Talk:Missouri/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.191.6 (talk • contribs) -- 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.

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.147.138 (talk) 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)

Please, let's have order!

There is a certain amount of legitimacy to rank cities by population (or other measure) strictly by measuring the quantity within the city limits. Therefore, Houston is bigger than Boise. I am open minded to consider this argument.

There is also a certain amount of legitimacy to US MSA. These are defined by the federal government (U.S.). The MSA can be a valid indicator, particularly of cities whose city limits are hemmed in. For example, San Francisco is a very small city surrounded by millions of people. New York is also surrounded by many people, including people in New Jersey and Connecticut. Even if other states don't have a box for largest metropolitan area, there can be an exception if there is a valid reason.

I have tried to informally mediate in other edit disputes. If there is a willingness to attempt to find a solution, other than filing complaints, let me know. I'll check back here tomorrow. I have never lived in Missouri but I have seen Kansas City and St. Louis as recently as earlier this year.VK35 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Enorton has removed the LargestMetro from the infobox again. Is there anyone -other- than Enorton who thinks that the LargestMetro should be omitted? Otherwise I would ask Enorton to replace the LargestMetro.Cynic783 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No it would seem not, Enorton has been the only one arguing this all along. It seems pretty clear cut to me. The vaule is in the info box to be filled. If he feels it is wrong to include this information in state articles he should take that up on the infbox talk page. As long as all the other states are doing it, we should as well. Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Enorton has been clear about what he or she feels is wrong: "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." ... "It seems you wish to do this to show how "big" St. Louis is, with disreguard to Kansas City, which statisticlly is larger." .... "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."

That is only a small sample of the comments. This is a peculiar pride thing going on from a person who is editing from Kansas City (obvious from the person's statements, and the IPs also trace to that location). No valid basis for decision-making on the topic has been articulated, only emotions, sock-puppetry, statements that aren't true, and reverts.

For my part, to add something constructive, I would invite people to look at this image [3], which is in the article on a smaller scale. It is patently obvious why there is encyclopedic value in mentioning St. Louis in the infobox. Beyazid 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been many arguments for and against including the MSA statistic. I SAID that we should delete it until we have time to argue this issue further. I am very busy for the next week and do not have time to make a better defense. But in response to your comments, Beyazid, you are from St. Louis-- so whatever YOU say is going to be in support of that city. GrayWanderer seems to think the same. But it is rediculous to include this statistic. First off, the MSA is recognized by an office of the government as a statistic. They keep HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of statistics-- and that's all it is. The number of people who use the St. Louis MSA. A MSA has no official governmental recognition, and taxpayers do not fund MSA projects or MSA facilities. The MSA is just a simple statistic. And I have a RIGHT to revert this article. You all came in here and screwed it up, and you criticize me and don't go into a mediation. You simply revert back. I had it the way I wanted it first, now you come in and must prove your point to change it. You have not done this yet, at least not in my mind, and you will have absolutley no reason to get me blocked for reverting the article back to the way it was. There are too many arguments against including the MSA statistic, that I could take all day trying to give them to you. I do intend to do it, but I do not have the time to until we get a mediation. Many of these reasons are due to the fact that neither MSA is fully in Missouri. This is not a point to be argued in the infobox section, but to be argued in the Missouri infobox section. I am willing to do a mediation, and I would also like to see what OTHER people, not myself, are doing about it. By the way, you do not have sufficient evidence of me using "sockpuppetry". The IP number happens to be the IP of an educational institution and thus there could be many people using this account. For all you know, I could have had a friend of mine from Kansas City come on and type that. So you're accusations cannot be proven. Also, again, GrayWanderer, until you can get a wikipedia administrator to order me to stop reverting that article, I am going to do it. You have no authority to tell me to stop reverting that, just like I have no authority to tell you to stop reverting the article. And I doubt that an administrator will tell me to stop until we do a mediation.

Enorton, VSmith IS an administrator and he asked everyone to stop reverting and leave the information in the article until something got decided here. You say you want to do mediation, we're just waiting for you to replay, check your talk page please. Grey Wanderer | Talk

We should include the information until it is decided that it should be removed. This is an encyclopedia, the point of which is to provide information to readers, not supress it. The statistic is a valid fact from a published, verified, reliable source, and I also see consensus so far and agreement that it be included. I still see no articulated reason for its removal. I mean, for real, "it's a statistic" -- that's suppose to be an actual argument for removal? The infobox also has total population, population density, and median income but these are only statistics so we should probably remove them too?

I have put it back pending credible arguments for removal. The arguments should be backed up by reliable sources and not someone's own personal theorizing and guesswork. So far the people that agree with including it have produced links and official documentation that it's legitimate, and nothing of substance from a reliable source has been given to say that it's not. And by the way, I'm not here from St. Louis. The entire English-speaking world edits wikipedia if you didn't notice. Beyazid 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Any agreement for informal mediation and discussion? I have heard interest from some people. I think it is important that Enorton agrees with this. Unfortunately, Enorton has been temporarily blocked. Please do not become angry, become happy, or take advantage in editing now that blocking has occured. This seems like a problem that can be resolved. I am willing to try to mediate. I don't have any stake in the outcome.VK35 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to Resolve Situation by informal mediation

Here are some ideas that I have to try to resolve the problem. I do not have a stake in the outcome nor do I edit any articles about Missouri, Missouri cities, or surrounding states. I have never lived in or near Kansas City or St. Louis, herein after referred to as KC and STL.

• There is a peculiar situation regarding KC and STL primarily because the STL city borders are very restrictive.
• Such situation exists to some extent with London, England. The City of London has a population of roughly 10,000, yet London is widely recognised as the largest city in the UK.
• There is some logic to having consistency between the articles of other US states but that it is not an absolute rule that all states must be written and ordered in the exact same way.
• Editors will attempt to resolve this matter in the spirit of cooperation and will temporarily cease edit warring and filing complaints against each other.
• The US MSA is a determination by the US government. The MSA does not define a unified or single jurisdiction.

Do some of the editors agree with these 5 points? If so, this is progress and I will try to help you proceed further. I will check again tomorrow. Although there are no guarantees, my goal is to resolve this in less than a week, hopefully sooner. If you have comments about the above points, you may place them below. Please do not group comments into pro and con categories because this tends to create unnecessary conflict.VK35 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello-- thank you for helping to mediate. Here are my responses to this question.

• There is a peculiar situation regarding KC and STL primarily because the STL city borders are very restrictive.

Yes there is. About 100 years ago, the city of St. Louis was wealthy and the county was poor. To my understanding, the city wanted to preserve it's wealth, and decided to consolidate itself into a special self-governing entity. Unfortunatley, this situation has totally flipped, with the city being very poor and the county being very rich. St. Louisians continue to want to "fudge" numbers with their MSA statistic, when the fact is 350,000 people pay their taxes to the government of St. Louis. The people in University City or St. Charles do not pay their taxes or claim legal residence to the government of St. Louis, and thus, why should this statistic be included in our infobox. *Such situation exists to some extent with London, England. The City of London has a population of roughly 10,000, yet London is widely recognised as the largest city in the UK. That would be wrong. St. Louis is not recognized by most Missourians as being larger than Kansas City. In fact, if you visit either city, you would feel that they are similarly sized.

• There is some logic to having consistency between the articles of other US states but that it is not an absolute rule that all states must be written and ordered in the exact same way.

That is true. But another argument is that neither MSA is fully in the state of Missouri, and there are some people who dispute the extent of the Kansas City or St. Louis MSA. For example, some people include Topeka or Lawerence in our MSA, while many others do not. The same applies with St. Charles. If you ask people from St. Louis county, they refuse to count East St. Louis (the largest gettho in the United States) as part of their metro due to embarrasment. The same could be true with people in Kansas City not counting bonner springs or Wyandotte county. The point is, what a metropolitan area is is very subjective, and many dispute the MSA statistic that is released by our government. Because there is so much disputing involved among this statistic, it would be wrong to include such a controversial piece of information in the infobox. Saying that St. Louis has a larger MSA in Missouri is akin to saying "Kansas City is on paper bigger, but people consider St. Louis bigger". This is totally wrong! St. Louis made a mistake 100 years ago, and a couple of editors on Wikipedia shouldn't be able to try to get around it like all the other people from St. Louis do. Since this is a controversial statistic and is not even definate or has any governmental significance (it is just a statistic like the number of people aged 20 in Missouri) or jurisdiction, it should not be included in our infobox. Also, neither MSA is in Missouri. If you read the government designation, it will read Kansas City, MO-Kansas City, KS-Overland Park, KS for our MSA. St. Louis is something like St. Louis-East St. Louis-St. Charles or something similar. Neither one is in missouri. The argument that we can isolate a metro is invalid because you can't. A metro is either an entire entity or no entity at all. If this is the case, then Springfield-Branson is the largest MSA in Missouri (that is the 3rd most populous metro and it is fully in Missouri). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enorton (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I would agree with VK35's points; Enorton, you say that MSAs aren't clearly defined, however this is not the case. The U.S. government defines MSAs. You claim that it's just a statistic; well, it's therefore important for statistical comparison purposes. You do not own the article; all of us have exactly the same right to edit this article any way we see fit, as long as we edit constructively, and with reliable sources. Parsecboy 15:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much on weather the largest Metro is in or out, but if it's in, it should be the largest MSA (Missouri portion) by the US census breau. This is currently St Louis (by a rather large margin) but with KC Metro population growing at a much faster rate than STLs, I would not be surprized to see sometime in my lifetime KC become #1. Jon 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are still around in 2060, you might be right, if the 1990-2000 trend holds up. I did a quick spreadsheet

Year	Kansas City (12.2%)	St. Louis (4.5%)
2000	1,776,062	2,603,607
2010	1,992,742	2,720,769
2020	2,235,856	2,843,204
2030	2,508,630	2,971,148
2040	2,814,683	3,104,850
2050	3,158,075	3,244,568
2060	3,543,360	3,390,574

Cynic783 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Before there is effective mediation, there should be some agreement on fundamental points. That's the difference between mediation and a dictator imposing a decree ("I say this is the way it is"). I am attempting the former.

Reading the responses carefully, it seems to me that Enorton somewhat agrees with all of the 5 points (with explanations, of course) except the London premise. This is ok with me because analogies always have limitations. So I propose 4 of those points as a fundamental basis of trying to reach harmony (forget about the point about London...the topic is Missouri, not the UK). I believe there should be no dispute about the MSA regarding what it is. The land area in an MSA is determined by the federal goverment. You may dispute the WISDOM of the US federal government's decision and this may (or maynot) play a part in this article's wording - so people who dislike this MSA, don't worry! Still waiting to here from a few other people (this is a discussion, not an election, so no ballot box stuffing, please!)VK35 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VK35 for mediating this. I agree with your five points. In addition to London, you could look at Florida, Ohio, and Texas. In these three states the largest city is not the largest MSA. As of this moment, Florida and Ohio list Largest MSA, while Texas does not. However, an all three of these cases, the MSAs in question are wholly contained within the state. Neither the KC nor STL MSA is totally contained within Missouri. However, by population, St. Louis MSA is 77% contained within Missouri, while Kansas City MSA is only 60% contained within Missouri. Check my math: take 2,003,762/2,603,607 for STL and 1,070,052/1,776,062 for KC. Source http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab01.xlsCynic783 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to VK35 for calming everyone down. I agree with all of the points. Grey Wanderer | Talk 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Next Step

Let's NOT worry about wording at this point so that we can agree a little more. I recognize that some do not like the MSA. I also recognize that some want some stuff in the box and not other stuff. Let's discuss those things later. Mediation takes time. Dictatorship is quick ("This is the way it's going to read or face firing squad"). I will check my figures later but will you roughly agree with the following population figures?: St. Louis 352,000, St. Louis MSA 2.796M (2006, which is close to the 2000 figure), part of St. Louis MSA that is within Missouri approx. 2.0M
Kansas City, MO 445,000, Kansas City MSA 1.967M (2006), part of Kansas City MSA that is within Missouri approx. 1.0M VK35 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree Grey Wanderer | Talk 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WAIT!!:

To VK35, I have not agreed with those five points, in fact, I have disagreed and provided arguments with my disagreeing. Please have someone respond to my counter-arguments to those points. The bottom line is that those people supporting St. Louis need to respondt to my arguments. And as for the argument presented about the government, a MSA is just a statistic. It is nothing more. Just a simple statistic by the US Government. The same as number of married couples, racial information, ect. That's why it's called a Metropolitan STATISTICAL Area. Until arguments to my points are provided, the MSA statistic should not be added to the Missouri article, since it was originally without the MSA information.

City lines are just arbitrary governmental boundaries as well. Just saying. Pfly 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To the unsigned comment 2 comments higher, please kindly refrain from asking others to respond to each other. What I mean is that such actions tend to restart arguments. Instead, may I ask that you kindly address comments either to me or any other informal mediator that may come aboard. Afterwards, I will try to address the MSA concern and try to achieve some common ground. After that, I propose to gain a bit more common ground (but what I have in mind, I have that up my sleave, sorry to be so secretive!)VK35 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The unsigned comment from the IP 69.150.147.138 is from Enorton I think it's safe to say.

VK35, I agree with the five points. I also agree with your assessment of Enorton's comments and don't understand the new comment: "WAIT!!! I have not agreed with those five points, in fact, I have disagreed." On point number one, about there being a peculiar situation regarding KC and STL, the response was "Yes there is" and a long paragraph about this person's views of it. Point number two was rejected by Enorton, it is true (although, by an unsubstantiated claim, see below). Point number three also was agreed with right from the outset with "That is true." Point number four was about ceasing to edit-war and was ignored but since there haven't been reversions back and forth for a little while I would count that as at least nominal acceptance. Point number five was about the fact of MSA being defined by the government and that it doesn't represent a unified or single jurisdiction. Enorton seems to be coming around to the realization about MSA being defined by the government, and it is one of his main points that an MSA isn't represented by a government, he or she is much in agreement on that point. So why this bewildering claim now from him or her that "I have disagreed" when it's in black and white that there was agreement?

I would like to call out how there are repeatedly being made unsubstantiated claims out of the blue without any support. As mediator, and for others as well, is there agreement that claims should be supported by reliable, published sources? The earlier rounds of unsubstantiated claims have turned out not to be true, and there is now a new round that also sounds really ad hoc. For example:

• "St. Louisians continue to want to "fudge" numbers with their MSA statistic" -- Who are these so-called St. Louisans? This to me sounds like it is made up. As has been pointed out over and over, no one on their own has the ability to "fudge" or come up with an MSA. The MSA is defined by the federal government of the US.
• "St. Louis is not recognized by most Missourians as being larger than Kansas City." Prove it... cite a reliable, authoritative, published source.
• "some people include Topeka or Lawerence in our MSA, while many others do not. The same applies with St. Charles." Who are these people that are mentioned? Again, this seems to be made up. Again, there seems to be almost a willful misunderstanding of what an MSA is.
• "The point is, what a metropolitan area is is very subjective, and many dispute the MSA statistic that is released by our government." Who are these "many" people who dispute the MSA statistic? What are their credentials? Where is the disputation published?

I appreciate the mediation process here. The dispute is an odd one to me, I must say. It isn't as if one side is claiming that "largest city" should be left out and "largest metro" should be there, and the other side vice versa. The compromise would be for both to be included, and this is legitimate in terms of what standard information the infoboxes give, as Grey Wanderer has pointed out. Beyazid 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the archives and see that St. Louis as largest metro area has been stably in the article's infobox from way back in 2003 (KC and STL both were added around the same time, while Jefferson City had been included as capitol since the beginning). An anonymous IP took it out it in January 2006, and another person added it in May 2006. Then it was only recently, on December 25 of 2006, that IP 71.102.18.203 took it out, which from the style of writing and type of arguments seems to be Enorton. There has been back and forth since then. He just made the claim above: "Until arguments to my points are provided, the MSA statistic should not be added to the Missouri article, since it was originally without the MSA information." He has made this argument before. Like every other argument I end up looking into, unfortunately it turns out to be not true. The infobox has listed St. Louis as largest metro area for nearly as long as the infobox has existed. Beyazid 03:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

peripheral questions to ponder

I don't think resolution is around the corner so would you consider the following peripheral points?

• What is the significance of population? Is it for curiosity?> Is it for comparision?
• If population is for comparison, why is it better than comparing the region's or city's economic output much like the gross domestic product (GDP) is used to compare countries? How about using airport traffic, such as number of passengers that use an airport?

Perhaps a few editors might give their thoughts on these points?VK35 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Population is simply one of the basic facts about a topic such as this. Like if you were to say, what are the basic physical facts of a person, a reasonable answer would be something like height, weight, age. A basic assessment of something like a state would be population, area, economic output perhaps. I think the purpose is just that it is a basic fact, and how the reader wants to use it is up to them. Some may want to use it for comparison, some may be curious about it as trivia, others for whatever else they have in mind. I wouldn't put a limitation on what people might want to use it for but just to provide facts.

It is clear that some readers want to know where population is concentrated. "Largest" city is one guide to this, and that is standard and good to have in infoboxes. People are also savy enough to know that city limits are arbitrary, as Pfly points out, and as you were getting across with the London example. The idea of a metro area is another standard and good piece of information that addresses shortcomings of just going by city limits. I would not make judgments for the reader in advance which they should feel is important to them. Some like one or the other, some like both, some don't care. I think it serves the readers best to give both pieces of information in a situation such as this where there is disagreement about the importance of one versus the other. Both cities are obviously important to the state and both pieces of information are obviously of value. Beyazid 03:19, 21 April 2007

(UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but I support including both Largest City and Largest MSA -- both pieces of information are valuable and tell the reader something different about the region. Tysalpha 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to pick on Enorton, but given that editor's previous involvement in this discussion, I think it would be useful for his/her input on the population questions that I posed. I would like to move ahead soon after that.

ideas prior to conclusion?

I'd like to wrap this up unless more consensus building is needed. Without repeating some of the key points that I tried everyone to agree upon, here's what my thoughts are.

• Harmony, consensus, and NPOV are what everyone should strive for.
• The concept of understanding the usefulness of "metro area" or similar term is useful. Omaha is about the same size as the city of St. Louis. However, it feels much smaller. The MSA of Omaha is much smaller. The airport is smaller and has far fewer flights. To say that St. Louis is merely what's within it's city limits is potentially misleading.
• The MSA is a defined concept by the federal government with defined borders. However, according to the census bureau website, [[4]], the MSA is designed for statistical purposes only. That's because the MSA crosses jurisdictions, such as lumping counties together. However, using the MSA for population is exactly the purpose that the MSA was designed for.
• We should be happy that the picture is not further confused because the bulk of the St. Louis and Kansas City MSA (population wise) is in Missouri.
• More people live in the Missouri side of the St.L. MSA than people who live on the Missouri side of the KC MSA. (This doesn't imply that St.L. is better than KC, just more people). The entire Kansas City MSA including Kansas side is only slightly bigger than St. Louis county and St. Louis (but excluding the rest of the Missouri part of the St. Louis MSA).
• There are other state websites that include a metro area. Ohio is particularly applicable because Cleveland is in a similar situation. Cleveland MSA is the biggest in the state though the city of Columbus has more people than any other Ohio city.
• In recognition of concerns expressed over St. Louis, wikipedia editors may consider some of the following:
  

1. footnote to clarify that the US OMB uses the term "MSA". Metro area is a conversational term and MSA is a clearly defined term. Most people use the terms interchangably.
2. footnote to explain that the MSA figures designed for statistical purposes as noted by the US OMB and are not a single jurisdiction (to clarify the matter to non-Americans). We should realize that all population figures are statistics. Even the population of the City of St. Louis is a statistic.

• Readers might conclude, after reading the article, that population is not just a simple number. There are confounding factors, such as when a city like St. Louis draws small borders even though many people live outside the city border.VK35 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above by VK35. I went ahead and added the census source to the population figure. I was also going to add the footnote but I realized that the term "metro area" in the infobox is wikilinked to United States metropolitan area which hashes out the meaning of the term far better than we could do in a footnote. If someone wants to put a footnote in thats cool too, I'm not sure how to do it though. Hopefully we can archive this topic in a bit. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I normally try to avoid editing on anything that I try to mediate. However, I've made a small change in the info box. As a matter of policy, I will not revert if changed back to St. Louis. Feel free to discuss if needed. Technically, the St. Louis metropolitan area or St. Louis MSA is the correct term, not just St. Louis. VK35 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

VK I made one change to this, as St. Louis metropolitan area read awkwardly to me right after Largest metro area. I changed it to just say "Greater St. Louis" -- but if others prefer another way to describe it that's fine with me. Tysalpha 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way, though Tysalpha is right "Greater St. Louis" flows off the tongue much better than "Largest metro area St. Louis metropolitan area". Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the name "Greater St. Louis", I've never heard a local use that pharse when descriping the St Louis metro area. I agree that "St. Louis metropolitan area" is also too long, and likewise have never heard a local use that mouth full of a phrase either. I propose the name be "St. Louis Metro" which I have heard locals use. 168.166.196.40 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hey.

Just out of curiousity, is their really a point for all of you trolls to be fighting over which metro or city is bigger? Sure, MO is a nice state, and they are both nice cities, but they aren't that important. I do not see Californians fighting over their metro/city size, and that is a more important state economically, and it could probably survive on its own if it were an own country, we couldn't.

This is the funniest talk page I have seen thus far on wikipedia.

--James

Misery

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: [5] [6] --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) and Missouri (mi-zoor-ee) differ principally by the syllable which is stressed, with the result that playful Miserians Missourians make jest by deliberate mispronunciation.

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).

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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[7] 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)

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 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)

I grew up in St. Louis City, the south end near Carondelet Park to be exact. I learned to call the state 'Missoura' and we weren't country bumpkins. In fact, I was taught as a youngster that the state name can be pronounced either way and that this had been decided in Jefferson City by a vote of the representatives. I am now approaching 40 and no longer live in MO, but my children say 'Missoura'.

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)

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.

50% != 3/5

Um...

Of those Missourians who identify with a religion, three out of five are Protestants ... The religious affiliations of the people of Missouri according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey:

* Christian – 76% o Protestant – 50%

Am I missing something?Njerseyguy 07:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn east-coasters with their fancy cipherin' and such. ENDelt260 16:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I don't see anything wrong with that (heavy sarcasm intended). Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New/Reclassified State Fish

The state symbols infobox lists the paddlefish as the state fish, but the Missouri Secretary of State website lists the channel catfish as the state fish, and the paddlefish as the state aquatic animal. The paddlefish appears to have been reclassified at the same time the fish was changed to the channel catfish in 1997. More info here...http://www.sos.mo.gov/symbols/ . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.91.219.193 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC).