Talk:Montana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

Are you sure that the name is Spanish and not Latin?

I removed the "from Latin" part because it was confusing and not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funguymon (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be changed from Latin to Spanish because mountain in Spanish is montana where the Latin translation that I looked up is mons montis. I remember my 8th grade history teacher tell us that a specific senator (can't remember who) asked for it to be Montana because he thought the name was beautiful, and I believe he tried to apply it to other states as well. I do not have a source on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.229.74 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Spanish-named states retain their original names in Spanish (see Tejas, Nuevo México) in spite of English adaptations. --Error 01:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's Spanish. Or else the State Government is wrong, because that's what they say too. Montanabw 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the above have a source? I couldn't find it on Montana's state website, but I did find this: "Created out of the Idaho Territory in 1864, the name Montana is a derivation of the Latin word "montaanus" which means mountainous." Shearer, Benjamin F. and Barbara S. State Names, Seals, Flags and Symbols Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut - 1994 ISBN 978-0313315343 Bdusel (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Geography

"... and on the west and southwest is the Idaho border, marked by the Bitterroot River."

The Bitterroot River marks no such boundary, although the crest of the Bitterroot Range does mark a portion of the above referenced border.

I made some extensive revisions of the geography section, mostly consolidating redundant material (two paragraphs about rivers, multiple paragraphs about the mountains) and trying to make a more accurate description of the state's overall topography, adding some significant features. Truth is, this Geography section probably needs to be, per Wiki guidelines for state articles, broken out into its own article pretty soon.. Montanabw 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Three Oceans?

"Montana is the only state in the union that have rivers that flow into three different oceans: The Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and Hudson Bay." I'm curious how these are three oceans. If Montana's rivers run into these three bodies of water, then I would say the water ultimately flows into the Pacific and the Atlantic, as both the Hudson Bay (via the Labrador Sea) and the Gulf of Mexico eventually flow into the Atlantic Ocean.

I recast the statement to be more accurate. --Geologyguy 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Watersheds" works for me. Whatever makes the geographers and geologists happy. As long as the principle is there.Montanabw 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its safe to go back to three oceans and it sounds cool.

The hudson bay is part of the Artic Ocean, the gulf of mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, and The Pacific Ocean.

You should have left is as "only state in the union". The page now says "Montana is the only geographic area in the world whose rivers form parts of three major watersheds (i.e. where two continental divides intersect): The Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and Hudson Bay which are divided atop Triple Divide Peak in Glacier National Park." This is not really at all true. Off the top of my head, Canada has four: Hudson Bay, Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean. Even if we're talking about subnational entities, the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta both also contain three watersheds: Gulf of Mexico, Hudson Bay, and Arctic Ocean. I don't know what to change the satement to, but what it says now isn't accurate. AntidoteWasHad (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Towns?

What makes Three Forks any more of a "historical" town than, say, Deer Lodge or Anaconda or Red Lodge? Why add this distinction, especially when the only historical reference on the Three Forks page is a very short paragraph about Sacajawea? I think the header and table should be removed and Three Forks folded in with the list above it. Comments? Gary D Robson 13:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no objections or comments, I've done so, and I alphabetized the city list while I was at it. Gary D Robson 30 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have ghost towns as a category since there are so many that are around the state. Also, many of them are considered Historical Landmarks. Mt.holliday (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps 'geologically important' would be a better heading. Seeing as that's where the Missouri river formed. Brain sage (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Endless" Great Plains vs. vast Great Plains

A user insists on changing "vast Great Plains" to "endless Great Plains." I am not sure what is wrong with the word "vast" to describe the Great Plains; they are indeed vast. They are not, however, "endless," neither literally nor metaphorically. I have no idea why this user believes it is more neutral, NPOV and accurate to describe the Great Plains as endless instead of vast. But I am going to take this to the highest levels of Wikipedia arbitration if he continues to revert. Moncrief 16:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. Don't lie about it; the fact of the matter is that a user user insists on changing "endless Great Plains" to "vast Great Plains". Not the other way around.

The intimation that there is some "neutral point of view" issue here is ludicrous.

As I pointed out in an edit summary, there is also no accuracy issue here. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that anybody is going to interpret it literally.

What was there (and note carefully, not put there by me) is an acceptable, good writing style. You need reasonable grounds to change it; you do not have that. There is no requirement that "endless" be a more accurate description than "vast" as you claimed in your edit summary.

We don't need to throw out good writing, just to mollycoddle some anally retentive editor. Gene Nygaard 18:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

how the hell is "endless" appropriate for an encyclopedia? Joeyramoney 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a dynamic document that is forever evolving. There isn't any baseline article from which we can never vary or which is somehow set in stone. The fact of the matter is that the Great Plains are not endless; they are vast. There isn't any reason to use poetic license in the first paragraph of a factual article about a geographic place. "Vast" sums up in the most accurate way the appearance of the Great Plains; "endless" does not. We are not discussing the emotions or sensations or perceptions that people might feel in eastern Montana; we are talking about finding the most suitable adjective to describe the Great Plains in purely factual, geographic, descriptive terms, at least in the introductory paragraph, and that adjective is "vast," not "endless." From my last edit, the word used is "vast." By changing it you are changing "vast" to "endless." You have offered not a single reason why "endless" is more useful to readers than "vast" other to speculate about what people will understand or not understand and to insult me personally, the latter of which has been duly noted and may come out when I take this matter to Request for Comments. Moncrief 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added this talk page to Wikipedia:Request for comment. Moncrief 22:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting here from the RfC page, I'd say that 'vast' has more of the tone you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia, whereas 'endless' sounds somewhat pompous to me. Describing the plains of Montana as "Endless Great Plains" seems to be perfect for a novel or poetry, but seems less appropriate in an encyclopedia, where clear and literal language is generally preferred over metaphor. It doesn't really seem to matter to me that the original wording was 'endless': one should not be over-protective of one's own contributions to Wikipedia, and just accept that later changes may, in fact, be an improvement. Joost 00:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't even pay attention, can you? Didn't I alreay point out that I am not "over-protective of one's own contibutions to Wikipedia"? It isn't my wording.

Now tell me, where in the world is there any "neutral point of view" issue, which was the justification offered for the change by User:Moncrief? Making changes for bad reason is sufficient justification for reversion. Gene Nygaard 03:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC response: As most everyone has pointed out, this is an encyclopedia; pretty much nothing should be described as "endless," except maybe The Universe, but even that is highly debated. "Vast" is a good word, and is true. "Endless" can almost never be literally true. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Then, are you saying that "endless" is just a pretty much useless word? It is close enough to literally true; you can't see an end to them, and you can see to the horizon. Not from everywhere, of course, but from enough places. Lot's of "big sky" up above. That's right, Big Sky Country. Is that another "neutral point of view" problem that we need to address? After all, the sky isn't literally any bigger in Montana than it is anywhere else, is it? Somebody better go dig up some sources to balance out that nonsense! Gene Nygaard 03:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm just saying "endless" isn't a great word for an encyclopedia. "Endless" is a perfectly usable word in everyday conversation, literary prose, etc. as an exaggeration. While I see your point that most people reading this page will see it as the exaggeration that it is, the point is that vast has the advantage in that it let's the reader know that the plains are large AND it's more literally true. I just can't see another encyclopedia using a word like endless without something before it like "seemingly," "has been described as," etc.

As for "Big Sky Country," that's a widely accepted motto and no one would argue that it's inappropriate. Furthermore, perhaps "big sky" CAN be taken literally, when you factor in light pollution, skyscrapers, and average cloud cover. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vast" is a more precise term, and, as such, probably should stay, but the aforementioned "vast, seemingly endless" idea certainly could work without crushing the poetry of the language too much, I think. Adbarnhart 04:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your last suggestion is a good one. Gene Nygaard 11:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that "endless" is a useless word -- just that, in this case, it is a decidely more imprecise word than "vast." The first paragraph of a state article is not a place for poetry or for impressionistic observations; it is a place for hard facts. Moncrief 04:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody see any crying need to edit Saguna Brahman, Corpus Christi Hooks, and even the fictional Azeroth (world) and Ages of Myst III: Exile for a similar reason? Or, quite relevant to Moncrief's arguments, how about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with its talk about "endless 'edit wars'"? The burden on justifying a change should lie with the proponent of the change. Gene Nygaard 03:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you have against calling the Great Plains in Montana "vast"? Moncrief 04:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Gene Nygaard that a person standing in the middle of eastern Montana cannot see anything but the Great Plains, and therefore that the Great Plains in eastern Montana can appear to be without end. If this article were about the literature of Montana or the impressions of early settlers, or the religion of the Plains Indians, or something of that nature, I think there would be a context for a literary, evocative, poetic description of the Plains as "endless." However, this is the first paragraph in an article about a state, and therefore it needs to be factual and precise. We can all certainly agree that sailors in the middle of the Pacific Ocean can not see an end to the ocean, but that does not mean that we should describe the Pacific Ocean, in the introductory paragraph of Pacific Ocean, as being endless. Moreover, the Great Plains are contained wholly within the much larger North American continent. Would we be justified in using the word "endless" to introduce the description of North America in the North America article? I don't think so. Moncrief 05:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC response: I'm curious as to how this got to be such a hot issue, and would like to suggest that the editors involved try to take a step back and relax. Flip a coin or something. I suppose "vast" is slightly more encyclopedic than "endless", but does it really matter which word is used? Brandon39 07:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you or User:Moncrief were to go to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and "fix" this usage there, claiming in the edit summary that you are doing so because it is a clear violation of the NPOV rules, you might see why it matters. That's part of the principle involved here. Gene Nygaard 11:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the original reason to edit was unjustified, true, I agree that this doesn't have much to do with NPOV or such things. It would just be best now to leave all of that stuff behind, and choose the best option out of "vast", "endless" and "vast, seemingly endless". Personally I'd favour using "vast", as it is concise, clear, to the point, and literal. I really couldn't care what the original motivation for editing was, it just seems that "vast" seems to be the more reasonable option out of the two.Joost 14:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I looked at WP:NPOV. I looked at the edit summaries on this article. It seems to me that a great deal is being made of very little, by both of you. I'll repeat my earlier advice: Flip a coin, or agree that on even numbered days it's "vast" and odd numbered days it's "endless". It doesn't seem to me to be very important at all. And now I've had my say. Hope you two can work out your differences. Brandon39 12:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gene, this is irrational. "Vast" is close enough to "endless" and it's literally correct, too. Ashibaka (tock) 05:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems a little pedantic to me. Vast or endless - makes little difference to someone who knows nothing about Montana. (Like me!). I think 'seemingly endless' would be better than 'endless' and that is maybe the tag I'd go for. Marcus22 13:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC Response. Clearly "Vast" is the better wording.

Definately Vast. Astrokey44 11:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I also support 'vast'. Iotha 23:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I support Moncrief's "vast". While I understand that votes are viewed with disdain on Wikipedia [so please don't quote "Wikipedia is not a democracy" at me), I'd say all else fails, put it to a vote. I believe a consensus, or near-consensus will emerge, and we can move on. MCB 21:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I also support "vast." There's no contest, really. "Endless" and "seemingly endless" are both suboptimal, at best. You might just as well refer to the plains as being "infinite." They are, of course, not. They are vast. IronDuke 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a petty argument, but I guess it's important to someone. The plains of Montana end at the border of that state. If you're in Sidney & head east about 10 miles, you'll be in North Dakota. I doubt if the good people there would appreciate you calling THEIR part of the Great Plains, "the Montana Plains", because that part ended at the border. "Vast" is a much more accurate term for an encyclopedia, however, "seemingly endless", as already suggested, should satisfy anyone. Just my 2 cents. MercForHire 04:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The conflict seems to be resolved as "vast" has not been reverted for many days. Thank you everyone for your comments. Moncrief 05:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

wow, you guys. just wow. 67.172.61.222 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be the kill-joy, and I'm not, since I'm not enjoying the waste of space. Grow up, and if you want to argue about what defines a dictionary, or whether or not 'endless' is an acceptable term, go to BlogSpot, or somewhere else where they don't care. And either way, I wouldn't call Montana '90% plains'. It's NOT that much. Of course, I spent all my life in the Helena Valley, so maybe I'll speak for myself. How about we just leave it at 'the Great Plains' instead of elaborating? Brain sage (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

State Motto

"Oro y plata"

Why is Montana's State Motto Spanish? There must be, what, all of 3 Spanish speakers in the state? :D

They liked how it sounded. Also the state name is (was) spanish. Hyacinth 11:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that :D was indeed meant to be fully tongue-in-cheek, as there is a measurable Hispanic population, particularly in the Billings area, as well as any number of non-Hispanic people who are fluent in Spanish.Montanabw 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, Montana, lighten up. Where I grew up, it was lucky if you even knew a Hispanic or Mexican.Brain sage (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The end of the introductory portion of this article says:

"The largest city is Billings with an area of around 144,417.

What's that number supposed to represent (and why is it bold?)Dxco 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea where that came from. I fixed it with the area and population per the Wiki Billings article. Gary D Robson 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Race changes

I was just wondering why the race section was lowered to three races instead of the earlier version: 89.5% White 6.2% Native American 2.0% Hispanic 0.5% Asian 0.3% Black 1.7% Mixed race. I think unless there is some really good reason (i.e. new census data) these stats should be reverted.--Tainter 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, no hispanic population exists in Montana? Amazing, someone took that out.--Hellogoodsir 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone needed to fix it anyways. It adds up to 100.2%, and it has to be out of 100% Simple error, but a pain. Brain sage (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not add up to 100% because Hispanic is a separate question from white/black/native american/asian. Rmhermen (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to bottom (Blocking question)

How does someone block 149.43.100.101 from editing this page. 149.43.100.20 03:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not necessary at this point. Just to clarify as I am a Montana native. Montana is not a midwestern state...no source of merit calls Montana a midwestern state. It may be correct to refer to it as partially a Great Plains state and partly a Rocky Mountain state, but not midwestern. The far west would mean California, Oregon, Washington and possibly Nevada. The midwest would include areas up to the eastern Monatana border but even N. Dakota is suspect and is probably better labelled as a Great plains state.--MONGO 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on the midwestern thing. Montana, historicly is considered either The West or a Plains StateThe Midwest is more like the "breadbasket" states. Montana kinda falls between Great Plains and Rocky Mountain state, and is considered both. I have spent much time studying the bison of the Great Plains, and Montana is definetly considered part of the GP. Mt.holliday (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Population Error!?

I believe that the population figure of 1,087,340 listed in the key at the top of the article is incorrect.

Yes, it's still under 1 million, not sure exact number, though... Montanabw 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Census web site, Montana in 2000 had 902,195. I changed the article accordingly. --Geologyguy 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

its a bit pointless saying The state ranks fourth in size but has a relatively low population (with only six states having fewer people) and consequently a very low population density..effectively says the same thing twice in the same sentence

OK, is The state ranks fourth in size but 44th in population, and therefore has the third lowest population density in the United States better? If not, feel free to recast it again. Cheers Geologyguy 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

history wanted

the history section of this article and the 'History of Montana' article are really very sad. Someone who knows the subject should greatly expand the history article and then summarize it in this article. Thanks Hmains 02:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please find some Native American ancestry to add to this article. It is a shame that the indigenous people of this state don't have more to say about how things were in the beginning (before settlement) and where they proceeded to (after settlement). I believe this information is vital to understanding the time progression of this beautiful state. 70.57.203.197 16:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)lightening_storm

Well, if the 'indigenous' people wanted to add more history, I'm sure they would've done it. Most have access to computers, and almost all the internet. And I'm sorry, but if you want history about Montana, most librarys have 'A History of Montana, vol. 1-3' in their catalogs. I'm lucky enough to have it at home. xD Brain sage (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

question about ancesty

While flicking through articles on US states, I´ve noticed that in many cases the largest reported ancestry is not British (even in some NE states). How can it be? I think a reason for this is that many people who classify themselves as American in the surveys are really of British ancesty. But for this, it might not be easily understood why the majority of American (Caucasian, I mean) surnames are of British origin.

--Xareu bs 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Other European ethnicities vastly outnumber the English. German-Americans are actually the largest caucasian population group in the USA. However, because the English settled here first, the principal language of the United States is English. Thus, many "foreign" names were Anglicized when people arrived here, either by their own choice (in order to fit in), or inadvertently, when marginally-educated immigration workers wrote down the names of new immigrants--many of whom were themselves illiterate and could not speak English--in a phonetic fashion that often only approximated the peoples' actual surname. Montanabw 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Montaña

Okay i know for sure Montana is gotten from the spanish Montaña, its rather obvious, there is no word Montana in english, the spanish were around when europeans started naming places in north america and well the only differance is a tilde "˜" ive seen promotional touristty commertials saying thats the origen of the name so im certain its true, but can anyone prove it, perhaps a website for montana state facts? i hvnt been able to find it yet. I'm asking because on the Spanish langauge wikipedia they spell Missouri Misuri and Oregon Oregón and New Mexico Nuevo México so when i noticed Montana was spelled Montana i added the ñ, but they got quite mad at me and demanded i explain myself, they asked me to find one place where its spelled that way, when i was about to ask them to find me a place where missouri is spelled misuri and that he was being dumb the dude blocked me, so yeah. help please Qrc2006 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Montana came from monte (hill) like to montero (hunter), montar (get on), montuosa ... montana mean hilly. 212.97.181.220 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Cualquiera que lea Montana sabe lo que significa, como florida, arizona, argentina o filipina son adjetivos de uso común.You can looking for "Montana" in a spanish language dictionary or ask to the R.A.E. Real Academia de la Lengua in Spain.Anselmocisneros 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, that may be the derivation of the Spanish word montaña, but the name of the state of Montana comes from the word montaña itself, which all my Spanish dictionaries say means mountain or mountainous. That's why I reverted your change in the article. Cheers Geologyguy 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Peaks

(Question moved from article page) Hi there I dont know something: Why the name of Montana if you write: "Montaña" i.e. Mountain in Spanish language Why? And more Why there are a named Spanish Peak in the middel of Montana State Somebody know?

Many US State names derive from non-English languages. Montana is one. The Spanish Peaks were named for an early resident named Ed Spainish - the name was somewhat simplified. According to John Willard, Adventure Trails In Montana. --Geologyguy 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

wikicommons link error

The current link leads to a village of the Swiss canton of Wallis. I couldn't change it because it's a template, but it needs to link to Category:Montana. 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Montana. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

montana's name

montana came from monte (hill) like to montero (hunter), montar (get on), montuosa ... montana mean hilly. 212.97.181.220 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Cualquiera que lea Montana sabe lo que significa, como florida, arizona, argentina o filipina son adjetivos de uso común.

No, freak, it didn't. It comes from 'montańa', which is literally 'mountainous' (sorry if I spelled that wrong.), not whatever you think it comes from.Brain sage (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) From google see: "Más usual en la mitad Norte, en el piso inferior y montano..." "...ha sido mencionada como Bosque Pluvial Montano ..." "...La ecorregión de pradera montana y monte alto de Etiopía es una ecorregión de ..." R.A.E.: montano, montana.(Del lat. montānus).

1. adj. Perteneciente o relativo al monte.

□ V.

halcón montano

pimiento montano

Anselmocisneros (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with the state of Montana at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Montana. Any parties interested in taking part in such a project should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to create it. By the way, the banner above belongs to someone else, it isn't mine. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

capital of Montana

at the bottom of the page, where all the cities in Montana are listed, you have Billings listed under Montana's name, with (capital) written next to it. Helena is, I thought, the capital of Montana. Am I crazy!?

Laura —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.211.18.250 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for catching this, it was in a template. It is fixed now. Cheers Geologyguy 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous or Notable people from Montana?

I know that Montana has a small population and not many famous people are from there, but could someone make a list of famous people from Montana?

Thank you.

7FlushSetzer 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like List of people from Montana? Cheers Geologyguy 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, good chum.

7FlushSetzer 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a good page for homework but if you would could you add on the plain native americans! i strubled to find information!!!!!!!!! thank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.110.65 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You 'strubled'? Either way, the Plain Indians aren't exactly notable people from Montana. I mean sure, they're from there and they're kinda important to the history, but they're more prominatly from S. Dakota and N. Dakota.Brain sage (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MT has no references

The term MT has no reference. The disambiguation page MT has a link to this article. Per WP:V, this link is being removed. FYI: if you want to this article Montana back within the MT (disambiguation) page, this article must have a proper citation which gives reference to MT. If you chose to accept this mission... Good luck! --Some anonymous user 03:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with the template. I also left a message at template:US state asking why and if this template should include "representative"? --CyclePat 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

old comment

I can't say I much like stubs like this. I don't think stubs must be always the perfect stub, but golly, surely it doesn't do much good just to say that Montana's a U.S. state. What's the purpose of doing that? I personally would rather see five three-sentence stubs than fifteen single sentence-fragment stubs. That's just me--I'm just kvetching. Continue on, if it pleases you.  :-) At least, please, make the stubs full sentences with the subject bolded (as I've done here with the Montana article. --LMS 08:24, 22 September 2001 (UTC)

Demographics

User 158.111.4.26 added a paragraph of information to the demographics section with no comments here and no research cites. I have my doubts about a number of those statements, especially "The residents of the western Rocky Mountains are largely of British origin." Can anyone vouch for this information, or shall I yank the paragraph? Gary D Robson 18:16, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

Montana is in the Pacific Northwest

Is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshulove (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The roughly one-third of the state west of the Continental Divide may qualify due to climate and watershed issues, but the state is so very large that it encompasses a great deal of area that is really not Pacific in climate or culture at all. The state as a whole is often classified as part of the Northern Rockies, which encompasses both the milder, wetter areas west of the divide as well as the drier terrain east of the divide. The eastern part of the state (roughly the eastern half) is predominantly prairie country, having only "island" mountain ranges, and is often lumped in with the Great Plains (which, again, doesn't quite fit the whole state.) In short, it is sometimes lumped in with the Pac NW for some purposed (9th Circuit court of appeals, Bonneville Power Administration, etc.) but is as often also lumped into Great Plains classifications (Montana-Dakota Utilities, Northern Plains, etc...). Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree that Montana doesn't qualify for Pac. NW. Idaho doesn't either, if you're going by the climate, etc. --JT (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

By geography and climate, Idaho is partly Pac NW, partly Great Basin. Gotta love those guys who drew the maps.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

economy and climate

Well I heard that Montana agriculture is deteriorating rapidly due to decreasing amounts of water (on GNP rangers' shows). Is that not a big problem for Montana, enough not to mention that here? Look: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/mt/st30_1_001_001.pdf (eg wheat for grain bushels: 180M in 1997, 112M in 2002)

Montana is in a drought cycle right now. Montana has periodic drought cycles (there was a bad one in the 20s and 30s, too). Beyond that, any increased problems are comparable to other parts of the western USA...decreasing water tables due to irrigation practices and suburban sprawl, concerns with global warming, etc. Overall, to the extent that the problems aren't part of a periodic cycle, they are related to worldwide climate change, so not really sure where to put such info...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.50.124 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Cite Needed, and included this URL in my reason: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/with-obama-signing-the-bill-what-happens-now/?8au&emc=au WIthin that, it addresses how workers in Montana are now eligible for medical assistance from asbesthos poisoning as a result of vermiculite mining. Guess that pretty much proves it.: --JT (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Native Redundant?

"Native Americans were the first inhabitants of the state of Montana."

The silliness of the term "Native American" is evident here. The term doesn't describe ethnicity. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Statehood compact?

Someone familiar with the stipulations should summarize. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture, Medicine and Religion Before and After the Missionaries

The second sentence of the third paragraph of the History section currently states: "From interactions with Iroquois Indians between 1812 and 1820, the Salish Indians leaned about Missionaries ("blackrobes") that worked with native peoples teaching about agriculture, medicine, and religion." Surely both the Iroquois and the Salish were familiar with agriculture, medicine and religion before the arrival of the missionaries. Is there any evidence that any of these three areas of knowledge were improved by the work of the missionaries??Lily20 (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"teaching" doesn't necessarily imply that they needed to be taught to farm. It implies that people brought different types of knowledge. Whether they were useful is a different question. But today there are a lot of native people in the area who also happen to be Catholic, for what it's worth. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Horner

Jack Horner didn't discover "Jane" the T. rex. Burpee's Museum crew did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.67.61 (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Census-designated places and etc.

I tossed the census-designated places list because it appears totally random. If there was a scheme to it, this needs to be shared. The only thing I could figure was a possible attempt to list some of the suburbs of the big 7 cities, but it wasn't done properly (the Helena ones were totally screwy, the census-designated places don't match up with suburbs as they are understood, and some of the other "census-designated places" are actually incorporated towns). I'm also curious what criteria (population?) was used for the list of towns, as they also appear somewhat random. Nothing that a bit of clarification wouldn't help. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete and then ask questions? Maybe I don’t understand the ethics of Wikipedia but my understanding must be closer than yours because that just seems wrong. Calling anything in Montana a suburb would just be silly, that was not the intent. The Helena listings were not “Screwy” showing your age with that choice of a word. Don’t feel bad I use it all the time. Have you ever been to Helena half of their population is outside of the city limits. I didn’t make these up they are actual census designated places. I am sure you didn’t bother to look at the population of any of them but many have more population than some of the (major towns) listed. I noticed in your edit you stated, “no one cares”, what you should have said is YOU don’t care because obviously someone cares. I invited you to edit it not to delete. You should still feel free to revise the list in a manor you feel is more suiting. Linda Rider (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, the basic policy is edit, revert, discuss. You edited, I reverted, now we are discussing. Essentially, people adding new material have the burden of defending it. Second, read WP:BE BOLD, and WP:3RR. You were bold, I reverted. So now we need to figure out what the rhyme or reason is of these little lists of communities outside the big 7 cities. And on that topic, I happen to be a fourth generation Montanan who has lived in several Montana communities throughout my life and the Helena area for the last 20 years. So yes, all of those census-designated places are "the Valley," unless you want to talk about the volunteer fire departments, in which case there's the East Valley and the West Valley, with anything north of Lincoln Road usually called the "north valley" until you get over the hill. I've only ever heard terms like "Northwest Helena Valley" in the census and from those who are using census data (even the phone book maps don't line up). Even if East Helena is counted as a mere census-designated location, it happens to be an incorporated town with a mayor, town council and all that. So why there's what appears to be a random list of census-designated places in there is beyond me-- are you using population data? Then you need to say so. Same with the apparently random list of smaller towns? If only listed by population, then say so. Because the list of towns certainly is not based on significance -- Many are not even the central business community of their region (Belgrade these days is big only because it's now a bedroom community of Bozeman with cheaper rent, probably ditto for Laurel, in spite of its history with the railroads and the refineries, and WHY include Wolf Point and Hardin, but not Browning or Lame Deer? Why Polson but not Ronan? Why both Columbia Falls AND Whitefish??)

But my point: We try to assume good faith on everyone's part, but best to explain what you are doing. When in doubt, add a footnote and cite your source. I've had to deal with a lot of western and cowboy wannabees on wikipedia for the four or so years I've been here, so I apologize if my fuse was a little short and my answer snarky. I've recently had a high degree of frustration in discovering that the USGS and the Census Bureau sort of run roughshod over common place names in the state and that probably is also why I'm easily annoyed. Nothing personal, but the "have you ever been to Helena?" comment was sort of obnoxious. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Third generation Montanan myself and I have lived in six of the seven cities listed, I have sadly never lived in Kalispell. It is so beautiful in that area but then so is most of the state. I realize the list wasn’t the greatest but I was going to work on it more and was hoping to get help from others. I guess that isn’t really the way it is done. Some of the unincorporated communities in this state are very important parts of Montana and I feel should be listed. Nonetheless I don’t think I will put any more energy into it at least at this time. I’m just a little to lazy and don’t spend all that much time doing this. Plus I am really not that good at editing as you can tell. Sorry if the” have you ever been to Helena" comment sounded rude. It didn’t sound to me like you had, seems I was way wrong on that one lol.  : ) Linda Rider (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a question of not doing the list, it's explaining what you are doing and why. There seems no rationale to the list. (I mean, seriously, no offense to Belgrade, but Belgrade is really pretty insignificant, it's just a bedroom community of Bozeman. Before that it was a wide spot in the road farm town) Nothing that can't be worked on cooperatively if everyone understands what's going on. But please, "Didn't sound to me like you had?" Really? Not sure if I should be flattered or insulted...? Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WOW You are just not capable of playing nice are you. Linda Rider (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I was thinking the same of you! First you accuse me of never living in Montana, then you accuse me of either being too smart or too stupid (whatever "didn't sound like" means) to live in Montana. Maybe you didn't intend to sound so harsh, but it sure sounded mean to me. We ARE both supposed to look at the wikipedia policy of WP:AGF, so how about we both just call it a truce and start over? Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Important cities and towns

Why are you edit warring with me? The image you keep putting up of Helena does not fit size wise with the others plus it is not much of an image anyway. It simply shows the top of the mall and some houses. I agree it would be nice to have a picture of the city but I cannot find any in the commons that are good. Aesthetically the Capitol building works better. I don’t mind all the mumbo jumbo being taken off the bottom but can’t I at least have the Capitol image so the images balance out? What is the big deal about that? Just one little image that is all I want! Now in the spirit of compromise I am sure you can do that can’t you?

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who got a warning slapped on their talk page -- and I wasn't the one who slapped on the warning, either! There is no need for two photos of the state Capitol in the same article. That just is bad format and a waste of bandwidth. All the other photos of Helena kind of suck, I agree, (though the one of just the cathedral is kind of cool and I wouldn't kick if that one replaced the more generic image) but frankly most of the other city photos aren't really any better, the Great Falls one was taken at night, that's real useful! :-P Kind of tough to get new ones at the moment because it's winter with a chinnook that melted about half the snow so what's not dirty white is dingy brown. My personal thought is that none of the ones there are really needed and what I'd really like is to toss them all, but it seems that I'm getting in trouble for dumping stuff, so I guess we can all just live with five or six real suck-egg photos. Or go over to Flickr and see if anyone has some CC-licensed photos we can upload that are better. I really don't care all that much, I just don't want to see two photos of the Capitol in the same article. I mean, the Capitol is cool and all that, but... So sorry, no, I can't agree to two photos of the same thing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt, the current "section" (I put section in quotes because I hesitate to call a bulleted list of towns surrounded by seven(!) decent-to-poor quality photos an encyclopedic section) is really bad. Ideally, there would be two or three well-sourced paragraphs discussing a few of the larger towns and a (good) photo or two. Oklahoma#Cities and towns is a good example of what the goal should be. The idea here is to convert raw lists into prose, and transfer excess info or photos to other articles, like a list of cities in MT, demographics of MT, or the articles on the cities themselves. AlexiusHoratius 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. That said, the whole article needs work in places; some sections aren't too bad, but others are scary! Unfortunately, on my list of things to do, fixing this one isn't a priority. (Yet). We do have articles on most of the cities and I think there is also a list. I'm not even all that good about putting out brushfires here... sigh. But no argument with your fundamental premise. Someone want to do some serious work, I'd be glad to lend a hand. But too swamped in RL and with other projects on wiki to take the lead. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions from things I've seen work well (these sections are trouble in terms of people randomly coming by and dropping in another town without any context). Write a few sentences and give the populations of the three or four largest cities (this sort of depends on the state; some only have two cities that are far larger than any others, like SD or PA, others have a number of them, like CA. Then write out a sentence with the remaining ten largest cities with their populations. (But keep it short and sweet here, as these things can sprawl out of control.) Other points to consider are giving the total number of incorporated cities and any local oddities concerning incorporation, should they exist. For the pictures, instead of straining to get lower quality photos of the two or three largest cities, perhaps just have one of Billings as the largest and then find a high quality photo of a smaller town; something that is representative of an average smaller town in the state. AlexiusHoratius 01:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good advice. My main thing personally is finding the time to source the stuff that's "in my brain" -- as the problem is that different info is sometimes in other people's brains and no sense getting into a silly edit war in absence of good footnotes! But given that, the situation in Montana is that we have the "big 7" largest cities that are significantly larger than anything farther down the list. From there, we have an amalgam of communities hard to classify based on any one criteria...some very historically significant communities are now tiny, while some bedroom communities of the Big 7 are of little historical significance but look good on a population list. I like your thoughts and if someone else here wants to tweak the article along these general lines, I'm supportive. Alexius, do you have any thoughts on a state article that's a GA or FA status but also on a more rural or smaller population state (i.e. not NY or CA, etc) that we might look at as a guideline? Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

South Dakota certainly fits the bill as a "rural GA" (I'm a bit biased as I wrote most of it) but differs from MT somewhat in that Sioux Falls is by far the largest city, Rapid City is by far second largest, and then you've got a big clump of smaller cities with a population of 8-30 thousand. Originally I had one paragraph on SF, one on RC, and one on the rest, but someone kept adding Aberdeen (which has a population of about 25k, not much larger than many of the other "smaller cities" in the state. I kept removing it, then gave up as I figured it's a silly thing to edit war over.) Anyway, SD might be somewhat useful as an example, but MT presents different issues if there or 7 or so major cities instead of just 2. Here, you'll be more limited in what to write about any one city. In other words, you probably can't devote a paragraph to each. Maybe mention that Billings is the largest and then just give a short mention about the rest. I understand what you're saying about population growth/history issues; in SD, Brandon, Tea, and Harrisburg were tiny until the last few decades, while two of the most important/notable cities in terms of history (Ft. Pierre and Deadwood) both have populations of something like 1-2 thousand. Texas and Virginia also have good sections, but obviously these states differ a great deal from Montana. I guess just take a look around at other articles and figure out what would be the best fit for Montana itself, as no two states are equal. Well, some might be very similar, but more often than not you'll find their "Cities" sections to be in pretty poor shape. AlexiusHoratius 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, on the SD article, I threw in a couple mentions about things like the state capital and locations of the largest universities, rather than focus solely on population. About the fast bedroom community/suburb growth you mentioned, perhaps a sentence or two could be added about that, giving a few examples; maybe say what the fastest growing place in the state is and give the population growth over the last decade or so, as an example. Maybe or maybe not, just an idea. AlexiusHoratius 20:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

---

Merge of Central, Western and Eastern Montana articles

I proposing that any relevant content from Eastern Montana, Western Montana, and Central Montana be merged into this article. Not only are these regional designations totally unsourced (I doubt specific boundaries even exist in any reliable source), they appear to only provide a colloquial description of what someone thinks is West, East and Central in Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

They really should be deleted if not they need to be cleaned up and expanded. They are poorly written and I don’t think they have any citable facts. You are right; they appear to only provide a colloquial description of what someone thinks is West, East and Central in Montana. I don’t really think there is any relevant content in them.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A merge will have the same effect as you suggest if others agree. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

there's not much info in them worth merging. Rjensen (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, even Public Radio can't seem to decide if Helena gets bunched with southwest Montana or central Montana. The only division that is consistent throughout the state is "east of the Divide" and "west of the Divide" -- even "Eastern Montana" is problematic (I argue that a political candidate may have lost a race by calling Havre and Big Timber "Eastern" Montana. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Content from articles to merge

Western Montana is the western region of the state of Montana. Western Montana though fairing better than much of the nation is still the portion of the state hit hardest by the economic downturn. Places like Missoula have been hit hard with the virtual devastation of its lumber industry. Missoula has lost some of its retail base with the loss of major nation retailers such as Macys. Western Montana has felt the effects of a housing bust as well.

Eastern Montana is the area that consists of the eastern third of Montana - deleted Central Montana is the central region of Montana - deleted

--Mike Cline (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Tagging removed as stale sans concensus -- I installed original def of Western. // FrankB 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge Southwestern and South Central Montana

Same rationale as above --Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they should all just be deleted they offer nothing. Mizmontana (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Text from Southwestern Montana

Southwestern Montana or Southwest Montana refers to the southwesternmost section of Montana that still lies to the east of the Continental divide. The region extends roughly from Helena in the north to the Bozeman pass in the east and West Yellowstone in the south. The Continental Divide marks the western edge. It encompasses most of the drainage of the Headwaters of the Missouri area, including Madison, Jefferson, Gallatin, Lewis and Clark, and Broadwater counties.

A couple of communities that lie just west of the divide, including Dillon, MT and Butte, MT, are also included, possibly due to their position along Interstate 15 that links them easily to communities east of the divide.

Communities in the far southwest of the state, along the Bitterroot Valley, are referred to as being in Western Montana. (Article deleted on June 11, 2011)--Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Text from South Central Montana

South Central Montana is a region that includes Yellowstone County, Carbon County, Big Horn County, Stillwater County, Golden Valley County and Musselshell County. Billings is the largest city in this region and in Montana.

== Cities ==*Billings

• Crow Agency
• Hardin
• Red Lodge
• Bridger

== Rivers ==*Yellowstone River

• Big Horn River
• Little Big Horn River

(Article deleted June 11, 2011) --Mike Cline (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it to be ironic that Montana has an official language, and that it is English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hannah Montana?

I was just wondering, how much vandalism does the Montana article get by Hannah Montana fans? It seems as though it gets a lot. Perhaps the article on Montana should be protected. 50.81.197.48 (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So far not a problem at all. Odd, but I don't recall any significant activity on that. Please, don't give 'em any ideas! =:-O 19:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Important towns

Are the same two editors having the sme conflict that they did last January? (See archive.) Seems odd. Rmhermen (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

towns

I reverted an edit on the mMontana page by Montanabw and asked said editor to take it to talk if said editor had anything farther to say about this issue. Montanabw basically deleted an entire section because someone added a town to the section, in my opinion a somewhat important town in Montana. Nonetheless there was no reason to black the entire section. The amusing part of this is that I asked Montanabw to take it to the talk page. Instead Montana simply reverted my edit and told me to take it to take. Unlike Montanabw I am taking it to talk. And then reverting a uncalled-for deletionSoglad Tomeetyou (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And I happen to have a real life and have been busy for a couple of days, so lay off the personal attacks, sarcasm and non-AGF tone. The person ADDING material has the burden to prove it is relevant. I tossed the whole list because it was necessary cleanup. Here's the point: By what criteria is a town "important?" The big seven have a lot of reasons to be the big 7, most population, colleges, industry, etc... not likely to be challenged. For the rest there needs to be a reason; Uniqueness? I can find a reason that Ekalaka, Montana population about 600 is uniquely "important." Population? An unimportant "bedroom community" like Belgrade, Montana could be "important" by population alone. History? I could argue that Fort Benton, Montana, population 2000, is important due to historical reasons. As it sits, it's a random collection of towns that various people, for random reasons, put in there. And therefore, it's useless. I've meant to throw it out for months. Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the renaming of the section that you did. The “big seven” none of which are all that big, only account for about half of the states population. I hardly think half of the state should be relegated to obscurity because you object to the inclusion of Browning. BTW I have a real life also, three wonderful chidren two jobs.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I must ask, what part of my statement seemed like a personal attack to you? In rereading what I wrote it seems to me all I did was put the facts on the table. I am sorry if you somehow see that as a personal attack but I really don’t see how it can be viewed in such a light. I do find your response as far more aggressive and having a hostile tone but this is a page devoted to civil debate so I will let it pass.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Montanabw. Without clear criteria for inclusion, this list means nothing. Lacking objective criteria for inclusion, it should be eliminated. Anyone wanting to see such a listing can look at the categories "Cities in Montana" or "Towns in Montana". Plazak (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; every town is "important" to someone in some way. List of cities in Montana is a good place to go to see a list of cities in Montana. AlexiusHoratius 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There can be sourced information for why the "big 7" (which is a colloquialism and "big" is indeed a relative term in Montana) are the big 7, as opposed to the big 3 or the big 10 or whatever. Once you get into the littler towns, there IS a need to have some criteria if needed -- I mean, there are 56 county seats, or we could just put the top 20 in population, or whatever. If we wanted to include Browning, then we'd also want to add the Tribal Headquarters communities for the other 6 Indian reservations in the state. I really don't care a lot what criteria is ultimately decided upon, just that there needs to be one per the comments above. Can we at least cut the list until we have a criteria? As it sits now, it's edit war bait. Montanabw^(talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Back in the old days when we were first writing an article for each state (I have been here that long, yikes), we set up a template or outline. It was sort of a proto-WikiProject. While I can't find it now, I would suggest you look around at how the other state's pages handle this. On Michigan, we have the top ten (coincidentally close to a 100,000 population limit) and then we have other cities, each of which includes an explanation of why it is important to the state (specific economic, toruism, history, etc.). Rmhermen (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the list, there does seem to be a major drop-off/division between #7 and #8 - I'd go with either largest 7 or largest 10 as it's a nice round number and often used on other articles. But when various other "importance" criteria are used, such as history, culture, tourism, Indian reservations, as you said above, it starts to get messy. AlexiusHoratius 18:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Stalker

Far more concerning than an editing conflict between Montanabw and myself is that Rmhermen seems to be stalking us.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Soglad, adult supervision is not stalking. And your attack on Rjensen's talk page was inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, after your VERY personal attack against Rjensen on the Talk:History of Montana page that you just made, I can’t believe you would even say such a thing. I supported the inclusion of the very factual material on the Marijuana issue. I didn’t not mock said editor as you did with your statement “people who have no real knowledge of Montana history”.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist and when I saw what seemed to be a edit war developing, I checked the archives of this talk page. Nothing more. Rmhermen (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Soglad, you really don't understand how WP works, Rjensen and I are spatting over content, and occasionally the discussions get a little snarky and heated, but we assume good faith. That is VERY different from your personalization of people's motives (such as calling Rmherman a stalker). And yes, Rmhermen, please do feel free to stay around. Soglad, you need to learn how to edit on wikipedia and provide constructive content, not just randomly add or delete things, and then personally attack the motives and nature of people who disagree with you. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to be so unkind? You could make your point without the personal attacks Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Soglad, you are talking to YOURSELF. YOU are the one who is attacking other people, calling them "stalkers" and "bullies" and assuming bad faith. All I have been trying to do is explain to you how wikipedia works. But you apparently view what I (and others) say to you as an attack. Let me reassure you that criticism, reverting edits and such are not "personal attacks." Now please stop all this and try to find constructive things to do that help wikipedia grow as an encyclopedia. Oh and please also read WP:TENDENTIOUS. Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cities and Towns

Montana has many towns all play an important part in the make-up of what is Montana. Montana also has it’s seven population centers they each also play an important part in the make-up of what is Montana. The towns in the cities and TOWNS section keep being deleted so I deleted the cities because really a cities and towns section without the towns seems silly and all the cities are already represented in the demographics section. Montana is a very rural state and ALL of the communities of Montana are an important part it and I would like to see them all re-included.

Mizmontana (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion, it is clear that the issue is what inclusion criteria to use before creating a random laundry list of smaller towns. We obviously are not going to list several hundred communities. The "Big 7" are widely acknowledged to be the major population centers. The next step is to determine what other communities should be included, by what criteria, etc. (top 20 population? business? Reservation agencies?) as it sits, a random list is meaningless. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My only observation here is that 17 cities are already listed in the Montana navigational template at the bottom of the page. Including them again as a list in the article is an unnecessary redundancy. My advice is to eliminate the Cities and towns section all together and address individual cities and towns in other parts of the article as appropriate and if in context of some other importance to Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That might work. I shortened the list of the big 7 in the demographics section. We could toss the cities and towns section, but keep the link to the list of cities and towns article? And what about the county list in there as well -- keep that? Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would dump any embedded list that's redundant to the Montana navtemplate. Relevant counties, cities and towns can certainly be mentioned in context within the prose of the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The cities and towns sections isn't meant to be a list, but a general description of urban Montana. It should contain a discussion about where the largest cities are and why, how most counties in Montana only have a single town surrounded by census-designated communities, Great Falls' fall from number one to number three and with Bozeman's growth rate possibly soon number four. A brief shout-out to a couple of the larger towns in Eastern Montana if for no other reason than to point out how sparsely populated the region is. Dsetay (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mike Cline that eliminating the cities and towns section and addressing individual cities and towns in other parts of the article would be the way to go. Or that it be done as a link. The guild below presented by Drsetay would be good to follow if it is done as a link. Whatever is done I don't think it should be put back in until someone has time to spend with it. There was an attempt to put it back in that didn't work at all. Just a note to Dsetay, "Bozeman's growth rate possibly soon number four" Bozeman is already number four. No big deal just pointing it out. Now this is my personal opinion but given the current trends the way I see it Bozeman is well on it's way to become number two. It may take fifty years maybe less if the city can get a handle on zoning. I also don't think there would be any reason to put anything in about Great Falls "fall" that really would not seem in good faith to me and with all the oil plays in central and eastern Montana Great Falls may see a real up turn not that they have seen a decline they are still seeing growth. anywho Mizmontana (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be a cities and towns section because every state has that section, so why not Montana. It just isn't meant to be a list. As for the "number four" comment, I am quite aware Bozeman is number four. Its growth rate could push it to number three in the near future and thus put Great Falls in the number four position as stated earlier. Dsetay (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work on that Dsetay it looks good Mizmontana (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I can live with what we have here now. The whole article needs work, and I normally disfavor "listy" sections. I don't oppose someone creating a narrative summary about why we have the "big 7" cities and why everything else gets lumped into a glob; I think it worth noting. BTW, when I first moved to Bozeman (I don't live there now, though), there was a sign at the old Western Bank (I think it's still a Bank -- on West Main by the Red Barn) that then was the edge of town which read "Welcome to Bozeman! Home of 15,000 friendly people and a couple ol' sore heads."  ;-) I think at the time it was 6th, still the same as the license plate numbers. I can't say what direction Great Falls will go in population because it is the primary trade city for most of the hi-line and I think half of Southern Alberta, but I think its decline is now stable. And the Great Falls issue actually IS very significant, as the population drop can, I think, be directly linked to the ARCO shutdown of Butte and the impact on the refineries in Great Falls, the teardown of the "Big Stack" and so on... due to the geographical constraints of the valley, the existence of nearby communities, and the lack of jobs opportunities that don't involve cleaning toilets or serving food, I doubt Bozeman will pass Great Falls unless farming totally crashes in the state, and it will never pass Missoula or Billings in population. At least, not unless they annex Belgrade! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The eastern Montana thing is going to be tricky; there was a boom just like now in the 70s-80s, and a subsequent crash, the pattern is significant, not necessarily a permanent thing. Will take proper research to do that bit justice -- and if anyone does a "shoutout" to Sidney, but not Miles City, Glendive, Glasgow or maybe even Baker and Wibaux, (and, of course, Ekalaka!) we will be in all sorts of trouble! (grin) Plus, at the moment, with that murder out in Sidney, the place is coming under a lot of scrutiny for the boomtown atmosphere, and so I suggest we tread delicately. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Structure

Okay, so there seems to be no basic consensus on how this article should be structured. I can't find an outline in the wikiprojects sections, so I am going to attempt to make one based on the the only three states at FA-Class Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia and the nearest GA-Class article, South Dakota. Yes, we're being beaten by South Dakota. Here is my suggestion:

1. Etymology — (see OK's) — Short description of where the name Montana comes from
2. Geography — (see SD's) — General descriptions about size and location
   1. Geology and terrain — Junk about east v west, mountains, rivers, etc. Just not a bunch of lists
   2. Flora and fauna — kind of obvious; may need to break state into regions
   3. Climate
   4. Protected lands — State and national parks, I guess.
3. History — Summarize and send off to the History of Montana page
4. American Indian reservations — Brief overview and description of the Indian reservations in Montana. Could be linked here until a separate page can be made.
5. Cities and Towns — (See OK's) — Briefly describe the make-up of Montana's cities and towns. Not a giant list. There's already one here, just send people there. Really, only those with more than 50,000 should be listed on this page, but given that doesn't even include the capital we may as well go down to Kalispell at around 20,000 (i.e. the largest seven). No other town even has 10,000. We're not exactly waiting up on election night for the Havre votes to come in.
6. Demographics — Basic census crap written in prose
   1. Population
   2. Ancestry
   3. Religion
7. Economy
8. Culture — (see OK's and (VA's))
   1. Arts and theatre — We have plenty of museums and theatres across the state. You could list the most important ones first, but eventually they need to be put into prose.
   2. Festivals and events — Ditto
9. Sports and recreation
   1. Organized sports — Probably mostly college sports and minor league baseball. Could add state games and skiing competitions I guess.
   2. Outdoor recreation — hiking, fishing, mountain biking, skiing, etc.
10. Government and politics — (see OK's)
    1. State government
    2. Local government
    3. Tribal government
    4. National Politics
11. Education — School districts, administration, universities/colleges, etc.
12. Media — (see OK's and SD's) — Links to lists should be okay, but here only the largest and prominent should be mentioned as well as Nielsen zones, etc.
13. Health — (see VA's and OK's) — MT's healthcare system, stats, and perhaps main hospitals.
14. Transportation — (see OK's) — Basic info from the MDOT on our roads, train stations, and airports. And, the basic health of our transportation system.
15. State symbols — (see VA's)
16. See also

Any Comments?

Dsetay (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

--- Well, yes... I'm a native spanish speaker, The name Montana comes from the Spanish word Montaña meaning "mountainous."

This is wrong, Montaña means Mountain, no more, no less. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.3.72.231 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I figured that as well, though it's important to note that the Congressmen thought it meant 'mountainous' when then named it. I guess someone could make that clearer.Dsetay (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I partly take that back since since two dictionaries I consulted say that Montaña can also refer to a 'mountainous region' (1.Territorio cubierto y erizado de montes [1], 2. Región o territorio donde abundan esas elevaciones [2]). Moreover, I reread the section of the Congressional record that refers to it and it actually says "mountainous country" not "mountainous". Oops. I fixed it to refer to both definitions.Dsetay (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, Dsetay (you forgot to sign it above) No question the article is not of good quality and needs to be improved. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this, but I'd support and offer minor assistance to an improvement drive. The Oklahoma or Minnesota articles would probably be the best guides, as both have notable Native American populations and are more or less in the west. SD would be fine to fill in gaps, but GA being a less fussy standard than FA, I'd split any debates in favor of an FA structure. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology section

I'm not trying to be a butthead, but if we are going to ever move this article toward GA, we will need to have a pinpoint cite for every quotation in the paragraph, and probably multiple cites for the "mountainous" translation, as the variant given here is not one commonly seen. I'm not really contesting the accuracy of the material, just that I know we have to cite it up the wazoo and back again eventually, so now is better than later. Also, be very careful that we are not too closely paraphrasing from the source, there is a major kafuffle about copyvio issues on the wiki-drama boards, so I encourage great care be taken. The other thing that I suspect will come up will be a request that we use the citation templates and not merely ref tags with manual formatting. From hard experience, it is easier to do these as they are created than to fix them all later. Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to ask Wilbur Edegerton Sanders, former librarian of the Historical Society of Montana and son of Montana's first Senator Wilbur F. Sanders, where he got his sources for "Montana - Organization, Name and Naming: The Word, Its Significance, Derivation and Historical Use". Though, he's been dead for 80 years and I'm pretty sure no one else has ever written 50 pages on the subject. As for the dialog, if you want to cite the same two pages of the Congressional Record over and over again within a single paragraph for a continuing dialog, be my guest. I'm not gonna do it. Dsetay (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the whole paragraph is to the one source (you list two?), put in a hidden text note or something. That way, if more stuff gets added from other sources, then the cites can be carried over. And, unfortunately, (I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me!) each direct quote probably needs a page citation to the book. Or if the whole thing is all from one or two pages, then say that in the hidden text note too. For now, I personally don't really care, but if we ever take this to GA and especially to FA, others will care and it will eventually need to be fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Antipodes

Why do we have a section on antipodes? It is now ref'd to a "lat/long finder" subpage which doesn't seem to be a WP:RS. I would think we would need a reference that establishes notability for this bit of geo-nerd trivia for this article. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm kind of amused by it, so I didn't toss it, but I also have no strong feelings in either direction. I do favor good RS though. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion elsewhere. Some people want to delete it as trivia; more want to keep it, though perhaps in a dedicated article rather than in the geo sections. Problem is, there really isn't enough for a separate article for each state/country, yet it's too much detail for antipodes article itself. So these brief mentions have been stable for some time now as the best option.

Hawaii–Botswana can be ref'd to NatGeo. Montana & Colorado would require more digging. Not sure it's worth it; there are any number of antipodes maps, all of which show the same thing. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How much work would it be for someone in the know to create a "list of antipodes?" I guess I feel like this article isn't even close to risking a GA, so what the hell, why not leave it in here for now? However, I also really don't care all that much one way or the other (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is true, "continental" should be "contiguous", as northern Alaska is antipodal with Antarctica. Pfly (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes on getting to GA and then FA

I have a goal to get this to GA then FA. Help appreciated. Some notes and thoughts are:

• I see only three current USA state articles that are FA: Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia. I made the MT layout match the OK one. MN is the oldest FA so for prose snd subsections let's use OK and VA articles.
• I've fixed a lot of stuff on the images but they need lots more work
• Entire sections are unref'd
• Several bare sections
• I'll set the refs, ext links, and further reading to a consistent style. Is sfn ref style ok?

PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll do what I can and follow your lead.--MONGO 00:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• My default assumption is that everything is challengeable. If a citation for a claim cannot be found, delete or keep it? My theory is delete it, even if it is an innocous claim. What say others? - Tim1965 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. To be FA, everything has to be supported by reliable sources. PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

True, ultimately. But I'm a fan of tagging with hope of resurrection and sourcing unless it's total crap on its face ... Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• My take is to consider rewriting entire sections and if someone boldly tosses a bunch of stuff BUT replaces it with better, that's groovy. I wouldn't toss uncited right away, though, but I'd tag madly. Some things do need to just be tossed as dubious, or at least tagged "Dubious" (one of my favorite tags) but other things, even if uncited, are a good "ping" to go find a cite because the info should be kept. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, there are lots of good refs for the state. Let's use Oklahoma and Virginia as models, they are FAs. PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've finished symbols, further reading, and ext links. I'll now start converting refs to sfn and standardizing them. PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We should perhaps run this through some of the automated copyvio checkers, as I went through for the wording, there was a lot of stuff that read like it came off of a tourism brochure...we may want to do that before going a whole lot further... Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will ask Diannaa, she's pretty good at that. PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Psky, sorry for the belated entry here, but am juggling a lot of things at the moment. I concur with those who say tag the un-cited material. The sentiments and ideas may be right, but the content just may need some verification and rewording once sources are found. I'll do my part to work on sourcing. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Observations on the lead

The first two sentences in the lead although not inaccurate, they paint the wrong picture. You will see from this link [3] that the entire state contains mountain ranges. Additionally, I am not certain that many of the eastern ranges are considered part of the "Rocky Mountains". This needs to be rewritten to paint a more accurate picture.

On the economy, the source indicates that Agriculture, Tourism and Lumber in that order are the largest contributors (revenue) to the economy. As written, it doesn't give the impression that tourism is a major contributors even through it is growing at a rate faster than other sectors. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition lumber is not that big of an industry in Montana at this time. The oil, gas and coal jobs are the big boom right now. Tourism is large in Montana and I think agriculture still sets on top.Mizmontana (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The source cited in the lead has Agriculture at $2.2B, Tourism at $1.8B and Forest Products at $1.1B--Mike Cline (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The source seems a little dated. Everything is 2004 2005 pre recession and pre Bakken. Those two events changed Montana's economy a great deal.Mizmontana (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

On the economy stuff, I think we have different sections of the article saying different things. While the eastern Montana counties have an oil shale fracking boom out in the Bakken, it's round two of the same thing that boomed and busted back in the 70s and 80s. Ag and lumber are still major, and the trick with tourism will be to get accurate numbers; it's huge in some places, but virtually nonexistent in others (not a lot of tourism in the Bakken,for example, but apparently plenty of hookers... =:-O ). I inserted a state of MT source on this stuff farther down, but before we go too far down this road, we will probably just have to grab the latest stats and probably rank percentages.

All of this is quite legit. As for the lead, it's far better to write the lead when the body is done, rather than vice versa. If you two would like to work the history and ecomomy (which should be a good overview, not just the last 8-10 years), that'd be great. I'm working on standardizing the reference format right now. PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I second the notion that we leave the lead alone until the article is closer to done; we will undoubtably wind up rewriting nearly the whole thing before this is over, so no sense doing it twice. let's just not argue about the lead, let's get good sources in the body of the text and then redo the lead just before we send it to peer review and GA. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So far as the oil gas coal thing... The 1970's were forty some years ago. At that time the United States was the energy user and polluter of the world. The world we now live in is a global economy. Most estimates say the Bakken is life time play at least. The whole world wants as much energy as they can get from where ever they can get it. Coal is losing out as an energy source in the United States but China wants Montana coal. Six years ago zero coal trains went past my house headed west. Four years ago one maybe two within the last couple years four to seven trains daily. This energy thing is not going away short of a world wide depression, which would kill everything. The housing economy is starting to come back that will help lumber.Mizmontana (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

MizMontana, I'm a 4th generation Montanan and have lived here all my life, and among the coursework I took in my lengthy tour of the Montana University system (two universities, five different undergrad majors for two bachelor's degrees, plus graduate degree totaling over 10 years of college that I'm still paying off, but I digress...) was K. Ross Toole's "Montana and the West" at the University of Montana in 1980-81 (yep, he died not long after, so I'm old...seems like yesterday). I've also worked for the Northern Plains Resource Council back in the 80s. So you need to understand that Montana has - for its entire history since white settlement began - had a boom and bust economy based on mineral extraction. The 70s were not that long ago, we had booms and busts as well, and we will again. So don't preach history and fossil fuels extraction at me, I know this topic inside and out. Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ref format

I brought up ref format (which was wildly inconsistent) above and suggested sfn format, which I've already started standardizing on. Please put new refs in that format, it'll save tons of time and help standardization. Thanks! PumpkinSky talk 23:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't use sfn a lot, can you pop in some basic examples here, particularly when to use {{r|source}} versus {{sfn|source}}? Also, how to do refs at the end with <ref name="sample">{[appropriate template|with how to make sfn or r work}}? I've worked with the format on two FAs now, but it still confuses me and I rely heavily on others to help. Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The {{r|source}} format is a just a shortened notation of the <ref name="ref_name" /> format. Whereas the sfn system is a whole system and the most common form of short footnotes. You use {{sfn|label for the footnote|year|page(s)=numbers if applicable}} in the body of the article. You use the "cite web", "cite book" etc templates in the footnotes, what is called Bibliography in this article. You can use "|ref = harv" for books and it'll tie in to the last=name and year of the ref. You can use "sfnRef" for books and all other cite templated. What's in that and the body label need to match for label and year. It'll tie in all uses of that ref label so don't use the same label and year for different sources. Everyone confused now? It'll probably be easy if after reading this and Template:Sfn if you pick one or two sources I've already converted in the article and see how they work. If you have questions or need help, let me know.PumpkinSky talk 00:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Just popping by to make a suggestion. With so many editors adding content and not all of them using the same ref format, I suggested just getting the information in place even if its overload info. The extra info can be streamlined later...and once that done, the refs can all be redone so they're formatted the same. I concur with earlier comments well above that the lede is last...and want to note that the naming section needs about half of that removed...it looks like their may be close paraphrasing in that section since it cites mainly just one source.--MONGO 04:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that as people want to fix the refs to sfn, that's fine, and if others are still doing the inline refs, at least they are getting references, which is the tough part. We can make everything consistent when we get to cleaning up for GA, my only suggestion is that once we have a ref in sfn, keep it that way if it is used subsequently (no more difficult that the other form once in...). No sense switching stuff back and forth. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind doing them first. In fact, I always clean up refs, ext links, etc before tackling the body.PumpkinSky talk 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Referring to city and other locales

I think we should be consistent in our prose when referring to Montana cities and other locales in the state. In some prose the state name is always appended, in other prose it is not. Which of these styles should we adopt:

The river begins at Three Forks, Montana or The river begins at Three Forks.

I much prefer the latter as adding Montana to every mention of a city seems redundant, since this is an article about Montana. Of course, it would be perfectly logical to identify the state of cities or locales outside of Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree! PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agriculture sources

For future use: [4] and this [5]. PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone long ago copyvio'd this {{cite web | ref = {{sfnRef|Agriculture Classroom|2010}} | url = http://www.agclassroom.org/kids/stats/montana.pdf| title = A Look at Montana Agriculture|format=PDF| publisher = Agriculture in the Classroom|date=July 2010| accessdate = March 30, 2013}} but written properly it'd be okay for future use.PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Native American population

The source cited conflicts with the next to last sentence in the para.

Source (2009): Montana is the home of approximately 66,000+ people of Indian heritage. The majority of these people reside on one of the seven large Indian reservations while many others live in the major cities of Missoula, Billings, Great Falls, Butte, Helena and Miles City. p 4.

Next to last sentence: Approximately 63% of all Native people live off the reservations, concentrated in the larger Montana cities with the largest concentration of urban Indians in Great Falls.

Need to see a source for the 63% off the rez. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Same source as for the rest of the paragraph, the OPI book, last couple pages where it discusses urban Indians; we probably should cite to specific page numbers for the whole thing though. I also think that we may want to update the 66K figure to 2010 census data, and that may be elsewhere in the article. The "all hostile natives must live on the reservation" stuff just drives me batshit crazy, as does anything suggesting that Native people aren't perfectly alive and well today. Sorry, didn't mean to rant, been spending too much time dealing with utter stupidity at WP Indigenous peoples... (taking off ranting and raving hat). Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Montana JSTOR

I have a copy of this PumpkinSky talk 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)