Talk:Wisconsin/Archive 1

message: Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 September 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards

message: I have no idea what the standards for inclusion in these categories might be. Some of the entries, like the one for Stockholm, seem like jokes to me. I don't know whether there are definitions of "major" and "minor" cities, but personally, I don't think a city with a population less than 100,000 qualifies as "major."
I decided to put in the populations and let people judge for themselves. Dpbsmith 02:25, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major" and "Minor" cities 

message: The recent disambiguation link is a good idea, but the linked page makes no reference to the Wisconsin glaciation.  This is quite strange and should be fixed.
Chris Dolan 18:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wisconsin Glaciation

message: STOP SAYING THE FARM IS TYPICAL.
Sure, there are several, but the way i just cahnged it (to say its one area) is acceptable, and 99% of wisconsin doesnt look like that. And no, we arn't stuck in the 70s, as some shows may have you think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.6.3 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True that. Most of the Wisconsin population are in the cities. Many farms are giant comercial-grade, while there are still a lot that are family-owned.  Sean WI 04:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The farm 

message: I added some content regarding cities in Wisconsin as well as adding the picture of the Milwaukee Art museum to emphasize that Wisconsin does have cities, it’s surprising but people really seem to think Wisconsin is some kind of urban less expanse of tress and farms. I also added some info about wisconsin's products and how California now produces more milk. If you spot a problem please correct it in terms of facts or formatting. Cheers. --Ic0n0 23:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Some Content

message: The Pettit Ice Center is strongly associated with West Allis, but I'm not quite sure on pinning down its legal location. 
Its address is variously given as Pettit Ice Center, 500 S. 84th St., West Allis e.g. here. Try a  Google search on "500 S. 84th St" "West Allis" to see what I mean. Yet [the official website] uses the same street address but puts itself in Milwaukee: "National Ice Center, 500 South 84th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53214... Location I-94 & 84th Street." 
There's no particular mystery about the location, which is on the Wisconsin State Fair Park which obviously is on or close to the border between West Allis and Milwaukee. Obviously the park complex as a whole spans the border and has parts in West Allis and parts in Milwaukee. The Wisconsin State Fair Park gives its address as: "640 South 84th Street, West Allis, Wis. 53214." (But the West Allis West Milwaukee C of C website gives the address of the State Fair Park as "8100 W. Greenfield Ave. West Allis, WI 53214" 
I queried The Pettit and receive this reply: 	
From: 	  rmulterer@thepettit.com
Date: 	February 11, 2005 10:06:33 PM EST
Since we are adjacent to I-94, our mailing address is Milwaukee. So we are considered to be in Milwaukee, but West Allis is mere yards away.
Obviously this has something to do with where the office is, where the actual rink is, where the state fairgrounds are, where the rink used to be, etc. etc. This would all be a matter of West Allis pride rather than geography. For now I'm leaving it as being "in" West Allis but maybe at some point the language should be wordsmithed. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The borders of the city of Milwaukee are really odd in places, some parts of the city on the far south side are only contiguous with the rest of the city by like 3-4 yards along a road. It’s just weird. But as far as I am aware the ice rink is in fact in the city of Milwaukee despite the stair fair property being mostly in west allies, but it’s commonly considered west allis. Pettit Center LocationThe dark line is the border. Milwaukee Borders with Ice Center As you can see milwaukee has some strange borders. You can look a really cool gis here Map Milwaukee --Ic0n0 22:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: * A lot of businesses in the Milwaukee suburbs list their addresses as "Milwaukee" and then use their suburban zip code (this is the case with nearly every business in Greenfield).  So it would make sense that the Pettit is actually in West Allis in spite of its address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuthaFnTruth (talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  * That’s reasonable, but in the case of the Pettit Center, it really is in Milwaukee. The GIS map Ic0n0 cited clearly shows the building within the Milwaukee city limits. The border between Milwaukee and West Allis in that region is West Schlinger Avenue, and the Pettit Center is a block north of that street. It’s not relevant to this article anymore since the section was reworked over four months ago, but this does mean the intro to the Pettit National Ice Center article needs editing. --Rob Kennedy 07:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Pettit Ice Center? West Allis or Milwaukee? 

message: Under "Misc Information" should we have a link to a list of major businesses that are headquarted in Wisconsin?  Sean WI 05:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Businesses 

message: indicates that the origin of the name is French Ouisconsin which comes from the Ojibwe Miskasin, which itself would be a haplologied form of Miskasinsin, literally "red-stone-area". The name was originally applied to the river, and referred to, I would imagine, red stones in the area. I'm going to wait to change the claim in the article to get other people's input. --Whimemsz 15:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
: Whimemsz, I think pretty much anything that can be backed up with reliable source material not only can, but ought to be included precisely because any and every other reference that speaks to the subject of the origin of the name, specifically mentions that nobody knows the etymology for certain.  Any discussion in this article should, regardless of how many different sources are brought into the discussion, make this clear. Tomer TALK 03:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
:: Umm, I'm from Wisconsin and I do speak Ojibwemowin and the word I learned was not Miskasinsin... anyway "red-stone-area" would be miskwasiniing in Ojibwe.  The word I learned was wiishkoonsing to mean "area of small wiishk".  The term wiishkoons(-an) is applied to muskrat lodges... you know, those tiny little domed things you find in shallow streams and wetlands?  Beaver lodges are called wiishk(-oon), unless they're small, in which they too would be called wiishkoons(-an).  In addition, the Minnesota Ojibwe calls Wisconsin wazhashkoonsing, meaning "little-muskrat area".  CJLippert 00:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only problem is that, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society site, the first mention by a European of the name (Father Jacques Marquette in 1673) called it "Meskousing," and other explorers called it similar things. It wasn't until 1682 that Rene Robert Cavelier, Sieur de LaSalle called it "Ouisconsing" (though he said it was also called "Misconsing"). It may be that the original, M-initial name came from a different language, and then explorers began to confuse that and wiishkoonsing because of their similar sounds, or something....I don't know... --Whimemsz 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  It may be that the original M-initial name came from a different language.  Since the name "fits" a typical Algonquian naming structure and thinking about what Algonquian Tribes were along the Wisconsin River who had contact with Fr. Marquette, I'm guessing either the Sac or the Mascoutins (the now extinct Tribe closely related to the Sac-Fox and the Kickapoo) as the source of the M-initial name. CJLippert 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, as another note, wiishkoonsing to mean "Wisconsin", though a real Ojibwe word, is a relatively recent adoption (since 1836).  Another example of such a word is minisooding to mean "Minnesota".  The plant minisood(-oog) is the balm of Gilead, so while Wisconsin is called at the muskrat-lodge, Minnesota is called "at the balm-of-Gilead".  State of Minnesota, though, records its name coming from the Dakota mni-sa-te "[land of] clear sky-blue waters". CJLippert 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: A bit of information was lost in this edit...I'm not sure what parts of what was lost should be kept, nor where such parts should be put ("Economy" probably isn't the place, for example, for mention of Summerfest, nor for the amount of stem-cell research that goes on at UW)...  Any ideas?  Tomertalk 03:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info loss in large edit 

message: The "Culture" Section seems to be reeeaaaally underdeveloped. There is very little information about what makes wisconsin's culture unique. What about Wisconsin culture's strong Germanic heritage? Beer Brewing traditions? Brats?  Traditions like Tailgating, the Festivales-- Oktoberfest, Summerfest, and even [Shudders...] Fuddfest? and the fishing/hunting/camping[And that area's whole branch of tourism might also be worth putting up] and the Relationships with The U.P.? The Accent[s] The Different Cultural Regions [IE the Northwoods, door county, and The Dells.] I'm Just Pitching Ideas, but right now it seems like the whole article is only statistics, and doesn't really tell anything about the Culture [Which, without much effort, one could write an entire book on by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.34.117 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a community-edited encyclopedia, which means users (registered or anonymous) contribute what they know and others check their work for accuracy and neutrality.  If you believe the culture portion of this article is underdeveloped, then you can easily add all of these traditions yourself.  No one person works specifically on this or any other article, so there is really no one "in charge" of adding or not adding a portion.  In this project, everything that you read here, and in every other article has been added little by little over time by several people.  It is apparent that none of those people had much to say about Wisconsin's culture.  If you want to become one of these contributors and help improve the Wisconsin article, simple click on "edit this page" and add what you know (of course, remember to cite sources and keep it neutral).  If you truly believe a book could be written, start an article called Culture of Wisconsin and link to that section along with a small paragraph.  If you don't feel up for it, you could always contact the users at WikiProject Wisconsin and have them do it. PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhhm, no.  Wikipedia is *not* edited by the world-at-large, it is edited by a clique of ~600 editors.  If someone were to substantially edit the culture section, the changes would most likely be removed as vandalism or deleted for being non-notable.  Many well-read people are growing too timid to bother contributing because their work is (more likely than not) deleted within a day or two of submittal.  If one of the de facto authorized editors of the Wikipedia would be willing to expand the culture section of the Wisconsin article, that would be much appreciated.  Anonymous edits are generally considered hostile, so it is not reasonable to expect someone not part of the Wiki clique to dive in and write their own section of the article.  It'd just be a waste of everybody's time.
69.129.196.12 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I believe there are about 40,000 "regular" editors (who make dozens of edits each month). Maybe the "600" comment above was accurate back in the early days, but there is ridiculous to think that a small group of editors is controlling 1,800,000 articles. Anyone who wants to edit the culture section should go ahead and do it. (All anyone here asks is that your edits are neutral and that you cite some sources. -Nicktalk 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Culture" Section 

message: I'm surprised that Wisconsin's Belgian-American population is not mentioned in the demographics section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.97.23 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Czechs.  Tomertalk 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ..or the Russians, or the Italians, or the Swedes?  I think the point is that the Belgian-American population is not as pronounced as the populations of Germans and Polands, even though there is a significant population of said people as there are of many communities.  Shawn 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See, you are framing it differently.  First you said that there is a "notable population" that should be mentioned.  But when you frame it by saying a notable population because it is the largest in the United States it is more notable.  I was just afraid we'd have sections on "Cherokee Indians in Wisconsin," "Lichteinsteiners in Wisconsin," "Bulgarians in Wisconsin," "Hmongs in Wisconsin" etc.  But when it is framed in a larger context of settlement in Wisconsin, i think it does deserve warrant. --Shawn 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Belgians? 

message: In the Miscelaneous section it says that Monona Terrace was designed by Frank Loyd Wright.  I don't think that's true.  I think it was inspired by Wright or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.85.116 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was designed by him but it was built long after his death. Although it did have a few changes it is still amazing that someone designed that (relitively) a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.41.48 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specifically, the exterior was built almost exactly as Wright had designed it, but the interior was redesigned by one of Wright's students. That's why it's not an entirely Wright bulding. -Nicktalk 23:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The building was designed by Anthony (Tony) Puttman, of Taliesin Associated Architects (TAA), which assisted him.  One can safely maintain it was inspired by Wright's 1930s design, but to call it a Wright building is erroneous. Jeff dean 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monona Terrace

message: I'm suggesting another new introduction; my main concern with it is that it might be too long (longer than both suggested above), although I tried to briefly summarize the major points of geography, history, economy, the ethnic heritige of the state and politics: 
:Wisconsin (IPA pronunciation: ) is a state in the United States, located in the Midwest.  Its capital is Madison; the current governor is Jim Doyle.
:The Wisconsin area, bordered by the current-day states of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois, as well as Lakes Michigan and Superior, has been part of United States territory since the end of the American Revolution; the Wisconsin Territory (which included parts of other current states) was formed on July 3, 1836.  Wisconsin became a state on May 29, 1848, the thirtieth in the Union.
:Wisconsin's rural economy was originally based on furs; in the 19th century, emphasis shifted to mining, lumber, farming, dairy, and tourism. Large-scale industrialization began in the late 19th century in the southeast of the state, with the city of Milwaukee as its major center. In recent decades, service industries, especially medicine and education, have become dominant.  Wisconsin's landscape, largely shaped by the Wisconsin glaciation of the last Ice Age, makes the state popular for both tourism and many forms of outdoor recreation.
:Since its founding, Wisconsin has been ethnically heterogeneous, with New Englanders being among the first to arrive; for many years they dominated the state's industry, finance, politics and education. Large numbers of European immigrants followed them, including Germans, mostly between 1850 and 1900, Scandinavians and smaller groups of Belgians, Swiss, Finns, Irish Catholics and others; in the twentieth century, large numbers of Polish and African-Americans arrived in the state.  
:Today, 42.6% of the population is of German ancestry, making Wisconsin one of the most German-American states in the United States, although there are many other major ethnic groups, including one of larger Hmong populations in the nation. Various ethnic festivals are held throughout Wisconsin to celebrate its heritage. 
:During the period of the Civil War, Wisconsin was a Republican and pro-Union stronghold.  Ethno-religious issues in the late nineteenth century caused a brief split the Republican coalition.  Through the first half of the twentieth century, Wisconin's politics were dominated by Robert La Follette and his sons, originally of the Republican Party, but later of their own Progressive Party.  Since 1945, the state has maintained a close balance between Republicans and Democrats.  Major Republican figures include former Governor Tommy Thompson, while major Democrats include Senator Russ Feingold.Conant ch 1; Barone and Cohen; Pearce
Salmar 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I upgraded the summary a bit--adding some fresh detail. it's important to emphasize the people rather than trivial aspects like the exact boundaries in the summary.  Rjensen 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added mining as an example of early industry. Also, I think it should be "politics were dominated by"? I'm no grammar expert so I wanted to check. Overall I really like it. --Dbackes 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Yankee" is the proper term and it is certainly not a "slur" -- see article. There is even a New York team called the Yankees! The Dutch from upstate NY were not much involved. See the classic article by Joseph Schafer, 'The Yankee and Teuton in Wisconsin', Wisconsin Magazine of History Vol. 6, No. 2, Dec. 1922, pp. 125-145 Rjensen 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Yes--agree with Dbackes. Rjensen 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a few days, I'm putting it up--Dbackes 23:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro suggestion 

message: There is currently a discussion going on the Michigan Talk page about the potential US-Centric bias of the terminology Midwest in an article versus using a different geographical description. Wisconsin has been mentioned as an example page and  it would be nice to get other view points on this discussion since a consenus will probably have influence on this article. Agne 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not particularly like using Midwest either. I like calling it part of Great Lakes region better. That, of course, does not apply to all the areas that would be in the Midwest (which IMHO would include Texas and the like). Benn Newman 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the comment below notes, some geocentric residents of the East and West Coasts label anything inland as "Midwest."  And no one who actually lives in the Midwest would consider Texas to be Midwestern. There is no good reason for imparting people's geocentric preferences and ignorance to WP, which already has an entry for Midwestern United States that shows both the common understanding of the term and the official US Census Bureau definition of the term. I think the Census Bureau definition trumps any idiosyncratic opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.131.110 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer Great Lakes Region for a couple reasons.  For one, anything east of California and west of maybe Pennsylvania can arguably be considered the Midwest.  That's just way too broad of an area to paint with one brush.  The other is that there's a tremendous difference in the ethnic, political and social cultures of the Great Lakes States when compared to the rest of the "Midwest."  These states tend to be more liberal and share more socially with Eastern states.  In fact, the Great Lakes states were the only non-coastal states to go blue in the last presidential election (other than Ohio... but even that's debatable).--207.74.196.20 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To tilt at a windmill — If you look at a map of the U.S., Wisconsin is clearly mideast, not midwest. Kansas and Oklahoma, even Colorado, could be considered midwest.  I, too, like Great Lakes area. Jeff dean 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize you're a bunch of clowns right?  I mean, if the definition of clowns is people who try to make other people laugh, every one of you fits into it.  Wikipedia is not about people looking at a map and redefining words like "Midwest" based on their perceptions.  To bend a phrase from FoxNews, "We report, we don't decide."  Saying "I don't like 'Midwest'" is an egregious violation of WP:NOR, when that philosophical outlook is used as a basis for editing.  Tomertalk 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Midwest in Intro: RfC on [[Talk:Michigan]]

message: Maybe add a transportation section listing the interstate highways and other modes of transportation throughout the state? --Adamb10 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transportation

message: Madison, population 208,054 (588,885 in metropolitan area), state capital
I assure you, it isn't more than everybody in the metro area of milwaukee.  munboy 01:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry -- I don't understand your meaning. The 208,054 figure for the city is from the 2000 Census. I'm not sure where the 588,885 figure for the Metropolitan Statistical Area is from. The Census Bureau lists a population of 501,774 for the MSA as of April 1, 2000. The Madison, Wisconsin article has this correct. The article list population for the city of Milwaukee proper as 596,125 and for the MSA as 1,709,926 -- both of which are larger than either figure for Madison. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Don't 'ya love templates? --Benn Newman 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody made a typo on the population count of Madison 

message: that was pure crap. The article needs more on this. How Wisconsinites try to control people's lives they won't even be involved in which is really what the ban does. People who should vote on it are gay people and that's it. It might be because of all the religious people forcing everyone to comply with their beliefs when there is no proof that there's a God. Lonelyboy 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Interjected] Well you can thank the kkkristian right for once again infiltrating the Black churches in Milwaukee and offsetting the city's strong Fair Wisconsin base that was needed to beat the ammendment.  In fact, it's because of the Black communities strong church ties (in Milwaukee and elsewhere) that the stereotype of the Black homophobe comes from.  Don't get me wrong... I love my people, but the church has done nothing for the Black community but drain it's collective resources (mainly money) and turn it against other groups it should be uniting with.  Not sure that this has any direct relevence to the article, but I needed to rant --207.74.196.20 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the whole political issues section is suspect I think it ought to go. Unless you want to also add things about the formation of the republican party, the underground railroad, school choice, sufforage, the ku klux klan, smokes for votes, The fugitive slave law and countless others. Although many of these subjects need mentioning somewhere in the wikipedia, and some in appropriate sections in Wisconsin History, I don't think a political issues section in Wisconsin article is the place for it. Particularly under the thinly veiled guise of "political issues" This is just so wrong in so many ways. It reeks of bias. Remove the entire subsection.  Anonym1ty 16:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a Social Worker and a step backwards was taken in November and I will make that known.  I am bound by a Code of Ethics that does not allow discrimination in any way.  I am not "vandalizing" Wikipedia, only speaking the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.124.192 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Anonym1ty the section should be tossed completely.  All politics is just someones POV and therefore doesn't belong in the article.--ChesterMarcol 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I also agree. I'm removing the political issues subsection. Factual statements are fine, but this section just invites POV rants. -Nicktalk 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vote banning gay marriage 

message: The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing).  Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Wisconsin.  Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Sports'' section added to updated [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states]] format   

message: It could use more info, but I just thought I'd put a bit of a starting point for other up.SBassoon 23:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Weather'' section added to page 

message: I don't know where do such muppets spawn, but some stupid troll (of the Warcraft kind) just vandalized the article. Please fix that, for the good of all.
84.10.20.238 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --Rob Kennedy 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized!