Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV of "Hostile takeover"

An IP seems determined to force in the POV that the reverse split was a hostile takeover - presumably the same IP who has been characterizing the reverse split as such on the talk page for nearly two years. There's simply no reliable source which describes it as such, this is purely original research by an individual wanting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his/her own POV of the transaction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I've started a discussion on this at WP:ANI#POV at Whitefish Mountain Resort due to the IPs failure to respond to comments on this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Intriquing story.

Not "hostile" but search this document for "coercive."

[[1]]

It's slightly complex source, but is pretty much as good as an affidavit.

Can provide plenty of fodder for expanded, accurante nonPOV nonOR content related to the "going private" transaction that "coercively" dispossessed most of the individual shareholders.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That source should probably be worked into the article. It doesn't demonstrate that the general opinion of the minority shareholders as well as the community was that it was a coercive action, but the source does demonstrate that the company was aware of the potential risk of it being viewed in that way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Intent (successful) was to very substantially reduce the number of shareholders.

These minority shareholders had a tiny percentage of voting rights (economic stake), yet constituted very large majority of the individuals holding shares.

It appears these shareholders weren't offered a choice. (Coercive) regardless of their inclination.

Perhaps there is further information in additional SEC filings.

Certainly not a "hostile takeover," which entails shareholders vs. board. Appears rather, that board dictated to shareholders.

To include information from rather vast SEC filings would require selective editorial judgment -- inevitably opens editors to POV charges, tags and probably a vast array of other tags & objections related to Wikipedia essays and policies.

Yet I'd suggest this information, in whatever form, has intrinsic value, significance, interest, etc.

I certainly wouldn't know how to proceed in this case...as I've such dreadfully limited experience.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The only factual statements which can be derived are recognized potential risks and benefits. As stated in the source, being potentially viewed as coercive was a known risk, but that's as far as the source goes. Claiming that the shareholders actually did view it as coercive is original research of shareholder opinions, which are not stated in the source. A source which discusses the aftermath would need to be found which states if some or most actually viewed it as such. From the source:

• "The reverse stock split, which was the method ultimately chosen, was selected because it is more likely than other methods to accomplish the objective of reducing the number of shareholders of record below the 300 needed to satisfy the SEC’s requirement for terminating Exchange Act reporting Status. The board took this approach because, if shareholder approval is obtained, the transaction can be concluded whether or not shareholders tender their shares for purchase in the transaction. The board also discussed as a principal disadvantage the fact that, assuming shareholder approval is obtained, this transaction might be viewed as coercive to shareholders, but determined that the presence and observance of their fiduciary duties and dissenter rights provisions arising under the Montana Business Code, coupled with an opinion of a qualified financial advisor that the transaction was fair to the shareholders whose shares would be liquidated in the transaction, would provide adequate assurances of procedural and substantive fairness."

(above emphasis on related text added by me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're more-or-less correct.

This may not be a matter of POV as much as sourcing and perhaps OR problems.

Let's look through the full list of EDGAR documents & see what's there.

[[2]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

this [[3]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That source is already in the article, to cite the statement that "WSI's handling of the reverse split was criticized by some in the local community." I suppose it could be expanded to state "...was criticized and created animosity by some in the local community." - but I don't see anything to support the anon's edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I made an update to the wording based upon the sources identified above (see this edit). Feel free to revert if anyone feels that additional discussion is needed before incorporating the SEC filing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I made an additional update and edited the diff link above to show the combined edit --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Fine to note that transaction "was criticized," but the Why is missing.

Also, no need to do wholesale import of corporate-speak into article. Material can be paraphrased with fewer and more neutral words.

Am thinking there are more relevant and illuminating bits from proxy statement that can be added (paraphrased). In particular number of shareholders total and percentage with very small stakes prior to transaction.

That split was to obtain a "tax advantage is unsourced and in conflict with company statements at the time. Seems inaccurate.

Perhaps they've since become a real estate investment trust? I've no idea, but other ski resorts have done so. It provides a tax advantage.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the ref that already existed in the article (same news story, but the publisher appears to have re-arranged their site, resulting in a new URL). The mention of restructuring for tax advantage was already in the article before I edited it, and was sourced to that story (link).

I tried paraphrasing the corporate-speak, and did a subsequent re-edit to trim it further. But, to keep a balance of both the risk and the perceived mitigation, I'm not sure how to trim it further.

What specifically are you seeing as still needed for the "why"? The preceding sentences seem to spell it out, so I'm curious what you view as still needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tighter proposed wording... "expressed concern" and "decided" - formal expression of concern and formal decision would be by majority or consensus, rather than personal belief.- Sinneed 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"WSI's handling of the reverse split was criticized and resulted in animosity within the local community.[10]"

Why was it criticized? On what basis? Legal? Ethical? Financial? Aesthetic? Other?

Who criticized "within the local community."

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, although I'm not sure of the best wording. I'm not happy with this initial draft, but I'll post it as a starting point:

"WSI's handling of the reverse split was criticized and resulted in animosity within the local community due to timing of the related announcements and the loss of a community connection to the resort."

Any suggestions on refining and/or tightening up the wording? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't support "due to timing of the related announcements and the loss of a community connection to the resort" - opinion about why the community was bad mad is not useful, no one knows why people think and feel.- Sinneed 16:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That reason is a paraphrasing of statements from the cited news story that's already attached to the sentence (link). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the statements I attempted to paraphrase: the source states that announcements of the reverse split were mailed two weeks after the books were closed so that it was impossible to buy, sell, or trade shares in order to attempt acquiring additional shares to remain above the minimum limit.

The source also states several times variations on the same theme that "it means the end of locals' ownership in their own community.", "it must also be weighed ... against the value of 60 years of community involvement and goodwill", and "History, community, identity, culture - these things have value ... When those things are lost, small shareholders say, the company on the hill has potential to become a predator, feeding on the disenfranchised town below, bleeding profits away to a handful of far-flung owners whose only community connection is a fiscal margin." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a sentence, cited to that source with words similar to "Shareholders objected that the timing of the formal announcement denied them the opportunity to acquire enough shares to remain shareholders." if that is actually covered by the full text of the source. We have to focus on what people said or did, we can't really say WHY they said or did or felt.- Sinneed 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes listed above re: loss of community connection are attributed to community residents in the source, I just didn't copy the names when I copied the quotes. They are what people said. My paraphrase in my proposed wording combined those statements, which were all in a single theme.

The suggested sentence you provided seems to cover the other part; but seems too formal/wordy. Any suggestions to tighten up the wording a bit? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

POV of "Hostile takeover" - random break for easier editing

"WSI's handling of the reverse split was criticized and resulted in animosity within the local community, where there were objections to the timing of the related announcements and the loss of a community connection to the resort."- Sinneed 17:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did it result in the "loss of community connection to the resort?"

Why not just point out that according to proxy, a substantial majority (cite number; 600 or whatever) of the then-existing shareholders were shut out/cashed out by the stock split (what is the correctly neutral term......coercively...forced...? had no choice???) and at least some were reportedly resentful...

Separately, one can suggest that the last 10K report (available from SEC) has wealth of relevant information about the company's operations that ought to be included -- despite fact that is five-six years ago.

Stuff like acreage owned and that leased from US Forest Svc, number of employees & revenue & etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes I listed above were from multiple individuals being quoted within the source article; and were paraphrased down to "loss of a community connection to the resort."

The problem is that the source does not state that the reason for any animosity was a feeling of being coerced, forced, etc - stating that is original research unless a source is found that makes that statement. In fact, the current source being used even states:

No one is suggesting Winter Sports should not pursue the new structure. It's just that the little owners want to keep a hand in, for old-time's sake, if nothing else.

The article does state that several of those who were bought out made a suggestion and were trying to work out a plan to have a second class of shares which would consolidate up to a single owner of the standard shares; but the article gives no indication of how that resulted or why it resulted the way it did. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, most individuals owning shares (72%??) were cashed out -- regardless of their preference. These individuals' collective equity stake of less than 3% made their voting power irrelevant. This is found in proxy.

The AP article's contents don't seem particularly mysterious, though dealing in part with more subjective matters.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the percentages (which you appear uncertain on), that information is already in the article where it states "The decision forced all shareholders with less than a certain number of shares to sell their stock" - although it could be argued that a more neutral wording would be "required" instead of "forced".

Interpreting the reaction to those facts is the question. We don't have a source that states that people were angry because they felt coerced - without a source to make that claim, we would be engaged in original research and imposing personal points of view on their feelings and impressions of the action.

What we do have is a source that states that the criticism and animosity were related to objections on the timing of the related announcements and the loss of a community connection to the resort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading your reply, perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying that as long as the earlier sentence "The decision forced all shareholders with less than a certain number of shares to sell their stock" is in the article, then there's no reason to add additional reasons to the sentence at the end of the same paragraph which currently reads "WSI's handling of the reverse split was criticized and resulted in animosity within the local community."?

I think the source does provide justification for re-writing the final sentence to be "WSI's handling of the reverse split was criticized and resulted in animosity within the local community, where there were objections to the timing of the related announcements and the loss of a community connection to the resort." ... but if everyone else is happy with the current wording, I won't press for the change - I only suggested expanding that sentence because I thought that's what you were requesting earlier, and I could see a reasonable argument for it ... but I can also accept leaving the paragraph as-is. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Specific facts are more enlightening than otherwise, & would provide greater context. Readily available in proxy statement.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Link? If you want to suggest adding specifics, it would be beneficial to provide a link to the specifics you want to recommend be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See link again, link to proxy [[4]]; especially section "Reasons For The Reverse Split" and other interesting bits.

Also, for sticklers, this [[5]].

And for general improvements to article, see Item 1, Part I (and other bits) here [[6]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The only additional material of value that I'm seeing are:

• a source to improve the general description of the resort.
• a clarification that the anticipated savings were not actually tax related; but instead were operationally related expense savings.
• a mention that the 150-to-1 split had the intent of reducing ownership from over 900 shareholders to under 300. (redundant to info already in the article, so could just reword what's already there).

The specifics in the proxy could be off - we don't know the actual numbers at the time of the split, as the proxy estimates were nearly three months prior to the actual transaction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the notable ill-liquidity of the shares (see proxy page 8), it's likely that specifics with regard to number of shareholders remained substantively the same a few months after proxy was published.

(Stock handn't traded in a year!)

However, is irrelevant. The plan of action (& its reason) was based on prevailing circumstances. Actual reasons contradict current version of article, and are required for understanding.

Proxy says (see page 11) 664 shareholders (72% of total) held collectively, a 2.5% equity stake. This is relevant. (Obviously, their voting power also equaled 2.5%). These holders were cashed out with approval of transaction; whether mad, sad or glad to recieve their (minimal) cash, their preference carried no weight. This is explicit without danger of "point of view."

Particulars of "going-private" transaction are interesting, significant, instructive, AVAILABLE, and offer useful context for the comparatively subjective and subsequent AP story.

Arguments to exclude thisinformation, or to opt for vagueness, might reasonably raise "NPOV" objections.

Note that idea isn't to include vast quotes from this material. One can favor brevity and paraphrase while incorporating FACTS and specificity.

Also, separately, the 10K provides golden operational information that can substantively improve article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plently of data/info to address "NPOV" objection/problem....No??

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The revised wording seems a bit awkward (a bit long and kludgey); but my main concern above was addressed by making it clear that the numbers were from the date of filing and not verified as the final result. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to proxy, the shares almost never traded.

Anyway, final result was fewer than 300 shareholders. (See note 8 above.)

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected obvious dating error.

Currently involved editors don't seem dilligent -- perhaps uninterested -- in accuracy.

Their POV question is mainly wrong. It's about accurate definitions.

Disputed term -- "hostile takeover" --disregards view of board of directors. The transaction in question, proposed by board, disregarded views of 72% of shareholders, is "going private transaction," and NOT a hostile takeover.

Don't think I've introduced POV to article.

Cards on table: My personal POV is, however, that majority shareholders were inexcusably disrespectful of the 72%, while the 72% held egotistical and utterly unrealistic views of the meaning & significance of their miserable equity stake. Assume in many cases these shares dated from 1947 and founding by yahoo backwoods pioneer types & some "volunteer" labor.

Only surprise is that there weren't lawsuits.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the date was not obviously in error. In fact, after further review, the changes have introduced new errors.

There were TWO reverse stock splits in the involved time-frame. The first one, in May 2004, was the one documented in proxy statements and eliminated regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The second reverse stock split was in November 2006 (as they were already freed of SEC filings, there is no proxy mention for the second one) and was the one about which most of the text in the paragraph was originally written, which further reduced shareholders to under 50 "about 50" (this is explained in the newspaper article from 2006, whose first paragraph states "shareholders approved a reverse stock split on Tuesday", the day before the article was published).

What we have now is a paragraph that flips between mentions of the two splits as if they were one event. That is wrong. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've split the text related to the two different sets of sources to demonstrate there were two splits, a 150-for-1 in 2004, and a 15-for-1 in 2006. I've also added the proposed wording by Sinneed at the top of this sub-section which clarifies the reason for the animosity. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent. Because it wasn't in an SEC filing, this escaped me.

Perhaps there is source at Montana Secretary of the State. (Newspaper is adequate).

BTW I don't find history of ownership structure "trivial" in the context of an article on the resort.

Also, the ratio of the splits need to be included in order to understand the transactions (assuming one understands anything at all about them).

Actually, I'd like to see a bit more information rather than less, for those interested in finance, corporate governance -- and other "trivial" related topics.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brevity is useful. The level of detail for events that are 4-6 years in the past is becoming an issue with WP:WEIGHT - and the new versions add little that wasn't adequately covered already. The prior version provided adequate coverage without overloading the article with those two events. If anyone wanted more detail, the refs exist for that purpose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

POV of "Hostile takeover" - random break for easier editing 2

Support Barek's reversion.- Sinneed 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

" were required to cash-out their stock." - That isn't in the source that I can see. It says about 100 did... however, they were notified in advance, and could have pooled their resources (sold their shares to a single entity, say a local corporation or even a trusted individual). They cashed out instead.- Sinneed 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

they tried to pool their stock. one person was able to transfer stock away which cost WSI about 1 mil to recover, hence the secrecy & surprise announcement for the second stock split98.125.95.137 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"History" vs Recent Events

Ownership structure changes of very recent years isn't same as "history."

How one defines "history" can be debated but events, for example, of 2008-2009 don't qualify.

Founding in 1947 is "history."

Recent events" different than "history."

Also, which reference is questioned above? That for 150/1 '04 split -- or the 15/1 '06 split?

Discussion point utterly unclear.

'04 source is exceptionally clear.

'05 split is comparatively weak on sources, yet AP citation has fairly clear implications.

Also, shouldn't each sentence have a citation??

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose these changes. wp:UNDUE. Needlessly complex. Section head not needed, too long, and it isn't a title, only the 1st word capped. I think I see wp:consensus that this is overblown, and that it is indeed history.- Sinneed 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership structure changes are history (ie: not a current event, it's completed), so calling those events out under their own header only serves to apply extra weight to those events.

On the text "were required to cash-out their stock." item, the wording from the article states that the minority shareholders were "bought out". Also, the source states that the company closed the books prior to shareholders being notified of the vote and subsequent reverse split, specifically to prevent shareholders from pooling their stock. It's one of the main issues addressed that led to the animosity. I'm open to suggestions on better phrasing, but it is true that it was required, not optional.

Re: "each sentence" needing a citation - they are all sourced. If the sentences flipped from one source to another they would each need to show a source; but there's no need to tag each individually if two or three in a row share the same source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't read the book-closing that way, but I defer.- Sinneed 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership structure & finance of any relatively large and complex business is relevant to an understanding of its existence. In this particular case, there are some unusually interesting (& complex) elements.

Looking at various Wikipedia entries on the industry, in a number of the more complete and relatively higher-quality articles, this generic category of information is treated in detail, often with hedders. See for example Killington, Sugarloaf (ski resort), Whistler-Blackcomb etc.

Why is it asserted that an exception here is appropriate?

To expand & improve the article, more detail, rather than less, is good.

Also, separately, which source was questioned above? I agree that article is adequately sourced.

Concepts of "recent events" and "history" are different, though perhaps in this case, a somewhat unimportant distinction.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In those examples, the Sugarloaf and Whistler-Blackcomb examples provided are not comparable articles. Their history sections are so long that without multiple sub-headers to structure the sections, they would be too convoluted and confusing. If this article is ever expanded to that degree, then it would be reasonable to have sub-headers here as well. The Killington article is also not directly comparable, as the actual owning corporation changed several times - a table is reasonable to show the relevant date ranges for each ownership corporation.

Also, please keep in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a very weak argument; additional/stronger justification than that is needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.- Sinneed 17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Other stuff" appears to be an opinion essay soley about arguing for & against deletion of particular articles -- an issue not relevent to discussion.

No word there on content issues.

Good & better & best articles can indeed set a standard to strive for, and be used as template for generically similar articles.

Nobody should be re-inventing the wheel here.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any administrator about the application of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The specific example used is in article creation, but it does apply to content questions as well. You also conveniently skipped over the specific replies to the supplied examples. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The essay is opinion. Administrators have no special standing in this regard..

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Their standing is irrelevant. But they are the ones most familiar with Wikipedia norms, which is why I pointed you in their direction. If you choose to ignore the advice, that's your choice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support the reversion by Barek. I do still have a mild concern about the "required" but it seems reasonable compromise wording.- Sinneed 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't quite a reversion but I think the order change is an improvement as well. There is another change in the diff but it appears to be an artifact of the diff engine, and seems fine.- Sinneed 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

'Good Article' Goal??

Here's a thought" See Wikipedia's Category:Ski areas and resorts in the United States here [[7]]??

Some articles in this rather vast group are pretty good; most not so good, or actually, poor or quite bad.

Are any in group at "good article" status? Dunno.

If not, why not?

This article presently is maybe (??) 35-45% at "good article" status.

How can it be improved?

Alternatively, should this article be excluded from "good article" template criteria, and if so, why?

Potential view (interesting): material in this article is utterly unique.

If so, improvements to this article, because it is unique, presents insurmountable difficulties in efforts to improve.

Another view: It is currently perfect and a "good article."

Separate view: Criteria and comparisons to "good article" is "other stuff" and not relevant.

Perhaps one can defer to opinion of an administrator regarding content?

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

the company closed the books prior to shareholders being notified of the vote and subsequent reverse split, specifically to prevent shareholders from pooling their stock. It's one of the main issues addressed that led to the animosity.72.160.54.213 (talk)no shit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.54.213 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 28 March 2010

isn't this like stealing? you own liquid stock one moment and suddenly you cannot sell it to anyone but one person and at his price. The same thing is going on now with the Alpinglow Inn, hostile takeover, slated for demolition this spring.72.160.56.53 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

wp:talk page guidelines, please. This is not a place for discussing the Resort, but the content of the article. If this continues, the article talk page can be partially protected as well. Stop.- Sinneed 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the stock-split mechanism, as well as larger goals for this article, are both topics of concern for current and prospective content.

Why should this discussion "Stop?"

Comments, as always for the sake of clarity, should be as specificly focused as possible.

Generalized links are, generally, unhelpful to narrow & specific discussion.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that it's premature to semi the talk page; but it's reasonable to warn the anon to avoid going down that path yet again. Sourced, verifiable, and on-topic material is appropriate for discussion; however, the anon is again discussing the same original research and POV content that they have been pushing for over two years within this article. For reference, look at the talk page archives - as well as looking at the article history, especially the edits that took place just prior to the article being semi-protected in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other than "stealing" characterization, the above material is sourced, verified, on-topic, and moreover, already included in the article.

Baseless "warnings" are off-topic and unproductive. (see Koran etc.)

The poster may be pushing for inclusion of greater emphasis or detail, but comments aren't adequately specific.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The initial post a couple days ago by the anon was material already in the article. The second post, today, is nearly entirely personal synthesis of the situation and unsourced association to an additional property. In isolation, it wouldn't be an issue, but there's an established history of this behavior by the anon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

"the company closed the books prior to shareholders being notified of the vote... to prevent shareholders from pooling their stock....led to the animosity.... you own liquid stock one moment and suddenly you cannot sell it to anyone but one person and at his price."

...That is precisely what happened, as sourced and included in the current article.

Perhaps if this is anything less than obvious, then the material is needful of amplification.

Comment "like stealing" is obviously a personal opinon and yes, the bit about the other resort is a red herring.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I specifically identified the anon's second post (the anon's first post from a few days ago was mostly a cut/paste of my own comment from further up on the page). If I only read the part of your reply that addresses the anon's post from today, you essentially agreed with me - thank you.

Regardless, this discussion itself is pointless and does nothing to benefit the article. If you have actual content to discuss, bring it up; otherwise, I'm done here for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank the people who helped complete this article.98.125.252.117 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Peacocking in the lead

"The mountain is the second largest ski area in Montana, after Big Sky Resort."

This would need sourcing, and to be covered in the body. Cut from the wp:LEAD.- Sinneed 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Newest attack by the IP hopper

" who repeatedly purchased stock early in the corporation's history in order to keep it solvent" - This needs a source. Please do not insert wp:OR in front of a source that does not support it, it is misleading.- Sinneed 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection declined, someone else can kill it next time, or it can stay forever. :)- Sinneed 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

what kind of attack. Is it revelations which you don't like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of wp:OR, wp:POV... and no. I have only been to Montana once, and never to this area... my only interest in this is WP content. wp:AGF- Sinneed 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)