Talk:Missoula, Montana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

James Crumley

I have added the New York Times best seller as a local Missoulian. Any objections?

---

Jaco Kast

Band listing

Is she truly "internationally renown?" I lived in Missoula for 20+ years and never heard of her. A Google search gives less than impressive results. --Matthew Burnside 3:28, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

On further consideration, and based on the discussion below: if we're (rightly) not going to list random restaurants, we should not list random bands, either.

--Matthew Burnside 15:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Aggreed. I've edited out the various band names (other than those of note)to neutralize the statements.- James

Look at other cities and see what they list. Great Falls has a list of notable people who have lived there. There's nothing wrong with listing local celebrities or local bands - they are what make a town what it is. With Missoula's rich music community, I think its only fair to note them somewhere in the listing. --Binder

See dission below listed as "Local Missoula Bands" 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tipu's

I'm new to this, so please bear with me if I'm doing anything wrong. Anyway, as much as I like Tipu's, isn't the Tipu's related entry dangerously close to violating the following wikipedia policy: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a product, or a business"? Basically, what's to prevent someone from creating similar entries for every restaurant in town? Dknadler 17:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Consensus may side with you, but every other resturaunt in town is NOT COMPLETELY BIZARRE. Hyacinth 17:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

That's highly subjective. I find Tipu's to be, on the whole, rather mundane. If I were to create an entry for a restaurant, based upon my personal opinion that it was COMPLETELY BIZARRE, I would look no further than the demented halls of the Oxford Cafe. Does that warrant an entry?

Honestly, I don't want to start an argument over something so trivial, but it does seem that Tipu's stands to benefit the most from it's inclusion in the Missoula entry. And, as far as I know, Tipu's is primarily in the business of selling food. Dknadler 18:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Granted, the Oxford is bizarre(!). However, as the article doesn't promote Tipu's or its products, and also describes Tipu's sexism, I don't think that is the proper objection. It would seem to me that since companies may be described on Wikipedia (Procter & Gamble), and on "Missoula, Montana" (Montana Snowbowl), so may be Tipu's. Thus you're objection may be based on the fact that Tipu's is a small local resturaunt, and not a huge national or multinational.

Based on the above, I created a "Notable eateries" section, and listed the Oxford. Please list why the Ox is notable/bizarre.Hyacinth 19:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I lived in Missoula my entire life growing up (1980-1998), and I have never been to or even heard of Tipu's. I have to agree with Dknadler on this one. Why does this one restaurant warrant an entry in an encyclopedic work? I would understand if it were the site of some event of great importance, but as I said, I didn't even know about it. I have at least heard of the Oxford, which does have some measure of notoriety, but even so I still question whether it belongs in this kind of work. Luke Powell 02:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about Montana Snowbowl? What makes a ski hill more encyclopedic than a resturaunt? You all may be interested in Wikipedia:Importance, a proposed policy. Hyacinth 04:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from here, but even so it's a little easier to justify a ski mountain than a restaurant for me. There are only two in Missoula, and both are listed. There are many many restaurants. I think it's almost impossible to be objective about which are included and which are not. For example, two of my favorite restaurants are The Depot and Shadow's Keep. They're not listed, which gives the listed restaurants an advantage over their competitors. That's not really in the spirit of what Wikipedia's about, IMHO. - Luke Powell 12:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Based on the following entry from the Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not page:

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Elysées. (Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel ([1]).

I propose we start a Missoula page at Wikitravel and move the mention of the restaurants over there. What are your thoughts? --Luke Powell 04:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, ski hills are not notable (at least not in MT) and should be moved also. Hyacinth 00:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WTF Tipu's

No more Tipu's...the power of wiki

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks.

And remember... ...the power of wiki works both ways. Hyacinth 21:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity sentence?...

"However, despite being a liberal town, there is a public access show called The Wittenberg Factor that is quite conservative."

This hardly seems notable. Anyone can start a show on public access. Unless I hear a good reason not to in the next couple days, I'm gonna remove it. And that's because I like men.Blackcats 07:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed high school vanity web link.

Birthplace of grunge

I am removing the stuff on "birthplace of grunge". The large Wikipedia entry on Grunge does not mention Missoula at all, and the only thing Googling for "missoula AND grunge" turns up is THIS ARTICLE. The only supporting evidence I can find is that the drummer for Pearl Jam was born in Missoula. If the birthplace-of-grunge comment is to remain, it needs to be better supported.

///////

Well, let's consider that Deranged Diction started in Missoula. The members of which later formed Green River, Temple of The Dog/Mother Love Bone, The Monkeywrench, & The Stardust Flamers. Then there is Ein Heit (aka Silkworm).

And while Steve Albini went to Chicago, he did produce many notable "Grunge" bands such as Tad, and Nirvanna. He and his second band (Big Black) also can be found on various Seattle comps- escpecially noted, the Sub Pop 100 comp.- R

If all that can be incorporated into the original text, I have no objection to putting it back in the article. The point is that, with Wikipedia's "Show, don't tell" policy, we have to *show* that Missoula had a hand in the birth of grunge -- just stating it out-of-hand is not particularly helpful. mb 04:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can put together for it.- R

How about, instead of "is often regarded as the 'true' birthplace," (either it's true or it's false, putting 'true' in quotes seems vague to me) we say something like, "played an important role in the birth of." mb 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That wording I like better. It doesn't take sides in the debate, but does acknowlege that without a doubt, the Missoula scene played a key role. Will change it. If there is any objections, please let me know 21:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)~~

The beginning of the important sentence there was phrased a bit awkwardly, so I have rewritten it. Please check to make sure that you're still okay with the meaning (or edit it some more -- it still sounds a little awkward to my ears). mb 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I'll read it over the next couple of days to make sure it looks acurate. Rsm99833 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Denny Washington

Who is Denny Washington, and why is he listed? If no information aside from the vanity link placed in the body of the text, I'm going to remove it.Rsm99833 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved him to the 'notables' list because if David Lynch doesn't get a separate line then Denny Washington definitely shouldn't either. I would have no problem removing him from the list entirely, though. mb 04:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Washington. Hyacinth 08:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So he has a lot of money. I've looked over his biography. Why should he be of note? He really hasn't done anything of note. To be honest, the link to his biography also stands the chance of being deleted. If he has any notable contibutions please make them clear. Rsm99833

No further discussion: removed link. mb 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Missoula Bands

It seems that The Volumenn and The International Playboys keep getting listed as being "leaders of the music scene" in Missoula. And no doubt, I do love these two bands. However, I must give question as if they are the "leaders" or even if they should be included. Rsm99833

Who are the leaders then? Or the most famous or well known or the most prolific or the most frequent performers? Hyacinth 09:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if we could get definitive answers to those questions, it's not clear to me that they would be worthy of inclusion. We're not including the leading or most famous Missoula restaurants... mb 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Like I said, I enjoy them a lot. However, the title of "leaders" is really POV. Rsm99833

Look at other cities and see what they list. Great Falls has a list of notable people who have lived there. There's nothing wrong with listing local celebrities or local bands - they are what make a town what it is. With Missoula's rich music community, I think its only fair to note them somewhere in the listing. They are undoubtedly the most prolific AND the most frequent performers and deserve to be here. Why is it such an issue to remove them, yet leave information about other bands (Silkworm) that are no longer an active part of the Missoula scene? When I think of Missoula, I think of its brilliant music scene, which IMHO is headlined by the aforementioned bands. I implore you to keep this information, as it IS valid and important to a lot of Missoulians (and ex-Missoulians, such as myself). --Binder

"Look at other cities and see what they list. Great Falls has a list of notable people who have lived there." Yes, I've looked over the page. And frankly, thiose people are of considerable notation outside of Great Falls. The bands that you keep listing are not very well-known outside of Missoula. The reference to Silkworm was to demonstrate the importance of the contributions that Missoula has made to the Grunge movement. This previously noted, this is well documented and the point of the entry itself. As per listing the other bands, I ask do they meet the criteria found here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC Perhaps a new section, or a listing in wiki travel would be appropriate. Rsm9983323:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Colin wants his minor indy band to be listed as part of the Missoula Scene. Personally, I've never heard of him, his band, or ever seen them. But that doesn't mean much. Just that some guy in Portland keeps coming in and writing up his band and himself n such a was that is very POV. The music part, it could be a lot better, and done with a lot more care. But by the same token, I do question if it even belongs here, or over in Wiki travel. Discussion has been re-opened Rsm99833

I agree. The local band stuff that was just removed did not belong here.event 16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't the lead singers of both The Decembrists and Modest Mouse have Missoula ties?

American Nazi Party in Missoula

Did a google search and did not find Missoula being a headquarters for the American Nazi Party. And while Matthew Hale attempted to establish himself in Missoula, it quickly failed. I will confirm that the IWW was and is established in Missoula.

My mistake -- the World Church of the Creator (Hale's group) is a hate group, but they are not Nazis. I have changed the wording. I think it is important to leave this comment in (in some form) both because this article is so shallow on Missoula history, and because there are so few negatives listed about the city that the omission borders on non-NPOV. event 06:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would consider a re-wording. Hale's group did not last very long, and was not well-recieved. More to the point, they were actually headquartered outside of Missoula on St Regis, and not in Missoula proper. Rsm99833

---

The IWW is a radical labor union with anarchist/socialist leanings. They are not racists or neo-Nazis. I deleted the 'fact' that the IWW is "a branch of The World Church of The Creator". This was either a case of vandalism or unbelievable ignorance.

---vince

I restored the edit, but added the previously deleted "And" to the sentence. Rsm99833 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

I grew up in Missoula and saw firsthand the constant battle between the University types and the loggers during the '60s and '70s - when I came across this Wikipedia entry it was so heavily slanted liberal/progressive that you would never believe that the majority of the town were blue collar hunter/fishers/outdoorsmen. I've been back numerous times since leaving - Missoula hasn't changed that much; it is still an US versus THEM town with the University taking the same elitist position as it did 30 years ago.

Similarly, all the liberal/progessive institutions were listed in laudible terms while anything contrary to UM interests was represented as extremist and marginalized.

POV entries need to be deleted or made neutral

Actually they need to be made neutral. Being biased is not a deletion criteria. See the table "Problems that don't require deletion" onWikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category.

What "laudible" terms do you recommend removing. What groups with interests contrary to liberalism or the University's do you suggest be added?Hyacinth 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the political dynamic in Missoula is an interesting angle, and should be included. However, from the current listings in the "Politics" section, one would believe that there is no conservative presence in Missoula. The entire entry seems to me to be authored by one who is intentionally championing an extreme leftist political point of view to the exclusion of all else. Missoula may have a significant Democrat majority in its electorate, but Democrats are not automatically liberals. It is plain that a scholarly and balanced approach would include a broader representation of the political spectrum, while still acknowledging that Missoula is and has traditionally been a "liberal college town."VanBrigglePottery 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You know this is a liberal town when they have "Dick Chenney is Watching You" printed on the sidewalk. Amusing town, but filled with alot of drugs and anti-Bush stuff in almost every store.--aviper2k7 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fly Missoula

The link is not an official link. In case you missed it, there's the answer to your quuestion that was placed in the help desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk)

Indeed. Wikipedia isn't here to give free advertising for your site. Stop posting it. event 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The hippie movement of the 70's

Is there any reason this particular part of the article is present? Missoula wasn't really a notable place as far as hippies go, and there certainly were not a lot of them in the 70's. If there's no objections, I'll remove it on Friday. Rsm99833 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Missoula has certainly had a history of tension between the liberal politics coming out of the UM and the more conservative views of the blue collar workers in the area. It is appropriate for some mention of this to be made in the article. I agree that the way it is presented now (hippies vs. loggers) is not that great, so I think it's fine to delete until we come up with a better way to say it. Perhaps the sentiment should be moved to the Politics section. event 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

By "politics" section, I presume you mean the leftist propaganda section masquerading as a politics section? Let's be honest. This piece is authored mainly by an extreme leftist ideologue who is relentlessly pushing a narrow, fringe political point of view, and using this entry to do it. The neutral scholarly entries in this piece are few and far between, and the skewed political and personal ax grinding are so blatant as to be offensive. VanBrigglePottery 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

In recent weeks, a large number of commercial or semi-commercial links have been added to this entry. They seem less encyclopedic and more about advertising. Examples include the list of every single radio or television station in Missoula, a lot of the organizations listed under 'Politics', the list of Missoula breweries, the link to the Missoula Footbag Alliance, and so on. Perhaps we could discuss whether these belong in this article, and remove them if they don't. event 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to clean that up, but haven't had the time. But yeah, I would remove at least 2/3 of the new listings. There really isn't a need for them.Rsm99833 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. event 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed USCOTW

I've removed U.S. Collaboration of the Week template. This page is for talk about the article concerning Missoula, Montana only. See WP:USCOTWto nominate or vote on articles for U.S. Collaboration of the Week.--Ltvine 00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics section

The point of view that Missoula is a hotbed of radical leftist politics is certainly well represented here, however, it's the only point of view represented. this is not NPOV Dlabtot 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section. In its current state, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. A section entitled "Politics" should not consist solely of a random list of companies and foundations. I think that it needs a serious rewrite before it can be put back up. For reference, here is a copy of the section as it stood:

Missoula's mayor and city council are nominated and elected on a non-partisan basis. Missoula holds a yearly Hemp Festival, and NORML'sstate office is in Missoula. Other organizations that call Missoula home include the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center, the Boone and Crockett Club,Working for Equality and Economic Liberation (a low-income and welfare advocacy group), the Shooting Sports Association and the Western Montana Gay & Lesbian Community Center. On November 7th, 2006, Missoula voters passed Initiative 2, which makes marijuana offenses law enforcement's lowest priority in Missoula County. The initiative passed with 54% of the vote. Controversy followed when the County Commission subsequently amended the Initiative, based in part on "County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg's position that a 'gut feeling' led him to conclude Missoula's electorate misinterpreted the ballot language."

Vintage2 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out Yes, Missoula, there are conservatives in these parts,Missoulian.com and Another Voice of Conservative Reason. Hyacinth (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents

How notable do you have to be to be on this list? Do all these entries meet those criteria? How many are cited to WP:reliable sources? I propose dropping this section altogether. Those of sufficient note can be mentioned in the History section. Dlabtot 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That section is getting ridiculous. Vintage2 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What about these three?

• David Lynch was born in Missoula, Montana on January 20, 1946. (Missoula, Montana/Archive 1 at the Internet Movie Database)
• Dana Carvey was born in Missoula, Montana (Filmreference.com)
• Jeff Ament went on to college at the University of Montana in Missoula, where he studied art and played basketball.("The Sky I Scrape: Pearl Jam FAQ". theskyiscrape.com.)(Heaney, John."Meet: Jeff Ament: Pearl Jam's Ament Plays for Love of Game". Missoulian.January 6, 2008.)

Hyacinth (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Famous_Residents. Vintage2 (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I came up with three names that fit the criteria originally given (WP:reliable sources), and now I'm given new criteria...so

First, if I come up with three names that fit the new criteria (Wikipedia:Famous Residents) will you just find new criteria?

Secondly, since its not a guideline, what am I supposed to do with those opinions? Hyacinth (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

David Lynch, Dana Carvey and Jeff Ament are not really significant or notable in the context of Missoula. Simply having been born here or going to school here doesn't seem particularly relevant. For example, adding Lynch to the 'arts' section makes no sense because he has never been involved in the arts scene in Missoula in any way. Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A notable residents section is entirely standard; and contrary to the essay, it's normal to list residents. There are two common ways of doing this:

• Listing anyone and everyone that would qualify as (1) a current or former resident, and (2) notable
• Linking to a list of residents (for example, List of people from Cincinnati) and giving a few well-known examples

As there's currently no List of people from Missoula, Montana, it's only appropriate to have a list of all people. Given the length of the section, it would be more reasonable to have a separate page; but we need to have a listing of Missoula residents in some article or another. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've put it into two columns to save a little space. Mfield (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would we have an encyclopedia entry that says, to pick just one example, that Jesse Tyler Ferguson is a resident of Missoula, when in fact, he is not a resident of Missoula? Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Category:People_from_Missoula,_Montana Dlabtot(talk) 19:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen by the discussion here, this section has a history which should be considered before attempting to reinstate it. Those wishing to include this information in Wikipedia should incorporate it in the correct location. It is not valid content for this article. Vintage2 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's very commonplace to have a famous residents section, hence the WP:Famous Residents, I agree it can be in another place, but the correct way to do that without losing content is to make sure all the entires are in the other place BEFORE removing them from this article, and then to provide a clear link in this article to where they are located, not just to summarily remove them whilst telling people in your edit summary to put them in another place. They were here originally so they should have been relocated correctly in the first place. Let's do that this time.Mfield (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, content is never "lost". If you want this information to be on Wikipedia, then by all means, go for it. But put it in the right place. This article is not the right place. It has already been removed after considerable discussion -- please be respectful of the article history. Vintage2 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember: lists and categories can exist together, and with notable residents it's typical (at least in cases where there are enough residents that people don't want to list them all on the city article) to create a list of residents. As far as Dlabtot's objection about Ferguson: the standard practice is to include both current and former residents — for this reason, Beloit, Kansas includes both Gene Keady (dead) andWaldo McBurney (now living in Quinter, five counties away). Removing the section is against very broad consensus, and there's no reason that Missoula should be any different. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, just because another article has errors in it that you know of, is not a reason to duplicate those errors here.Dlabtot (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If is going to be in another place is has to have an obvious link from this article. Any editor that comes along is not going to know about any prior discussion and shouldn't have to search though it to find out why a standard section does not exist. At the very least there should be a==Famous residents== section with basic link to the category in it as that is the first place where people will look.Mfield (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A '#See_also' section would be the appropriate place. e.g. Cincinnati#See_also. Dlabtot (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at this layout page, which provides for either a full list when there aren't a ton of people, or a short list with a link to a full list special article when there are lots of people. Of course, there's nothing wrong with having it in a See also section, but there's definitely nothing wrong with following the Cities wikiproject layout (after all, Youngstowndoesn't have it in the See also). Finally, note that Beloit is laid out according to the standard format — definitely not an error. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if the Beloit articles says that Waldo McBurney is a resident, but reliable sources say that he resides somewhere else, I'd call that an error. Your assertion that it is not an error is duly noted. Dlabtot (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire point of the section is not simply to list current residents: it's meant to list former residents as well. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

According to whom? WP:Famous Residents doesn't seem to agree, it lists as a necessary criteria: " Significance to the location. The person's notability must derive from the location OR the person must have derived the basis for their notability in that location OR the person must hold some significance to the location in general. " Dlabtot (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "Famous residents" section that links to the category page. I was making this change when Mfield reverted my earlier change, so I was unable to commit it. Vintage2 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting the link in is fine but please make sure the extra names are all in the category before you remove the entire list, else they the remainder will get 'lost'. Sure they are in the old versions but no one else can be expected to know to look for them there. The constructive thing is to add them all to the category first. Alternatively, remove all the ones that are in the category from this page and leave the ones that aren't until someone gets around to making sure they are all in there. Mfield (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do we see anything about "Famous residents" (which is supposed to be notable; notability is a strong standard, unlike fame), especially linking to a category page? All I've proposed, and all I've seen Mfield propose, is a link to a separate list article. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A list article is certainly preferable as it can be properly wikilinked unlike a category page. Mfield (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have created the article, per the same format as used by other cities. It needs breaking into sections ideally - i.e. Former, Current, Musicians, Artists etc. I have linked it off a notable residents section as I think that is more obvious, preferable and more common that it being in See Also. Mfield (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Results of moving

Now that the situation has been resolved pleasantly by Mfield's creation of a new page, it would be reasonable to follow a common format by including a few people from that list to serve as representatives. I propose that we list five persons (nice small number) as representative of the list. If we go with my idea, we'll have a section laid out as follows:

==Notable natives and residents==
{{Main|List of people from Missoula, Montana}}
Some of Missoula's leading residents have included the following:
*[name 1]
*[name 2]
*[name 3]
*[name 4]
*[name 5]

I've renamed the list article, by the way, to put in line with the rest of the articles in Category:Lists of people by U.S. cities. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, it will just lead to endless, pointless discussions about which 5 people should be listed, why only 5, and similar questions ad nauseum. The point of linking to another page that consists entirely of a list is that it is not subject to this limitation - it can grow as large as it needs to, without overburdening the parent page. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Although most cities simply give a list, it has been done successfully this way before: see Hartford, Connecticut and Austin, Texas. After all, we've only had about five editors involved on the talk page discussion today, and going with a few people might not be that difficult. For example, I don't think we could dispute that Jeannette Rankin and Joseph M. Dixon (first woman in Congress and a Montana governor respectively) were significantly more important than many of the other notable people; and if we added a few cultural people, it wouldn't be that hard to maintain. If we could come to a consensus, it would be reasonable to place a hidden message on the article, saying something like "don't add more people here". Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Jeannette Rankin is already in the article. As are most of the most notable people in the history of Missoula. I don't see what it would add to the article to list her a second time. Joseph M. Dixon, as a Montana Governor, is certainly notable, however, I don't see how this article is improved by listing him here. I disagree with this proposal for the reasons that I have already given. I suggest you look back through the article history so you can see how many entirely random, non-notable, and/or not relevant to Missoula entries have been added to this list over the course of time. There is no point in placing a 'hidden message' because we have no right to assert ownership or issue commands to other editors -consensus is subject to change. If there had been a hidden message stating "don't re-add the list of Notable Residents", would it have stopped you?Dlabtot (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Dlabtot, you can't decide where the limits are and there's no objective measure of notability so just link to the list and list them all there. Mfield (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 75.175.253.129 (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, whatever, it's definitely not a big deal :-) As far as the current format, though: except for Youngstown, I don't see any FA city articles for the USA that have a notable people section consisting only of the link to the other article—it just seems rather small for a good section. If we aren't going to list a few leading people, I think it would be more sensible to convert the "Notable residents" header to a "See also" header and move it to the appropriate place for See also sections: just above the references. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

International Choral Festival

Please add info on the International Choral Festival. I don't live anywhere near there, so I'll let someone who does do it. I've added an External Link for it at the end of the article. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Missoula economy: logging vs. tourism

I don't object to having a connecting sentence, even though one is unnecessary. What I do object to is the insertion into the article of assertions that are unsupported by reliable sources and also happen to be false. I am not interested in edit warring so for now I will just tag the sentence. But you will have to find a reliable source to verify the statement or it will eventually be removed again. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That sentence just summarizes its preceding paragraph and the following sentence. How you can object to this sentence without objecting to the remaining context? If there are problems in the surrounding context then please address your concerns there, and this sentence can easily be adjusted accordingly. 160.39.202.221 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If you want to article to say that the tourist industry has supplanted or replaced the logging industry in Missoula, find a reliable source that supports this statement. The burden is on you to support your addition with a citation to a reliable, published source. Dlabtot (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding -- I do not intend to imply causality. The point is that the logging industry is not what it once was (I don't think this is controversial, and it is taken directly from the previous paragraph) and that tourism has grown. If you think the current phrasing implies a causal relationship (again, not intended), then maybe you could suggest some other wording. 160.39.202.221 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the logging industry is not what it once was and that tourism has grown. - If you can find a source that supports your statement, and some connection between the alleged growth of tourism and the decline of logging, fine. Otherwise, it will be removed. If what you believe to be true, is in fact, true, you shouldn't have any problem finding a citation to support it. But if you do the research I think you will actually find that the statistics don't support this. From where did you get the idea that the tourism industry is big in Missoula?Dlabtot (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, no causal (connected or related) link between tourism and logging is intended. This is simply a statement that one fell and the other grew. Futher, there is no claim that tourism is "big", only that it has grown. This is easily supported, e.g.,http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/ParksRec/Current%20Projects/05-10-26%20Aquatics%20Timeline/4-23-04%20SandPbondrate.pdf160.39.202.221 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The burden is on you to support your addition with a citation to a reliable, published source. There's no point in arguing about it, and I don't intend to be baited into further pointless argument about it; Wikipedia policy is clear. Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3