Talk:History of Montana

Untitled

This history article and the Montana history section really need to be fixed up. WIth a History of Montana article, there should really not be much said in the Montana history section except a 'see history article' reference. Then we can concentate on 1 history article, which does seem to need a lot more content. Thanks Hmains 17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? nowhere i found the least information about mining pollution that is supposed to be a major problem in montana. Even on mining in general there is little information. Or am I looking in all the wrong places? --84.159.152.8 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

This wiki would benefit greatly from a listing of Montana Counties and the dates they were added to the Territory/State. (written by 209.161.59.238 - moved here from article by Geologyguy 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Revision

Rj, nice work! Great sourcing! Mike, too! I did some minor assorted cleanup, rearranged some sections, restored the indian stuff (it's now balanced by everything else and it IS significant). I also threw in some hidden text here and there to either let others know why I made a particular edit or to suggest where some material could be added/changed/improved. I'm afraid that I don't have a lot of time to put in over here, but I'll keep an eye on the project and throw in my two bits. Some of the old material was so bad it was scary! Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the comments. I live in Billings and have been reading Montana for years so it seems time to do some writing, esp using all those back issues. I suggest that material that is only tangential to Montana be minimized (like the details of the Lousisiana Purchase and Indian tribes who were not based in Montana).Rjensen (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The historical society mag is a dandy. I have assorted scattered back issues in a box in my garage somewhere that I've been thinking about taking back up to the society one of these days, but never get around to it. In Billings, you have access to some good resources on natural resource development history, also. As for "tangential," there is a lot of room for definition there, and I favor a fairly broad overview here, but in any case, the role of the Sioux, Shoshone, and Arapaho is far from "tangential." These tribes were, at times, "based" in Montana, they just didn't wind up with a reservation here when the lines were drawn. I think LA purchase bit here is only two paragraphs and I have no beef with streamlined language, but given that it is why we have a state in the first place, "tangential" is not entirely accurate (and besides, we have that really bad art in the Capitol depicting it as one of the most significant events!) I basically look at whether the topics are to be included in the major modern works on Montana history, (Such as Malone and Roeder) and including the teaching materials used throughout the state. Things like the Nez Perce war were unquestionably considered significant. We got "I will fight no more forever" from about 4th grade on here.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had some contact with the Crow and Cheyenne Indians who have large reservations near Billings. We need more on them, and indeed we should cover all of the state's main tribes. But the Nez Perce did not live in Montana, --Chief Joseph was chased across the state and captured as he tried to reach Canada. A mention of one sentence should cover that episode. As for the extremely famous Battle of the Little Big Horn, it is very well covered in other articles in Wikipedia, not to mention the vast popular literature. I would guess there are more books on this battle than on the Korean War and the Spanish and Mexican wars combined. It had a great national symbolic importance, but not an especially a big one in Montana. Of our readers are best served, I believe, by referring them to Wikipedia's full coverage rather than an all too brief paragraph.Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we may be able to chop some on the Little Bighorn, but I feel pretty strongly that something has to be there, and there must be a balance preserved between white and Indian contributions (the earlier chop cut mostly Indian stuff). I must gently dispute your statement that it had "not an especially big influence" in Montana... we certainly teach it in Montana history. I'm not huge on recounting every battle that occurred in Montana, but we probably also need to add a bit on Red Cloud's War too. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the native American stuff, peek at the reformatting I did in that section. I chopped some of the stuff on the Crow and tried to balance out the others a little bit. There are major articles on each of the tribes already on wiki, and THEY also need improvement (in some cases, desperately). I have a short blurb on each of the reservation tribes, and there is some room for improvement there. But to only discuss the ones lucky enough to land a reservation within the state is not historically accurate nor justifiable. In particular, I'll go to the mat for keeping the Nez Perce, you cannot underestimate the impact of the Battle of the Big Hole, which is a national battlefield in Montana, and the reality that their epic journey took place primarily in Montana. It is of particular interest to people up on the hi-line, and it would be utter neglect, to say nothing of WP:OR to dismiss this significant event in a sentence. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're on the Indian Wars, it might be worth adding something on the Marias Massacre. That action more or less single-handedly torpedoed the Army's attempt to gain control of Indian policy and led to Grant's Peace Policy. It's not covered as much as perhaps it should be, but its long-term impact was certainly large.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Follow-on to good work here

I've created Notable figures in Montana history to capture the work already included in this article and as a means to expand coverage of individuals involved in Montana history. Please add more notable individuals that have contributed to the state's history. I know I have a bunch to include.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe do a rename "List of notable figures..." I don't know if other states have something similar or not(?). And please DO add a "see also" in the article? Technically, I suppose the wikigods want us to use the categories for this, but I personally like your list. Of course, we also have a "notable residents" section for every town too... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Montanabw - The List of title is not necesssary. A deep and contraversial debate has raged about lists and the details thereof permit the creation of lists that aren't entitled List of.... Glad you like it. Lots of room for expansion. My personal goal is that Montana sets the example for WP coverage of a state. Lots of work to do.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

it's a great start! some suggestions (since we have full length articles on these people): do not include exact date of birth; avoid too much linking. I made some small changes along these lines to late 19th c section. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me what it's called, main thing is cross-linking and making it something that can be found. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Been meaning to compile this for a long time and the new revisions to this article provided a good excuse. Bibliography of Montana history - Lots to add, but its a start.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No section on Flathead/Montana Salish?

The history section on the peoples in this article doesn't seem to mention the Montana Salish. babbage (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add something. The overall article is weak and haphazard. All the tribal stuff is a bit weak. Someday, someone will no doubt have the time and energy to class it up, but in the meantime, I see no problem adding small, nicely-sourced sections on things that are missing. Find some good sources and go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

recent trends section

The recent trends section needs to be completely rewritten or better yet just gotten rid of. It is mostly original research and has little to do with history.

Linda Rider (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

that's not a very helpful analysis. Everything is sourced, there is no OR. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And Rj just did some good, solid updating. Remember: When in doubt, footnotes help! Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

“Since the 1970s, the western third of the state has grown and attracted tourists, retirees, and up-scale part-time residents seeking spectacular mountain scenery as well as an interest in outdoor recreational activities, including hiking, hunting and fishing.” Come on this is nothing more than opinion with a citation to a 2003 book by Pat Williams. Maybe what has happened more recently is what should be talked about in a section titled RECENT TRENDS! “Simultaneously the shift to a postmodern service economy” I am so tired of the misuse of postmodernism. If we were talking art or architecture postmodern would be fine and yes maybe postmodern could be loosely used here but in this case Post-industrial society would be far more appropriate. “has led to growth in service-oriented cities such as Billings” Billings does have a large service oriented sector in its economy but it also has a very diverse economy. Saying Billings ecomomy is a service oriented economy is like saying Missoula is nothing more than a college which is stated in this section also “and in the western half, Missoula (with higher education)”. “Cities such as Bozeman and Kalispell saw significant growth related to tourism.” Really? I think there was a lot more to the growth of both of these cities than tourism. It is also a little hard to assume good faith with statements like “Meanwhile, the populations of older mining centers such as Butte and Anaconda shrunk.” And “Most of the small towns in the eastern half of the state steadily lost population as younger people move out” all of the citations may be legitimate all be it difficult to source but most are not recent and lets not forget the sections title RECENT TRENDS.

Linda Rider (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Linda here. Although the sources cited may actually support the content of the section, its the section heading that confuses the issues. As it reads, recent starts with 1970. That's 40+ years ago. One could argue that with the exception of the Bakkan oil stuff, all the trends mentioned were happening throughout the 20th century, throughout Montana just with different vectors and velocity. It reads like these trends are hard and fast truths that are just coming to light, when in fact they are a random grouping of content that implies a specific trend supported by underlying scientically analyzed evidence. We know thats not the case. Its is a subtle, but no less, a form of OR. In an article entitled Demographic history of Montana, this content might be more palatable. A history article such as this ought to be about the significant events that occurred over the course of time in the state. I'd rather see the ideas (and facts) contained in this section either incorporated into appropriate event sections or condensed down to a much more objective, less opinionated couple of sentences.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The topics covered are standard in the RS they are indeed " about the significant events that occurred over the course of time in the state." there is no original research; every point is sourced to reliable sources. The decline of rural eastern Mt is well known and fully sourced--it's a major event unfolding over recent decades. And yes, historians use "recent" to cover the last 40 or 50 years, as in textbooks, for example. What's missing from the sour commentary of Linda Rider and Mike Cline is a sense of what reliable sources THEY are basing their opinions on. They don't seem to like history books (like Pat Williams) or the reports of sociologists and economists at the state universities. What they DO like is a mystery. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a need to refine and clean up the material a bit (probably needed) and a wholesale bashing of the content. The west is growing, the east, other than for occasional natural resource booms, is shrinking. Tourism is a major driver, because it sure as heck isn't manufacturing. To claim that Butte and Anaconda aren't ghosts of their former selves is to be blind to history since about 1980 when ARCO shut down the Anaconda Copper Company. So while the statements may be a bit broad and sloppy, they aren't that far off. The sourced material may need to be tightened up a bit and correlated closer to the source itself, but Pat Williams happens to be a former member of Congress, a fellow of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana, has a program on Montana Public Radio, and is generally an unimpeachable source. The reality of the Bakken Shale is "second verse, same as the first." There also was a oil boom in that part of eastern Montana in the late 70s and into the 80s, then a bust. Now we are in a boom again, and it will inevitably be a bust again in a few more years, the boom-bust cycle of Montana natural resource extraction is a core feature of the state's history. The material is essentially on point, if with sloppy correlation -- the towns and west-of-the-divide communities that are attractive to tourists are still growing, just not at rocket speed like they used to -- the economic downturn has an impact; and in the meantime, places like Terry or Glasgow are still slowly dying. (But so are a lot of smaller communities in the central and western part of the state) The appropriate way to handle this is to improve sourcing, rephrase the fuzzy stuff, and just add a bit on the current situation with the latest boom, but with an understanding that there is a long-term cycle to all this. Most of all, watch WP:UNDUE. A bunch of roughnecks in Sidney that will be gone with the bust do not a long-term trend make. We've seen it before. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana issue

The marijuana issue was the top news story in Montana in both 2010 and 2011, says the cites stories by the Associate Press. It received heavy coverage in the stat's newspapers and TV statkions, in the legislature and in discussions. That makes it notable. Montanabw says it was not notable but has no evidence whatever. Montanabw also gets his facts wrong --he is unaware that the governor vetoed a key bill in April 2011, although that was front page headlibnes in every paper, such as Billings Gazette It said, "Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday vetoed the bill that would have repealed Montana's medical marijuana law, calling it draconian and contrary to the will of the state voters who approved it in 2004. Schweitzer pointed to the 2004 medical marijuana ballot initiative, which 62 percent of Montana voters approved." Likewise see Bozeman Chronicle. Wiki's job is to report on the major events, as determined by the RS -- in this case the editors and reporters of the state's major news sources. By contrast Montanabw is erasing sourced material based on his own private POV. Rjensen (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I happen to live in the state and do know the local news, which I read daily. The material was presented in a form that was not entirely accurate. I have no "private POV" (if you think I do, prove it) and would appreciate a bit of AGF and no personal attacks. The Gov vetoed the outright repeal, but the legislature then DID pass a fairly draconian set of restrictions and limitations on the existing law, (which included provisions like allowing Med MJ to be grown by "caregivers" but they can't sell it for a profit) which was appealed the the First Judicial District Court, where the judge suspended some of the law pending further litigation and the whole situation is currently in complete disarray. And of course, the feds are being the feds. So the material added failed to tell the whole story in its complete context, plus it parroted the AP wording so closely as to almost constitute a copyvio. Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The bigger point, however, is that when one looks at 100+ years of Montana history, the medicinal MJ issue is a temporary one, and though notable at the moment, I don't really think it's yet of historical importance, particularly when there is also medicinal MJ issues in other states and the issue is actually one of national interest, not simply that of Montana. It would be equivalent of discussing Montana's views of, say, the Gold Standard in 1900. Yes, it's a big story right now. But it has to be viewed in light of national trends toward decriminalization of MJ & Med MJ nationally. At most, it is worth a sentence or two of "current state issues" and not a huge paragraph equal to that of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. That's my other concern. I'm all for drafting up maybe a couple sentences that can be placed within a general section of current trends that may or may not be of historical significance. But really, this is more current politics than historic. If med MJ is legalized nationally and Montana can be shown to have led the charge, then I'd be fine with a discussion, just like we have for, say, Jeannette Rankin. You want a current issue of historic import, look at our 1912 political reforms that are currently (probably) on their way to the US Supreme Court because the Montana Supreme Court, just yesterday, handed down a 5-2 decision that directly challenged the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

the question of what is an important topic is decided by the RS -- in this case the news editors and reporters of the major papers and TV stations, who decided it was the #1 story and who gave it very extensive coverage. The governor and legislature were heavily involved. Every city was affected. This is rather more central to what it means to be Montana than various Indian battles that merely happened to be fought in this territory by out-of-state forces. Montanabw bases his position on his personal speculation about the future--he thinks that decades from now it will not be important. That's speculation forbidden by wp:crystal ball rules. As for national import ("But it has to be viewed in light of national trends") that is not a criteria for state history. It what actually happened here that involved many Montanans. At one point there were 10 pot shops per 2500 people--amazing! Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

here is the WP:Ball rule that forbids speculation about the future: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." Montanabw has provided zero RS to support his position. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You just made my point, you are calling medicinal pot "historic" when we have no clue if it will be a dead issue by next year. You also copied the AP almost verbatim, which is a no-no. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with the inclusion of the marijuana section. It is a recent trend. I think the recent trends section needs more recent trends. The lead of the section talks about the increase in of population in the western part of the state in the 1970’s, not really a resent trend. With northwestern Montana in decline the rise of the eastern edge of the state as one of the hottest job markets in the nation seems a touch more recent to me.

I do however object to the words “Pot Shops” that looks a bit biased. The Lee enterprise newspapers in the state often used words like “medical pot” hard to believe a news agency can be so blatantly biased.

Anyway I think it’s fine to have in the recent trends section, maybe just a little streamlining. Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that a current event is not "history", but I'll streamline. I agree that if we must have this section, then let's add more stuff that's a recent trend (such as the campaign finance issue, which is a big deal, or maybe fracking, the Otter Creak lease issue, or the XL pipeline, which are quite controversial) I still think the whole thing is not yet historic, being in a newspaper does not make instant history ... Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree, if this is going to be a recent trends section it should have things like the XL pipeline and the Exxonmobil oil spill. I would consider doing the work but i really don't think the section even belongs on a history page. Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the pot issue notable in and of itself? Yes. However, per what's on the page at the moment, it's not even ten years old (since 2004). The other two trends in that section are decades long in the making. Therefore the pot issue being included seems out of proportion and is being given undue weight, so it should be removed. And including an oil spill? That's news but not a trend. It seems some what to make this a recent news section. That's not a trend, a trend is something long term like the loss of people in the eastern part of the state. Start a separate article on this other stuff. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In my view, I agree with many of the above sentiments that the Recent Trends section is not very well concieved. There are just too many things that could be could be considered a trend. History of anything is always trending one way or the other. On the MJ issue, the fact that MT passed a Medical MJ law might be considered an historic event, but all the details that follow that should be relegated to another article. It would indeed be interesting to see if the editor(s) promoting this content could actually find sufficient sources and content prove this topic notable and create a separate article. That could be linked here to one or two sentences and we'd all be happier. By contrast, Montanans and wealthy property owners have been battling over stream access rights for 30+ years. Landmark legislation has been passed, fought in court, and the battles continue, yet the Montana Stream Access Law is not even mentioned in the article. Just one example of the countless potential historic trends that could be included but aren't. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments that "trends" is misleading because it suggest the trend will continue in the future, which is speculation discouraged by wp:ball. so I changed it to "Montana since 1970". Mike Cline is right that stream access issues are important, and he should add that point to the article.Rjensen (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask why? Why Montana since 1970? was that some earth shattering date? why not Montana since 1950 or Montana since 2000? why 1970? If that is the intended section header i am thinking this section should just be deleted.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

the 1970 period is about where the textbooks leave off, and also marks an important economic date re oil & coal & tourism. (oil and coal prices tripled and changed the state's economy). big mines shut down about then and the RR industry changed as well. Environmentalism first became important about then. Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary! You haven't been checking up much on what's new, then. (Among other things, a whole new constitution was written in 1972, kind of a big deal!) See Bibliography of Montana history, and in particular, Malone, Michael P.; Roeder, Richard B.; Lang, William L. (1991). Montana-A History of Two Centuries. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295971290., the standard scholarly history. Even K. Ross Toole updated his work to encompass the decade of the 70s before he died. Also note Wm Lang's Montana, Our Land and People, published in the late 1980s, which was a textbook until the Montana Historical Society's new school textbook came out in, I think, about 2007. It is mostly online, with chapters that deal with the 1970s and time periods after 1970, into the 21st century. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think i misphrased it--I meant circa 1970 is considered a turning point by the textbooks, as in the Montana Historical Society textbook, which devotes its last chapter to post 1970. Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That is pretty much POV in my POV that is not true at all but POV is not expectable here.Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very POV and arbitrary. The whole MJ inclusion thing is WP:POINTy. In the scheme of history of a whole state, it's a downright minor point. It should be removed in total or only 2 sentences pointing to a main article. PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My own view is that the rename of the section matches what's in there, which is not much. I am concerned about anything that happened less than 10 years ago being part of a "history" article, but in good faith I stuck in more stuff to at least balance the MJ issue, which, IMHO, is a tempest in a teapot and in the long run, federal drug policy will ultimately decide the outcome for all the states and it isn't at all a significant development in Montana, certainly not when compared to natural resource extraction trends and political stuff . This whole article needs some significant work, but none of us seem to be at a point where we can tackle it properly (I sure don't), so in the meantime, I guess my take is to keep what is in there at least properly sourced and reasonably accurate. If someone wants to move the current stuff to another article, or chop it altogether, I won't cry. Montanabw^(talk) 22:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the marijuana addition is fine the editor supplied appeal citation for that. I think the new header Montana since 1970 makes the whole section seem silly .Why 1970, I know that the statement “the 1970 period is about where the textbooks leave off” is just not factual. Forty years ago, most every citation on this page is from far more recent than that. I say just lose this section it truly is pointless in a history section..Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly support the sudden disappearance of this section. Especially if it allowed editors to focus on the neglected aspects of Montana history from the late 1800s to mid 1930s. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've already tried to make it disappear several times, but was reverted, so now we are at talk. I stopped before someone slapped me with a 3RR, even though the addition is bass-ackward of the usual BRD pattern. So if anyone else wants to make it vanish, it ain't me that done it, but I DO vote support. Someone can start a new article titled Medicinal pot in Montana for all I care. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The addition of fresh material does not in any way stop editors from adding material on earlier periods. We are at 72,000 bytes = about 10,000 words (7 bytes/word), and long article are about twice this long. The environmental movement got started about 1970, and apart from a few references to the Anaconda cleanup it has been ignored. I think Montanabw's corrections to my edit are fine and I liked his summary of current political issues. This makes the article much more useful to readers trying to understand what's going on. (I note that the Montana article is a very dreary compilations of lists with little hint of what has been shaping Montana.) Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The environmental movement started about 1970? So? Why is that so special? The beatnik/hippie movement started in the mid1950s so let's use that instead. This all seems geared to support your pot motive.PumpkinSky talk 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now Soglad tossed it all and I am not about to tangle with Soglad. Someone wake me when that bit is settled. The environmental movement is far older, Lee Metcalf co-sponsored the Wilderness Act in 1964. I'm not arguing for the quality of either article, the task of getting either to GA is quite daunting, but let's at least be careful not to add inaccuracies. The 1972 Constitution does mark a watershed, so it's a good breakpoint, though, as textbooks like round numbers, a break at 1970 isn't horrifying. One could also put the break with the 1968 election of Forrest Anderson who set a lot of this in motion and inaugurated a 20-year unbroken streak of Democratic governors and a swing toward liberal/Democratic dominance of the state. Then there could be another break of 1988-2004 for the opposite reason (Republican domination and a shift in policy and direction reflecting that party's leadership). But the point is that medicinal pot doesn't belong in any of it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

1970 date

I made the argument above that 1970 is a useful approximate dividing line regarding oil, coal, wheat, railroads, tourism & environmentalism ie economic issues. Let me mention as well the new constitution on 1972. The Montana Historical Society uses 1970] as a dividing line. Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So? Still seems arbitrary to me. The first whites settling is a major thing, as is WWII, BTW -why is railroading not in business section? Why aren't asians and hispanics mentioned? This article is a mess. Recent trends should be scrapped, there's no long term historical significance to them. PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They use 1970 as one of three different dates from Part IV of the linked work (The Modern Montana is the section title, and each chapter in that part uses a different significant date or date range). If you're sweaty for a date, 1972 would be better because of the new state constitution. That's a significant historical event. Is there something in 1970 that would carry equal weight?Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1972 is OK with me. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not worth fighting over given that the whole article is a mess and needs a massive rewrite anyway. Title it "invasion from Mars" for all I care. All I really think for now is that the Medicinal pot section is completely irrelevant and I'm frustrated. that people who have no real knowledge of Montana history tried to put it in there in the first place (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It may need rewriting, but it doesn't hurt to get some of the outline-type stuff determined beforehand. If we're wanting to follow any sort of historical flow, 1972's constitution is a great example of such a division point. I tend to consider medical marijuana something of a footnote in Montana history. It might have greater significance in an article about marijuana, but its real impact on the history of the state is, I think, small. Certainly nothing compared to Anaconda Copper, for example.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If the current events went back in with a header of 1972 and beyond or something similar, I would not object to that as a logical cutoff date. I still would like to see the medicinal pot stuff go elsewhere (is there a Montana politics page? Definitely would fit there), but I honestly am now beyond caring much at all, have other fish to fry elsewhere. Gotta triage. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally understand. My position would be scrapping the pot stuff (by shoveling it off to an actual medical marijuana page, perhaps). It's more of a national fad/issue, and we're a footnote in that whole thing (and if you disagree, Montana is still small-scale when compared to California or Colorado with the medical pot stuff).Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

On Medical Marijuana -- the Associated press and the Montana news editors state it was the #1 issue in Montana in 2010 and 2011--hundreds of news strories and editorials, with active discussion in legislature. No one can pretend it's an out-of-state issue. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of overall context and historical impact it most certainly is a minor issue. And if you compare medical marijuana in Montana to other states, it's also of a smaller scale. I'm talking historical impact here, not number of stories run by the media. Anna Nicole Smith may be one of the most highly-searched names on the internet, but her historical significance is almost nill. Medical marijuana didn't begin in Montana, and the debate certainly won't end here. And again, I think if you look at it objectively its impact is certainly less than mining's impact, shifting farm prices, or tourism. A link to a main medical marijuana page with a short note that this became an issue in Montana might be appropriate, but from a historical standpoint it's really pushing things to claim more than that.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

other states have declining mining and have farm prices and tourism too, so they do not qualify as Montana topics by Intothatdarkness's odd reasoning. But the bottom line is that there are RS on what is important in Montana and they are the editors and reporters and news directors who make it their profession to discover and report what is going on. Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling my reasoning "odd" doesn't change the basics of historical relevance, which is something divorced from current affairs (which is, after all, business of journalists and the like). But whatever. You seem determined to push your POV here, so go for it. Don't let historical methods or standards bother anything. We all know that Wikistandards trump historical method or standard practice, anyhow.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is that the year's top story, whatever it is, doesn't belong in a "history" article. For example, the 2008 election was the top story in 2008 [1]. Not news that Montana, once again, voted for the republican for prez. Likewise, Medicinal MJ is a current event; we won't know for another 5-10 years if it's "Historic." That's my first, last and only point. I'm tired of this, I've said my piece a half-dozen times now and everyone else can just have at it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we already knows there was a major debate on the issue in 2010 and 2011--no matter what the future brings, that is in the past and is the province of historians. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And if it's in the province of historians, which historians have determined that the story is of major import to the history of Montana? Editors and journalists are not historians (no matter how much some of them may wish they were).Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

well if you're interested I'm a professional historian with a lot of experience in writing state history (for numerous states). :) Intothatdarkness can tell us all about his credentials any time. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to get into that sort of contest, I'm also a published historian. But I still haven't seen anything to indicate that the medical marijuana story in Montana is of lasting or significant historical import. It certainly hasn't had an impact on the state that compares to Anaconda Copper closing (just to name one more modern example) or the Big Die-Up (to go back a bit further).Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Historians do indeed study the question of prohibition of drug use not just in the distant past but the very recent past. See for example, Sarah W. Tracy Caroline Jean Acker, ed. Altering American Consciousness: The History of Alcohol and Drug Use in the United States, 1800-2000 (2004). Intothatdarkness keeps talking about the future--our job here is to write about the past, and the past events of 2010-11 have already been judged important by leading experts in every part of Montana. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's your POV, and you seem determined to press on with it even though others here disagree. So do it. I'm joining Montanabw on the sidelines.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If we even keep the trends section, and include minor stuff like MJ, where do you draw the line? Several articles could be spun on their own from that. PumpkinSky talk 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think I could use some! Is there a wiki-joint template? Will also settle for beer, wine, or even a real good chocolate buzz... Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove recent trends section

• Remove too open to a myriad of things too include but no clear line of demarkation can be drawn due to lack of perspective because the events are too recent...all resulting in making it subject to POV pushing. Should be more like History of Wyoming PumpkinSky talk 03:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

We are required to follow the RS and fact is the historians and historical societies reject this advice and bring their history close to the present. For example, Montana Legacies (published 2002) covers the 1990s and the Malone Montana: A History of Two Centuries" (published 1991) goes up to 1990. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

RS's are not required to be included just because it's an RS. It must also be within scope of the article, etc, so your reasoning is fallacious because that would mean we should include every single RS about MT, which is ludicrous. How many topics in those books aren't in the article? Probably quite a few. So why are so insistent about dope and the section in general? PumpkinSky talk 11:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The History of Wyoming article PumpkinSky wants as a model pretty much ends in 1890. That is not how Mantanans see their history. Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The debate isn't about eliminating the entire 20th century, it's about how much of the 21st century we want to include in an article that is C-Class at best and, overall, isn't very comprehensive or particularly well done and needs a lot of rewrite work and sourcing as it is. And, if we do include the 21st century at all, was the top story of 2011 even history yet? Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

we have much better 20th century history than most state articles, and it is well sourced with over 50 footnotes, most to scholarly sources. No state does a better job that I know of. Montanabw has a knack for rewrites that is much more useful than erasing solid material. Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole point here is there is too much history. The history of pot just isn't that big a deal for wiki article; a comprehensive book yes, but not a wiki article. Is everything in those refs about MT included? no. The setup of WY article is good, not the years covered. This MT article is overdone, and includes too much stuff that just doesn't stack up against government, economics,etc. So if we include pot, why not alcohol, meth, heroin/opium/laugunum etc? We shouldn't and inlcuding pot is a blatant case of WP:UNDUE. Jensen seems to be the only one that cares about this pot issue.PumpkinSky talk 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The people, the editors, the doctors, the reporters, the governor, the TV stations, the legislature and the voters think it's important. Pumpkin however thinks it is not important. Pumpkin can skip right over it, but erasing it penalizes other users who -- as the Associated press says it's the #1 issue for two years-- have a different view--a majority view. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And you're pushing your own POV. If you go back prior to the marijuana debates, I think you'd find meth was a major issue in the state. Why doesn't that have a section just as long (if not longer) than the marijuana section, especially given the national prominence that the "not even once" campaign achieved? Odd that you're not pushing for that, but choose instead to focus on more recent events. I still think the best place for a discussion of medical marijuana in Montana would be in an article dealing specifically with the medical marijuana issue in the United States.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, Jensen has completely ignored that point of your and my postings. A flash in the pan does not warrant an article focused on long term Montana history either. You should start a MT recent trends history article and you have put all this flash in the pan stuff in it your want.PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also violates Wikipedia:Recentism PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki rules require editors follow the RS -- in this case I am following the judgement of the Associated Press editors and reporters who annually get together and make very well educated, sophisticated judgments; they actually vote on these issues. darkorange and Pumpkin refuse to provide any RS to back up their personal views. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do I need to repeat myself? But I will, just because something is in a RS does NOT mean it is wiki notable and should be included in an article. AP does not control wiki. Now for the last time answer the rest of my questions. I( do not need a RS to back my view as I'm relying on wiki policy here, which controls this situation.PumpkinSky talk 00:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The AP is a highly reliable source and it says it's #1 notable issue. darkorange has only his personal views based on no sources he has revealed. Rjensen (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, you could at least bother to get my username right. And you still haven't addressed the meth issue. If you're going to include recent events, you shouldn't cherry-pick. Prior to medical marijuana, meth was THE big issue in the state (and it remains high priority from a law enforcement perspective). The "not even once" campaign was quite controversial when it came out, and was eventually copied by other states. My views on the place of medical marijuana are based on the fact that it's a national issue, not just a Montana issue. Do any of your AP sources say that Montana was the FIRST state to set this sort of policy? If we were not the first, it's perhaps best to shift the bulk of this section to an article dealing with medical marijuana in the United States. This is especially true if Montana's laws are not unique. Since the issue will eventually play out at that level, it makes more sense to put it there. I'm not sure why you refuse to address this aspect of the issue. But, as I've stated before, you seem determined to push your POV on this in the face of points raised by other editors. Falling back on the RS arguement without any other supporting information or acknowledging that there are other ways to deal with this doesn't seem especially helpful or constructive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the AP reports Montana is the first state to try to repeal its medical mar. laws. Intothatdarkness is free to use his unknown RS to write up topics he thinks are important--but he has not told us what they are. Rjensen (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop sounding like a broken record and evading the real issues, answer the questions I've asked.PumpkinSky talk 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on the initial medical marijuana law, not the current repeal effort. As for RS regarding meth (which you still refuse to address), in addition to the Wiki article (which of course isn't an RS) here, we have the Montana Attorney General's report here documenting the issue through 2007, numerous news reports (CBS and the Billings Gazette to name two - based on a Google search of Montana Meth Project), a contrary view here, based in part on this paper, and that's just a small sample. Much of this is national-level attention.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• re: the history of pot in Montana. Could someone give me a diff with the info and a diff without? Is this the section in question? — Ched :  ?  04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Post 1945

Isn't the following out of place in this section? He barely lived past 1945.

• Interpretations:

The newspaperman and author Joseph Kinsey Howard (1906–51) believed Montana and the rural West provided the "last stand against urban technological tedium" for the individual. He fervently believed that small towns of the sort that predominated in Montana provided a democratic bulwark for society. His writings expressed his belief in working to identify and preserve a region's cultural heritage. His history of the state, Montana: High, Wide and Handsome (1943), as well as numerous speeches and magazine articles, were based on his ideals of community awareness and identity, and his hatred of the Anaconda Company. He urged readers to retain an idealistic vision contesting the demands of the modern corporate world. Parkwells (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, before your edit it was its own section, number 15, not a subsection of the post-1945 section, which was section 14. ?? PumpkinSky talk 01:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The impact of Howard's ideas came primarily in the 1943-60 era (yes, after your death your ideas can still be influential). Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but again answer the question "he following out of place in this section", it wasn't in that section.PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

good point--he best fits the section on environmentalism so I moved it there and added new materials and cites explaining his importance. Rjensen (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

References

after looking a bit ...

OK, the first few things I noticed here are that I believe the article needs some major work in the area of copy-editing, and perhaps lay-out. I looked at some of the other "History of" states, and found a couple "Class B" articles that seem to have a good handle on what's the norm.

• History of Wyoming (as suggested)
• History of Texas
• History of Massachusetts
• History of California (and please note the corresponding History of California 1900 to present article as well)

Now, I think that pretty much supports the above thoughts that some of the WP:RECENT info regarding marijuana should be trimmed and forked to something else. OK .. now, right off the bat.

• There is no lead here.
• The Indigenous peoples section is in a bulleted list - should likely be converted to prose, and the start of that section tweaked a bit. (Archeological evidence has shown indigenous peoples lived in the area for thousands of years puts an emphasis on "indigenous people" rather than the "thousands of years". Meaning of course they were indigenous people, let's focus on the "when did they get there aspect".
• the whole "Montana since 1945" section I'm having issues with, especially as the first sentence starts out with Since the 1970s... I'm not saying a paragraph couldn't be worked in, but it would need some work.
• Also wondering if sections: 10 Agricultural history and 11 Business history shouldn't focus on the natural progression of agricultural age and Industrial age.

I'm sure there's plenty more that we could improve on as well, and I'm willing and would enjoy working with you folks; but only if you want to. No skin off my nose if you'd rather I kept out of it. — Ched :  ?  15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

the History of Wyoming article is terrible--it says almost nothing past 1890. as for History of Texas, I can't complain since I was the #2 most active author in it. As for History of Massachusetts, i was the #3 most active author. (as well as #5 in History of California and #1 most active in writing History of California 1900 to present. So that's what experience in writing high quality state history looks like. Ched Davis has some good ideas --the article does need a lede, for example. But he needs to read up on Montana. He recommends "focus on the natural progression of agricultural age and Industrial age" -- that sounds like a textbook on New England but that is not how Montana developed--farming came very late (mostly after 1910) and "industry" was actually mining and refining not factories like they have back East. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I always hate to say an article is terrible, I prefer to think of them as a work in progress.  :) You are however correct in the assumption that I don't know anything about the history of Montana; I bring a complete "outsider's" view to the table in that regard. With respect to "agricultural >> industrial" .. are you saying that the industrial age preceded the agricultural age? I'm thinking in a global "stone age >> agricultural age >> industrial age >> informational age" venue here - but I have no problems if you want to break things down in a different manner. — Ched :  ?  16:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wyoming article needs a LOT of progress. It's based on the belief that Wyoming's true history ends when it became a state in 1890. Lots of people believe that in Wyoming. As for Montana, yes --after small scale fur trapping mining became the first great industry circa 1860--and it's still important (esp in terms of oil & coal--the copper & silver are mostly gone, but we do have a lot of platinum & palladium! (which are used in catalytic converters for autos) Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to look at this coverage of Montana as a means that might inform us as to a better and more comprehensible organization of this article. Its not so much that this is a definitive source of Montana history, but it is well organized around major chronological and thematic periods. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually improving the article

My take is that if we want to improve the article, the best thing is to start with the structure and layout (i.e. crib from the table of contents) from one of the respected history books, either Malone and Roeder or the MHS's new Montana History Textbook (which could be our guide to answer the recentism issue as well -- look at how they handle it). Then cite everything up the wazoo to scholarly sources. Mike Cline has an excellent Bibliography of Montana history already up for all to peruse. So my take is to start by redoing the headings to parallel (maybe not copy but parallel) those of recently published works, then shuffle what's in here into the most suitable section, then start "futzing" with the actual material. One thing that jumps out at me are the awkward little mini-biographies of certain people (Murray, for example) but not others of significance. It will also be important to balance the historians politically, there is a considerable difference in views of Montana history from the right and left wing. We also have a Native American component to be sure to incorporate. Montanabw^(talk) 00:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points. But until the recent history section and especially pot issues are resolved they will trip up any improvement efforts.PumpkinSky talk 01:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the article doesn't even mention the largest military base in the state ever: Malmstrom Air Force Base PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The military history section is really in bad shape, anyhow. It might actually be better to break some of that out into its own article if we want to avoid bloat. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The last humungous article rewrite I jumped into was Horse, which is now a GA (after some of the most ridiculous edit wars in WP history), but the raw cleanup really got started after people did just what you propose: Created nice spinoff articles that allowed a solid, sourced, summary paragraph (SSS?) in the main article with the header link to all the details. Maybe the place to start is to do "main" or "see also" tags for every section in there now that has some relevant spinoffs, and clean up the mess section by section? Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Stockgrowers

All the historians consider ranching important and they say the Stockgrower's association was a powerful force since the 1880s. Therefore keep sourced, noncontroversial info that does not take sides in any political disputes. If people want to add info on other groups, please do so--that's how Wikipedia grows. Rjensen (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So was the Grange, so was the Farmer's Union. One of the problems crippling this article is the spotty coverage and lack of balance. And by the way, not only am I a 4th-generation Montanan, I also took undergrad history from both Jeff Safford at MSU AND from K. Ross Toole at UM, plus Malone was department chair when I was at MSU, I've also heard Roeder speak, so please do not lecture to me about what "all" historians say -- I've learned at the feet of several and read many of the rest. You have an odd mix of beliefs, libertarianism pro-pot on some things and very right wing POV on others. This does not enhance your credibility. So please, you don't have to kiss my ass, but don't expect me to kiss yours. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm liking the way Rjensen keeps at this, especially as the sole user pushing this, because it provides more and more evidence of his violations of WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:POINT, WP:RECENT, and WP:BALL. PumpkinSky talk 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also mention WP:OWN. I'm not indicating anything specific, just a general feel of some of the conversation. — Ched :  ?  04:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

as for the stockgrowers, the text that was "hidden" in fact follows Malone's textbook. The Grange and Farmers Union were for farmers, not ranchers, and don't belong in the cattle section. Rjensen (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Textbooks are not always impartial. The stockgrowers section Montanabw hid was actually pretty purple as far as prose goes. And Safford does give a good lecture.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, even if a source has bias does not mean one blatently copies. The section hidden seems to have two sources, only bit I saw in Malone was the comment on GOP connection, but I haven't had the time to delve deeply. Montanabw^(talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Bibliography Section

I'm not sure what purpose the Biblio section serves in this article. Since the Bibliography of Montana history has all these sources, except perhaps the Hedges article on railroads, do folks think it should be made into a Further Reading section or just go away?--KingJeff1970 (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to renaming it "Further Reading," I think the list here predated the Bibliography as a separate article. I didn't create it, though, so I'd give it a few days for any others who might have comment to weigh in before renaming. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)