies with CATVER and MOS:LABEL, based on the article as it stands now. It would be better to expand the article with additional information about Austin's white supremacist beliefs and writings. For example, the famous "mongrel Spanish-Indian and negro race" quote should be added to the article. That will give additional support for the categorization, as well.

There is a policy that requires a specific outcome, and it's WP:V, specifically WP:ONUS: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Docktuh added the category; the onus is on Docktuh to achieve consensus for its inclusion. But if there were an RFC on this, I'd !vote support. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:Thanks for finding relevant material. I will need to take a look at them once the libraries reopen. The first three examples you cite are on point: they offer textual support for the expression "white supremacist" as it applies to SFA. After all, the headings in the MOS are "contentious labels" and "words to watch," not "concepts to watch." These first four would appear to be peer-reviewed, which is preferable for history articles. The link to the article from the radio station is not helpful: it is neither directly on point, nor should it be considered an RS in this context. Going back to your first three examples, they are definitely RS's on the subject, they all use the contentious label, and three recent sources should qualify as "widely used." On the other hand, how do we write this up without violating WP:OR? "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." I recently used one of the words to watch in this edit [[4]] to History of Texas (1865–99). "Carpetbagger" might be a contentious label, and "myth" is a named contentious label. There is no synthesis with this edit: the article cited includes a brief survey of historical literature on Texas reconstruction, and the author summarizes his findings on the subject of the "carpetbagger-rule myth." Another consideration is tone. Do we really add anything to the dictionary by adding heated labels? If an RS reports that FOO held fifty black persons in bondage, this should be included in FOO's article. Do we really think so little of our readers that we have to explain to them that this is bad? And if they did not think this was bad, would heated characterizations help to drive home the point? (In the case of "carpetbagger-rule myth," "carpetbagger" was a term that pro-Southerners used as an expression of anti-Republican sentiment, so this version of history is described as "carpetbagger rule.") I definitely think that we should include at least three of these sources in the SFA article. You don't even need my cooperation to make these changes yourself, so my thinking may be irrelevant to the outcome. I changed at least one other category to SFA: nothing in the article supports that he was an American politician. Running the ayuntamiento, a local government established by the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas, he was a Mexican politician. He was also for a brief time a Texas politician under the Republic, which was not at that time in the United States. These are all spelled out in the article—but no contentious labels are involved.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand .... If I understand you correctly, all of the objections in your post below this point are answered by ... your post above that point. (Also FWIW I rather doubt that Stephen Austin would not have found the classification "white supremacist" to be contentious: the people running the Republic of Texas understood their project very well.) --JBL (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Re "nothing in the article supports that he was an American politician": the article says he served in the legislature of the Missouri territory. IMO that counts as being an American politician, since it was an American territory. I'd say he was both an American and a Mexican politician. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Boy, this turned out to be a surprisingly controversial move on my part, huh? Course I am still kinda new around here, so I guess it's to be expected from me. Regardless, I'll open a conversation separate from this to achieve consensus. Docktuh (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would rather we had a source that directly called him a white supremacist, awe should not rely on guilt by association.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WTF? --JBL (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Its simple "Stephen F. Austin was a white supremacist" is someone calling HIM a white supremacist "Stephen F. Austin knew a white supremacist" is not, it is guilt by association. We gain nothing by not applying our rules to racists (past or present), we do by applying them (credibility and integrity).Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Which of the sources I posted say Stephen F. Austin knew a white supremacist? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought that was the whole point, he belonged to, help set up ect. Guilt by association. Which of them says (using the words "he was" or similar) a white supremacist? It should not this hard to find a source saying he was one, if he was one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

They all say he was one, none say he "knew" one, and two say he founded a white supremacist organization. My paraphrasing: the first three say he was an example of white supremacists who settled Texas in the early 1800s; the fourth and fifth say he founded a white supremacist organization (the Texas Rangers) (founding a white supremacist organization absolutely means you are a white supremacist... surely you don't disagree about this?); the sixth is Austin himself saying he believes in white supremacy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do disagree, because founding an organisation does not agree with what it becomes. It implies it, yes, it does not say it. wp:v is the clear the source must explicitly say what you are using it to support. If we water down that in this article case why not others? If we are no consistent we cannot complain when others twist or bend the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources don't say the Texas Rangers became a white supremacist organization. They explicitly say that the Rangers were "created by Anglo settlers to fight in the ongoing war for racial supremacy" (4th quote) and "The Rangers were a force of white supremacy at every stage in their development" (5th quote). And, anyway, that's just quotes 4 and 5; there's still 1, 2, and 3–which explicitly cite him as an example of white supremacists in Texas–and 6, where he explicitly says he thinks white people are superior to others. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No, and it does not say Austin was a white supremacist either, that is the point. And no 1 does not say he was an example of white supremacists it talks about white supremacists then him. My concern is if we allow this (based on the sources so far provided) when someone wants to label someone else based upon this argument. Want to label Barrack Obama an Antisemite, well. Its about no setting a precedent that ignores wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What does "no" mean? Did I misquote the sources? These two sources are saying the Rangers were white supremacists, and that Austin founded them. What is there to disagree about?

And what kind of statement is "1 does not say he was an example of white supremacists it talks about white supremacists then him"? If it talks about white supremacists and then him, it's using him as an example of white supremacists. For example, the sentence "Cows have spots. Dorothy's spots are black." is saying that Dorothy is a cow because it's talking about Dorothy as an example of a cow.

If Barack Obama had founded the Nazi Party, then I'd say yeah, put him in Category:Anti-semites. But not wanting to follow the sources in this article because you're concerned about people not following sources in other articles in the future, makes no sense to me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I do find it odd that no RS seems to have come out and actually said it, they dance around it, they imply it (very strongly, but still only an implication) but none say it (yes by the way I have looked).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The answer IMO is because RSes don't write that way. People just don't write "John Doe was a white supremacist" or "John Doe was an anti-semite" or "John Doe was a Jew" or anything like that. They write, "John Doe was a member of the KKK" or "was a Nazi Party official" or "went to synagogue every week". That's just how people write: "[Person] is an [label]" is rare, mostly because people prefer to "show" rather than "tell". I don't think our article needs the sentence "Austin was a white supremacist" – again, we should show rather than tell – but I do think the sources very much support putting him Category:White supremacist politicians. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And neither do we. So we will include a category with zero explanation of why. And yes, they do [[5]], [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is nucking futs. Yes, in completely other kinds of writing, people write in completely other ways. Can you answer some very basic questions about your input here, please? (1) Do you think it is correct to say that Stephen Austin was a white supremacist? (2) Do you think that that position is supported by the sources above, or already in the article? (3) Do you think a categorization that includes the words "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" is appropriate for this article? --JBL (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

(1) I have no idea I have not gone into his writings, snippets tell me nothing. (2)No I do not think either, I think the sources here imply it, but do not actually say it, and no we do not say it in the article. (3) Again (as with 1) I have no idea as I do not know him, thus (like our readers would) I want to see unequivocal sources that say it, so I can see it as being supported by RS and not OR. I can say he was (from what I have seen) a racist, but racism and white supremacy are not the same thing. And this is why I want to be careful, we cannot (in effect) undermine out treatment of bigotry by over egging the cake, all that does is give ammunition to dismiss us.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

There is no such thing as a family coat of arms. Arms are issued to individuals only. The notion of a family crest was invented to sell books on heraldry. One can do a simple Google search and find multiple credible sources that explain this. There is no Austin family crest and it has no place on this page. Here's the Google search- https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=no+such+thing+as+family+coat+of+arms

Please don't add the CoA back unless you can find a credible source to prove it (which you won't). It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Laws of Heraldry in modern Australia have NO bearing on this subject It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

MAybe not but [[7]] "family coat of arms of Stephen F. Austin ".Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, we'll need to get some sort of consensus then. You should take of that. Or I can talk to an admin. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yiou asked for a source you have one, what is the issue?Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well? Your concerns has been addressed we now have a source for it, so do you have any other objections?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

The best sources on Austin are Barker and Cantrell. Barker wrote in the 1920s and it does not probe Austin as a person. Cantrell is better on personal details. The writing in the Early Life section is choppy and uses some sketchy citations. I propose a total rewrite of this section based on Cantrell. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Opening bio a bit racist

Instead of "300 families and their slaves," I suggest something like "300 white families and the black people they enslaved." Christafrench (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it racist? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposed rephrasing changes the meaning and only serves to make it wordy.

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Did he graduate from Transylvania?

The Transylvania university Wikipedia page states he did not, and that he just obtained a certificate after dropping out in 1810 that he conducted himself well. Can we clarify on this? 68.95.59.151 (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the Wikipedia page does not list everyone who ever graduated. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Angleton TX Stephen F Austin statue DSC 6291 ad.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Birth Place

Not sure if Stephen F. Austin was born in Virgin or Connecticut, but he did attend school and graduate from Bacon Academy in Colchester CT

https://www.colchesterhistory.org/colchester-history/old-bacon-academy/ Littlewellknowfacts (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)