Talk:Missouri/Archive 2

Remove largest metro area

(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.

For older comments, see /Archive.

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)

Nicknames

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

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

This is close, but they don't explain where they got the name: [1] [2] --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[3] 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 dumb areas than in city areas, but far from exclusively in either case. Publius3 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Largest Metro Area

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)

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.