Talk:Missouri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.)

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of 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.
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 required. Please remove this message once this section has been written.

Contents 1 The "largest metro area" value in the infobox 2 Largest Metro Area 3 Nicknames 4 Hemp 5 Missoura 6 Tax section 7 Tending towards Republicans?

[edit] The "largest metro area" value in the infobox

For older comments, see /Archive.

First off, no other states have listed "largest" metro area in their infoboxes (including Texas which has 3 very large metropolitan areas that are each FULLY in the state). Also, It shouldn't be listed because the St. Louis Metro area is not fully in the state of Missouri. If it was, it would be smaller than Kansas City's metro area (although the same would be true for Kansas City since it is also partially in Kansas). That's why you DO NOT list metro area information in state infoboxes. Also, there is no exact way to define the population of a metropolitan area, since some are more or less dense than others and it is hard to determine which suburbs to count in the metro figures. Due to all of these reasons, I have removed that statistic from the Missouri infobox. Since the CITY of Kansas City is fully in Missouri and the CITY of Saint Louis is fully in Missouri, then it is okay to list the largest one in the infobox about the state. —comment added by 70.237.191.6^(t/c) -- nae'blis 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Missouri's in sort of a unique situation since both of the major cities/metropolitan areas are on the borders of the state, putting part of their Metropolitan Statistical Area (which is the way to reliably source the metro area numbers, IMO) outside the state's borders. If it's true that no other state does this, I'm in support of your idea, but I think Texas is a bad example. See Ohio, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Tennessee for states with more analogous situations. -- nae'blis 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that comment when I did my last edit, and I'm not familiar with U.S. geography so I didn't understand that my edit could be controversial. However, I stand by my edit of putting back the 2000 population figures - they're the latest official figures available. Graham87 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A metropolitan area is not even a definate area. It does NOT consist of a government and is not a government-designated area. Since BOTH metros are located in two states, it would be STUPID to that St. Louis is the largest metro in Missouri, when it's MSA is in Illinois as well. The CITY of Kansas City and the CITY of St. Louis is in Missouri. A municipality, or city, is a DEFINATE area with DEFINATE statistics and a DEFINATE boundary. The Kansas City MSA has no definate boundary nor does the St. Louis MSA. No almanac or any other respected encyclopedia lists the most populous metro of a state in their statsistics. I AM REMOVING THIS DATA. This seems to me to just be a ploy by St. Louis residents who are mad that Kansas City is larger than St. Louis, and gets more recognition as such in staticstical information. FEW OTHER STATES have "largest metro", and those that do should remove them. As a resident of Missouri, I feel information needs to be removed and I am doing so.

As far as putting back the 2000 population figures, that's fine. But for the reasons above the MSA information should not be listed in this article's infobox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.141.111.194 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas

This is a list of the largest U.S. MSAs, with population estimates. The St. Louis-anchored metro area is far larger than Kansas City's. I think showing Kansas City as the largest city is misleading to those unfamiliar with the state. Further, the "Great Divorce" between St. Louis city and county makes it an extremely unusual circumstance, with the city more or less hemmed into a finite geographic area. I would vote that more information is better on these pages, but you've clearly made up your mind about this.

Some of the rationale submitted for removing the largest metro area from the info box is false:

"Also, It shouldn't be listed because the St. Louis Metro area is not fully in the state of Missouri. If it was, it would be smaller than Kansas City's metro area."

Actually, the Missouri component of the St. Louis MSA at 2,003,762 is larger than the entire Kansas City MSA at 1,776,062, and significantly larger than the Missouri component of the Kansas City MSA at 1,070,052. These numbers can be verified here: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xls.

"The Kansas City MSA has no definate boundary nor does the St. Louis MSA."

The US Census defines the term MSA at the following URL: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html and the boundaries of the MSAs under discussion at: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xls.Cynic783 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, current state legislation would allow law enforcement to pull over drivers for not wearing their seat belt, except in the St. Louis metro area. To have that exclusion in state law would require definite boundaries.

(Read arguments listed below). There IS NO reason to list St. Louis as Missouri's largest metro area, because few other states have that statistic. Not only are metropolitan areas unrecognized or undefined, the Kansas City and St. Louis MSA are NOT in entirely in Missouri, and are instead in two states, transcending state borders and state government control. I AM REMOVING THIS DATA. It should simply be based on the largest city in Missouri, wich is DEFINATLEY Kansas City, Missouri (a city that is FULLY in the state of Missouri). If you wish to change it, then please discuss it here, otherwise I will contact an administrator.

That statistic should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enorton08 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The statement about St. Louis being the largest MSA in Missouri is supported and should be reflected in the info box. From the 2000 census, the St. Louis MSA (2,603,607) is larger than the Kansas City MSA (1,776,062). Furthermore, the Missouri component of the St. Louis MSA (2,003,762) is larger than the Missouri component of the Kansas City MSA (1,070,052). See http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xls. Considering only the parts of the MSAs that lie in Missouri, St. Louis MSA is 1.87 times larger than the Kansas City MSA (2,003,762/1,070,052). For the official definition of what an MSA is, see the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html). The information is present in the Cities and metropolitan areas section, but it should also be included in the info box. This is out of courtesy to readers that might not be familiar with Missouri and only have time to look at the info box, but might mistakenly conclude that Kansas City is the larger metropolitan area in Missouri. I have refrained from editing the page until this can be discussed fully and consensus reached.Cynic783 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very misleading to list Kansas City as the largest city, most people refer to metro areas when they use the word "city". Really, the list should simply be metro areas. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is YOUR opinion-- which is fine. Unfortunatley, no other state on wikipedia lists metro areas because they are undefinate and unreliable. We have solved this debate long ago. I AM REMOVING ST. LOUIS from the infobox. The MUNICIPALITY of Kansas City is significantly larger than that of St. Louis. Sorry. Just because you don't like it is not sufficient enough. There are alot of other states such as California and Texas that should have metros listed that don't. Missouri shouldn't either. No professional encyclopedia lists metropolitan areas (look at Encarta or World Book) because 1) they lack a government and 2) it is debatable as to what is to be included in a metropolitan area. St. Louis does have a larger MSA, but not by much-- Kansas City's MSA is now about 2.1 million-- and St. Louis is at 2.8 (Kansas City is growing at a faster rate). Either way, it doesn't matter, because an MSA does not have anything beyond a social designation, and again, no encyclopedia elsehwere lists them. I don't care how misleading you think it is-- it is also misleading to show Houston having the largest city in Texas, when Dallas has a larger MSA. At least KC and St. Louis are somewhat similar in size. The fact of the matter is people in the suburbs of a major city DO NOT pay taxes to the government of the major city, and the metro area debatably has any signficance. It has been removed for about 3 months, and it will continue to be removed. You cannot just use your opinion here because you feel that a MSA has importance. There is a reason that St. Louis appears smaller than memphis on maps-- even though the MSA is significantly larger. The reason is that a metro is disputed and is unreliable. Also, people do not pay their taxes to the "metro" of St. Louis-- they pay it to their city or suburb. The suburbs are in no way connected to the city with the exception of the fact that many people from the cities work in the central city-- although this isn't even true for St. Louis. Personally, I think St. Louis is a craphole and Kansas City is much better-- but that is my opinion. I would not put something like that on Wikipedia. It is your opinion that MSA's are more important than cities, but there are an equal number of people who disagree. Since there is no common consensus, we must go by information that is factual and definate-- and that is the information about a municipality. In that area, Kansas City is the largest city by far in Missouri. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.150.147.138 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I must say that I agree. Kansas City is a larger municiaplity. The metro area is not a governmental entity or a governmental-recognized entity. A city could not use it's MSA's population to qualify for anything excpet a sports team. Personally, I say that an MSA does NOT matter. And this is right, no other professional encyclopedia lists a state's largest MSA-- maps don't either. I know that people from St. Louis often get mad at this fact that they no longer are the largest city in Missouri, but their city made the mistake of landlocking itself to it's downtown and a few areas outside instead of annexing the county. Either way, until the other side of this issue has something to say about MSA's besides the fact that they are SOCIALLY accepted, then there is no argument as why to put the largest MSA in Missouri (and St. Louis's MSA is not fully in Missouri) on wikipedia. Again, no one else does it-- and they don't do it for a reason. Anyways, in the content of the article, the fact that St. Louis has a larger MSA is mentioned quite clearly.

[edit] Largest Metro Area

It is the current consensus on the U.S. State infobox page to included a value for largest metro area. The States of Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and Tennessee all have this value listed. An attempt to remove this listing in the Missouri infobox could be considered vandalism, and should be left the way it is. If anyone disagrees they are welcome to argue the removal of the value at the Template talk:Infobox U.S. state page. Comments are welcome but a revert war between Kansas Cityians and St. Louisians is the last thing we need. Thanks Grey Wanderer | Talk 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are no other states that list there largest metro, why don't you add, that piece of information to there template boxes, its a factual piece of information that a large number of people find important, so there's no rule on Wikipedia that say it cannot be included. Now often states don't there metro areas because there largest city is also there largest metro area is the anchored by there largest city anyway, like Chicago and Chicagoland in Illinois, L.A. and Greater L.A in California, and New York and the tri-state for New York State.(By the way Florida the nations four largest state, and fastest growing does list it's largest metro) However in the case of Missouri Greater St. Louis has by far the larger metro area 2.7 to 1.9 and even without including Illinois its still larger 2.1 to 1.9. So it should be included.- thank you Astuishin 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever on this issue. We finally reached an agrement a couple of months BEFORE you came here and added this statistic to remove it. A metro area is NOT a vital statistic. There is no definate boundary to one and it has no governmental or factual role of importance, only a social one. Just because you are mad that Kansas City is larger than St. Louis is no reason to get into a stupid fight about it. St. Louis is smaller, get used to it. The only reason you truly want this information on it, is probably because YOU are from St. Louis, and like everyone else there, you know that your city made the mistake of not annexing the county. I always hear the argument "well if we annexed the county we would be bigger than Kansas City"-- you DIDN'T, and now, even here on wikipedia, your city is paying the price. The municipality of St. Louis is smaller than that of Kansas City. Sorry-- it's a fact. I am so tired of people from St. Louis trying to get around it by saying your metro is larger. If you polled people, I assure you, there would be mixed results on the importance of a metro area. The only thing the are good for is TV ratings and sports. True, there is some social significance to them, but its wrong, because those 2.8 million people in the St. Louis MSA do not pay their taxes to the city of St. Louis. They do not put "St. Louis" on their envelopes. They may say that they are form St. Louis when they visit somehwere else, but the fact is they are not. An MSA is not a vital statistic, and in Missouri it will create controversy, because Kansas Citians hang on to the fact that their municipality is larger, St. Louis Countians always use the, in my opinion, incorrect argument that their metro is larger. Changing the statistics to the TRUTH is not vandalisim. A metro area is not a vital statistic, at least not in the state of Missouri. I am changing it back. I do not want to get into a revert war, and I strongly doubt you do either. It will create much less controversy to leave this information out.

To the Anon above, please review Wikipedia's policies on assume good faith and avoiding personal attacks. I've put in a request for comment. Grey Wanderer | Talk 04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we are going to have to get into a revert war. I didn't want this. We went MONTHS without uptting a MSA statistic in the infobox. Again it is NOT vital information. Is all this amounts to is St. Louisians who can't accept that KANSAS CITY IS LARGER. I don't care about MSA's and they are NOT a vital statistic. By putting "largest MSA" is like saying Kansas City is the largest city but it doesn't matter. That's wrong. It does. Kansas Citians pay MORE TAXES than St. Louisians do to the state of Missouri 1) because people from Kansas City are richer (if you haven't noticed those from the CITY OF ST. LOUIS are usually poor) and 2) it has MORE PEOPLE. There is no organized St. Louis metro government, and the people in clayton do not fund anything in St. Louis. The stadium, the airport and everything else is supported by taxpayers. Again, this is why a MSA should not be on the infobox. Fact is Kansas City is bigger. If it were acceptable to put "largest MSA" in the infobox-- which it is NOT-- then put St. Louis-Clayton-University City MSA or something like that-- because the St. Louis MSA is NOT St. Louis. I am removing that statistic. It is not vandalisim, it is preserving factual information. There was a revert war before over this issue, and I say again that the side of removing the St. Louis statistic won. I know it's hard for people from St. Louis to accept but KANSAS CITY is bigger. If you don't like that fact, then go convince all those cities in St. Louis county to merge with the city. Your city made a mistake, ours didn't. Again, I am removing that statistic.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.150.147.138 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 April 2007.

Sprotected the page. If the anon editors resume warring when the protection expires, they will be blocked. Settle the issue here and be civil. Vsmith 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be taking up the cause with the anon editor(s). I fought this "battle" the last time someone tried to add a MSA and they lost. This is absolutley rediculous. We had the infobox intact for more than 4 MONTHS without a MSA. If you want to add the MSA, you MUST provide valid arguments to all the points presented above. You have NOT done this. Until you do, you should not add the MSA fact, or it will be deleted. Since you want to add something NEW to the article, you need to argue your point and reach an agreement HERE before you continue to do this. Otherwise you will get in a revert war, and I will assure you it won't just be with anon editors-- I personally will participate. It seems you wish to do this to show how "big" St. Louis is, with disreguard to Kansas City, which statisticlly is larger. As said in the above posts, the MSA is not a vital or definate statistic, and neither MSA is fully in Missouri. Also, it is mentioned that St. Louis has the 18th largest MSA sorrounding it in Missouri. The reason YOU want to add this, is, as you said "It misleads people to believe that Kansas City is bigger"-- well, I hate to break it to you, but it is. I will repeat it-- Kansas City, Missouri with 450,000 people is larger than St. Louis. You have no defense to argue that statistic-- your city did not annex St. Louis county it made a mistake and now St. Louis is paying for that mistake. This is not a place to rewrite history because you think "it should be". Again, you must prove some point as to why to add this statistic, otherwise I will be reporting YOU to an administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

User:Enorton, I've tried to talk this out, and I think we can still succeed. I think you should know that you (User:Enorton) and the anon ip who has been arguing this entire time are obviously the same person, you use the same grammar, style and punctuation and often one of you back's the other one up within 30 seconds after you say something on the talk page. You seem to only have bothered to sign in once the page was protected. I'm not sure if this qualifies as sockpuppetry but its pretty close and is certainly misrepresentation. Your arguing the same points everytime ignoring that the precedent is already set on Wikipedia to place this information in the infobox. As for providing an valid argument: the fact that the value is there in the template for the infobox is all I need. When you say "we had the infobox intact' you mean that you blanked the value and nobody cared to put it back. When somebody finally put it back in, you removed it, and I corrected it, thus the 'edit-war' began. Its against wikipedia's policy's to even be involved in an edit-war, of that we're both guilty. I'm refusing to continue to revert your edits, but there are several others who obviously will. If you want to remove this value from the info-box then your welcome to go argue that on the template:U.S. state infobox page. I'm willing to do Mediation if your interested, but please avoid personal attacks in your statements. Accusing me of being from Saint Louis, and telling me 'my' city was stupid and that St. Louis is poor is way off topic and funny really, because I'm not from St. Louis at all. Kansas City, Missouri is the largest 'incorporated city' in Missouri, there is no debate to that and thats reflected in the infobox. St. Louis, Missouri is the largest metro area (which is to many people the same thing as the definition of city) that is why along with all the other states that have different largest metros and biggest cities this was included in the infobox. I know your affiliated with Kansas City, and so I'm telling you that perhaps you are biased in this issue and should back away. I'm not trying to show how 'big' St. Louis is with disregard to Kansas city. the census data shows that the St. louis metro is larger than the Kansas City, Metro. Kansas City is in the infobox as largest city, which is correct. Neither MSA is fully in Missouri, this is correct, however I think Cynic783 says it best: "From the 2000 census, the St. Louis MSA (2,603,607) is larger than the Kansas City MSA (1,776,062). Furthermore, the Missouri component of the St. Louis MSA (2,003,762) is larger than the Missouri component of the Kansas City MSA (1,070,052). See http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xls. Considering only the parts of the MSAs that lie in Missouri, St. Louis MSA is 1.87 times larger than the Kansas City MSA (2,003,762/1,070,052)." Grey Wanderer | Talk 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If the largest metro area item does belong in the infobox, shouldn't it link to the MSA article instead of the city article? ENDelt260 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter to me, but thats what every other state except one has done. So for the purpose of being concise I'm in favor of leaving it that way. I can see your reasoning though, perhaps you might argue for the change on the U.S. infobox page then we can change them all. Thanks Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, see you've already started adding the largest metros and linking the MSA's. Is long as its standardized I think it sounds great. Thanks for all your work. Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, St. Louis is NOT the St. Louis MSA. I will be very clear on that. I will NOT allow you to, if somehow a compromise or consensus were reached about the MSA, to say that St. Louis city is the largest MSA in Missouri. It's NOT! The MSA and City are totally different entities. I have made a good argument. Read all the stuff above. You simplly say that people consider MSA's and cities the same thing. Do you have anything to back your claim up? No. About half the people I know do not consider MSA important information. I have removed, again, for the hundredth time, the St. Louis MSA statistic. I am willing to do a mediation with you and argue this issue civily. I ask you to leave the article how it is, or rather, was before, you came in here and started adding the MSA. As for resolving the MSA statistic, I feel it does not belong in our state. Thus, it can be argued here, and not on some general fourm. Anyways, if you would explain to me how to do a mediation or whatever, I will agree to do one. However, please stop reverting this until we work this out.

My own two cents; both Kansas City's and St Louis's MSAs cross states lines (into Kansas & IL respectifully), so a largest Metro area doesn't make a whole lot of sense for Missouri. That some people may think of MSA population when they see City population is no reason to incorrectly list the larger metro under the category bigest city. Several states, not just Missouri have cases in which their largest city is not in their largest metro. Off the top of my head, TN & FL are a couple. Within city limits, KC's population is much larger than STL city, and the percentage of those in the central city in KC is much larger than STL. However, St Louis County (which does not include St Louis City) is the largest county in the state, close enough to 1 Million as to make no difference. St Louis City & St Charles County each have more than 300K population, and that would be enough to put St Louis Metro over the top of Kansas City's Missouri portion even without the several other counties the census bureau places in the Missouri portion of the STL metro area. Jon 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The arguments about not including the MSA:

• Repeatedly it's being claimed that an MSA is "not a definite area"...."metropolitan areas [are] unrecognized or undefined"... "a metro [area] is disputed and is unreliable".... "There is no definate boundary to one and it has no governmental or factual role of importance". This is not true, see the very first sentence of United States metropolitan area.
• "it doesn't matter, because an MSA does not have anything beyond a social designation". Not true, it isn't a social designation but a statistical designation published by the US federal government.
• "we must go by information that is factual and definate" -- An MSA is factual and definite so that is a reason to include the information.

Every argument seems to be colored by a strong bias by a fan of Kansas City who wants to suppress an acceptable piece of information. This is clear to me as someone has just come across the exchange. I support the MSA being included. It meets criteria of WP:A and is useful demographic and statistical piece of information. Beyazid 00:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. Yes, I am a fan of KC, but I am not trying to surpress information. I am trying to prevent information I believe should NOT be included in the infobox from being put in the infobox. First off I mostly agree with Joncunn. Both Missouri MSA's cross state lines, and thus, they are not a "missouri" entity. They are their own, independent entities. If you really want to put our largest MSA, put Springfield, Missouri, because that's the largest MSA that's totally in Missouri.

Second, in response to your agruments:

• A MSA is not a definate boundary. It is disputed by many people. For example, Denver's MSA has Boulder in it. Well what do you consider a MSA? Some people say it's based by the amount of dependency on the anchor city. Other's say it's when the sorrounding cities become too far spread out from the rest of the area. Still, other's say it's based on the people who live in an area clamining to be residents of the area. You see? There is no official consensus on what a MSA actually is. Sure, the federal government agrees with one of those, but they made the error of putting Boulder in Denver's MSA. Boulder to Denver is like St. Joseph, Topeka or Lawerence to Kansas City. I personally don't consider St. Charles to be part of the St. Louis MSA, but you probably will.
• A MSA is a "statistical area". Do you understand what that means. It means it's used purley for statistical information. In other words, census data. Socially, that data is used, but a MSA has absolutley NO governmental designation whatsoever.
• Again, as I said in the first point, MSA is not factual and definate, and depends heavily on the area and what residents consider the area. Again, there are many cities that some say (I am not one of them) should be included in Kansas City's MSA, like Leavenworth, St. Joseph, Lawerence, and Topeka. Adding those three adds about 300,000 people to our MSA, meaning it would be about 2.5 million. Again, I disagree, and would consider such information wrong. But there is alot of disputing in statistics when it comes to exactally defnining what is a MSA.

Because of those above reasons (and many more that I have said thorughout these posts), it is not right to list MSA's in infoboxes-- and since neither MSA is fully in Missouri (reguradless of who has more people on the Missouri side), the information is irrelavent. I have removed the MSA statistic (once again) from the infobox. As you see, there is someone who DOES agree with me-- and there are many more. It is not information that should be included in Missouri's infobox. No professional encyclopedia like Encarta, Worldbook, or Brittanica does this-- and they must have a good reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

You are conflating two concepts, "metropolitan area" and "Metropolitan Statistical Area". The first one is a general term, the second one is officially defined and is a published official statistic by the United States government. When you say "A MSA is not a definate boundary. It is disputed by many people" you aren't talking about an MSA. You ask, "Well what do you consider a MSA?" and claim "There is no official consensus on what a MSA actually is." As has already been pointed out by Cynic783 there is complete and utter official consensus because an MSA is defined by the OMB according to published standards. Please read this. For the published standards, see this. From the first link: "OMB has been responsible for the official metropolitan areas since they were first defined, except for the period 1977 to 1981, when they were the responsibility of the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, Department of Commerce."

From this you can see that your second point also is mistaken: "Socially, that data is used, but a MSA has absolutley NO governmental designation whatsoever." It is entirely a governmental designation. If what you were trying to say is simply that an MSA is not an entity that has a government, what difference does that make? Local government boundaries do not in and of themselves often give a full grouping of a high-population region's economic and social integration, hence the value and purpose of a MSA: "The general concept of a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core."

Your third point of reply is to repeat your first point and say "Again, as I said in the first point, MSA is not factual and definate, and depends heavily on the area and what residents consider the area." This is not true [1]. You say, "But there is alot of disputing in statistics when it comes to exactally defnining what is a MSA." This is not true [2]. You say, "Encarta, Worldbook, or Brittanica" don't use it. This is irrelevant, wikipedia doesn't require that we be constrained to only provide what these sources provide. The information meets WP:A and all other wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I have returned it to the article. Beyazid 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the matter is that, based on the arguments by both sides, the largest MSA should be included, because it is an important piece of information. That and the other side's only editor is an all but confirmed sock puppeteer...Parsecboy 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Enorton, I'm begging you to stop reverting the article, can't you see your entirely one-sided on this, and that all your arguments have been addressed. You've broken Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppets, the three revert rule, assuming good faith, and avoiding personal attacks. I don't want you banned because you've done some great things for Kansas City articles, but thats where you're going to end up if you don't calm down. Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

I have heard Missouri called "Misery." I'm not sure if this is an official nickname or some sort of inside joke amongst people who live there. Should we include this in the article? 72.130.177.246 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Got a published/reliable source for the nickname? Go for it! -- nae'blis 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is close, but they don't explain where they got the name: [3] [4] --Hobbes747 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't figure out MIZZ-zur-re versus mizz-ZUR-ee? It's just putting the emphasis on the first, instead of the second, sill-LAH-bull. It's no more an "inside" joke than calling a recipe a receipt. All of us SWAY-ve and de-BONE-ur folks pronouce it that way, even if our exposure to Missouri consisted of one afternoon riding in the back seat, back in the 1950s, as our parents were driving somewhere else. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm well aware of it, but we need a source. --Hobbes747 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think dictionaries are a pretty good source for pronunciations.

The pronunciations of misery (miz-uh-ree)^[1] and Missouri (mi-zoor-ee)^[2] differ principally by the syllable which is stressed, with the result that playful Miserians Missourians make jest by deliberate mispronunciation.^[3]

Dictionary.com appears to meet the requirements of WP:RS ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Prouncing Missouri "Misery" is an inside joke, usually told be a long time resident of Missouri to another, if about to leave the state for someplace that currently has better weather. (Such as I'm leaving "Misery" tomorrow and flying to Florida for Christmas.) Jon 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief that the nickname "Misery" is an inside joke that was originally started by military personnel attending Fort Lenard Wood Army base. I believe the nickname grew from that origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FlipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hemp

In the article, it is asserted that hemp is one of the leading agricultural products in Missouri. Unless a reference is adduced indicating hemp production exceeds that of each of the other listed elements (corn, soybeans, cattle, poultry etc.) in dollars, the statement should be removed. Last I heard, it was not yet legal to farm hemp in Missouri. Could be that has changed, but I'd kind of expect to have read about it if it actually had developed into a substantial moneymaking crop. Yes, marijuana has been grown in the state for decades but that is a different matter, eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publius3 (talk • contribs).

As far as I can tell it is not legal to manufacturer hemp in Missouri. This doesn't necessarily mean that isn't a leading agricultural product, but it does it make it harder to prove. Peyna 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Missouri was #10 in production in 1997, according to the DEA, with $339,000 grown[5] But why are you insisting on a references for hemp, and not for any of the other crops listed? In 2002, dairy amounted to $3 million of production, and sheep amounted to $3 million of production. You don't list sheep, but you list "poultry and eggs" which only only amount of $3 million of production as a combination.

I'm not really arguing that hemp ought to listed; it's still a minor crop. What I am suggesting is that citations are important, because it looks silly to list eggs and list poultry but not list sheep, and you don't know you're doing that unless you look at the agricultural census. Articles really need to have a <ref>[http://URL pagetitle]</ref> reference by every fact. Not only does it give users confidence that the article is trustworthy and believable, not only does it give users the opportunity to learn more detail than an article reasonably ought to carry, but it reduces maintenance a LOT. I've seen the number of silly/stupid/joke edits markedly drop on pages when we started adding <ref>s to virtually every fact.

You know, other than lacking references, you've got a pretty nice article here. It'd be nice to have it get the respect from users that it deserves. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missoura

I've added a reference in the intro to the use of the term "Missoura" and referenced an interview from the Truman Library on the former President's use of the term. I know that there must be more to it than that, so anyone with more info please expand. Thanks. Harro5 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This very long article by a University of Missouri academic may be a good place to start. Harro5 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now that's more than anyone has a right to expect to hear, on the subject! I enjoyed it though I did not read the whole thing. It was interesting to note that people in many states, not just Missouri, pronounce the final syllable with a schwa.

The article intentionally covers only a certain group of linguistic questions, and as a result does not mention one putative "fact" that has been cited from time to time by newspaper pundits: At the University of Missouri, when cheering for a sports team, a combination of "Missouri" and "Rah" (as in the cheer used in many places, "Rah! Rah! Rah!" is used to form the cheer,"Mizzou-rah!" Some people believe that University of Missouri students or sports fans are much more likely as a result, to pronounce the last syllable with a schwa, than they might have done if they had never been involved in this cheering.

Apart from that, when this subject has come up in reader polls in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch etc., many people who have travelled widely in the state believe that "Missoura" is used more in rural dumb areas than in city areas, but far from exclusively in either case. Publius3 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my vote of those traveling widely around the state hearing "Missoura" more in rural areas than cities. In addition, it also appears to me that older people are more likely to say "Missoura" than younger people. Jon 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax section

• While there are a multiple of income tax rates, these have never not been indexed for inflation and the highest rate (6.0%) kicks in at only $9000 per person, basically meaning that anyone paying less than the highest tax rate is in dire straights indeed. (On the Missouri Tax form, the final calculation to take account for all those lower rates is (Income - $9000) * 0.06 + $315.) Those in such dire straights as to have earned less than $9000 have a chart to tell them what to enter.

• Within Missouri, Only St Louis City & Kansas City have city income taxes. Those are both 1% for those living within those city limits and also all those working within those city limits.

• The Personal Property Tax is primarily a tax on automobiles.

Jon 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tending towards Republicans?

• I don't think the section that Missouri's bellwether status is threatened is necessary. The last election proved this: just as the nation as a whole tended towards Democrats, so did Missouri (with the election of McCaskill). Moreover, items considered liberal (e.g., the minimum wage increase and the stem cell bill) passed as well, a fact that cannot be overlooked. Yes, Missouri tended Republican in 2004 and 2000, but so the nation as a whole. I would claim that the data suggests that Missouri is as much a bellwether as ever.