Talk:Montana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is supported by the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article lacks information about climate. Please add it if you can, citing reliable sources Many consider a climate section in an encyclopedia article about a nation/state/geographic region to be ubiquitous. Please remove this message once this section has been written.

---

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

---

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

Contents 1 Name 2 Geography 3 Three Oceans? 4 Historical Towns? 5 Demographics 6 "Endless" Great Plains vs. vast Great Plains 7 State Motto 8 Introduction 9 Race changes 10 Moving this to bottom (Blocking question) 11 Total area 12 Population Error!? 13 United States article on featured candidate nominations list 14 history wanted 15 question about ancesty 16 economy and climate 17 Montaña 18 Spanish Peaks 19 wikicommons link error 20 New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

[edit] Name

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 30 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Total area

The total area should be given in square miles as well as km. Badagnani 08:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)