Talk:Wisconsin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Standards

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)

"Major" and "Minor" cities

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)

Wisconsin Glaciation

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)

The farm

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)

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)

Added Some Content

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)

Please, let's tone down the boosterism...

...it's getting out of hand.

"In addition to vast rural areas Wisconsin is home to several large cities, including Milwaukee and Madison. These large cities add a dynamic urban edge to the state’s otherwise rural setting which is often overlooked by those passing through the state. Both Madison and Milwaukee boast world-class universities and night life."

Now, Milwaukee is by most standards a large city, not humongous but bigger than, say, Boston. (And the Milwaukee Journal is a better paper than the Boston Globe). It's one of the twenty biggest cities in the U. S. But Madison a "large city?" Population 200,000? I don't think so.

Similarly, UW-Madison could be called a "world-class university," whatever that means. But UWM? It's a perfectly respectable university, but it's hardly a public Ivy.

And what do you mean by "world-class universities," plural? I'm only aware of only one university, singular, in Madison. There might be more than one university in Milwaukee--is Marquette actually in Milwaukee? But "world-class" is stretching it.

And that "dynamic urban edge" guff really should go. Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, i can see where your problem with it lies and i will tone it down. It's just that the picture of the farm as "Typical wisconsin" is pretty anoying i just overcompinsated and i will fix it. --Ic0n0 06:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cut that last paragraph i added, it doesn't really add anything. I would like to be to emphasize that Wisconsin has many medium sized cities in addition in Milwaukee and Madison but coming up with a way to do that which avoids sounding like a tourist brochure is going to be more difficult.--Ic0n0 06:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! There must be a way to make the point you want to make without sounding boosterish... I'll think about it myself. Wisconsin certainly isn't the only state that consists of a small number of big cities, many small cities and towns, with large active agricultural land in between. Actually, California really isn't all that different, yet nobody thinks of California is being solely a "farm state" or would use a picture of a farm as "typical" of California... But you know, WIsconsin has sort of brought it on itself by using the slogan "America's Dairyland." Dpbsmith (talk) 10:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Well the idea I am trying to convey is that Wisconsin has a lot of medium sized cities, those between 50,000 and 150,000. I mean I can think of a ton, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Wausau, Green bay, Appleton, Oshkosh, Sheboygan, Janesville, Kenosha, and Racine are all cities that stand on their own, expect maybe Racine and Kenosha which are really dual suburbs of Milwaukee and Chicago. But the point is that is there are more independent “anchor” cities of significant size then most of the surrounding states have including Illinois if we don’t consider Chicagoland.
    • I agree. I don't really know how to compare it with other states, but "a lot of medium-sized cities" is the characteristic pattern.
  • But your right, those of us in Wisconsin have to a large extent placed this rural dairy farm image on ourselves with the constant emphasis on milk and cheese. I am from Milwaukee and as a result am actually quite bitter at the image of Wisconsin that is generally presented, hence my overcompensation earlier. There is almost a sort of downstate and upstate thing going on in Wisconsin like in New York State, a lot of us in the Milwaukee area find we have very little in common with the rest of the state. It’s a bit of a tangent but for example I have never seen a cow closer then 30 feet or milked one as I am sure most Wisconsinites haven’t. I guess unlike some Wisconsinites I don’t feel pride in the whole rural farm description they seem to relish. Anyway, when I figure out a good way to write more content without the unnecessary POV I will do so. --Ic0n0 11:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • Maybe something like this:

Wisconsin's self-promotion as "America's Dairyland" sometimes leads to a mistaken impression that it is an exclusively rural state. In fact Wisconsin contains cities and towns of all sizes. Milwaukee is a city slightly larger than Boston and part of the "Chicagoland" megalopolis on the edge of Lake Michigan. Madison's triple identity as state capital, university town, and working city give it a cultural richness unusual in a city its size. Medium-sized cities dot the state and anchor a network of working farms surrounding them.

Brewers pasted a "beer" label on Milwaukee, which probably doesn't help its reputation.

The article doesn't currently say anything about what I think is fairly extensive network of Amish communities in Wisconsin.

By the way, the list of cities could use some attention. Some time ago there was a silly list of "major cities" and people kept adding rather small towns to it, I guess either as pranks or because they wanted their home town on the list. I sort of stabilized things by stating the actual population of each town listed, and listing every city over 50,000 under the neutral title "cities with populations over 50,000." But the "other cities and towns" list could use some judicious pruning. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have added your suggestion Dpbsmith with a really minor tweak, but you can see for yourself. I think it looks pretty good, thoughts? --Ic0n0 01:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cheeseheads

I think perhaps the cheese head stuff belongs more in a cultural area of the article rather then in the first paragraph. Just a thought. --Ic0n0 03:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. Until someone puts it there, I'm going to delete it. It's irrelevant to this article. The "cheesehead" thing is less than 10 years old, and almost exclusively a Green Bay Packer fan innovation. It has far less to do with Wisconsin culture than with Green Bay sportsfannery, and should be included there, with perhaps a passing reference made in a "Wisconsin Culture" article. TShilo12 04:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Cheeseheads" is definitely more than 10 years old. I'm not sure how far back it goes, but I lived in the Chicago area more than ten years ago and "cheesehead" was often tossed about jocularly by area radio hosts. That and phrases like "behind the cheddar curtain" have been around for longer than ten years and used to make jokingly derogatory references to all the neighbors to the north, not only to Green Bay residents. Although I agree that it probably should not be in the intro section and may be more appropriate in the culture section. older≠wiser 13:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Cheeseheads" probably existed since late 1980s in the Green Bay Packer gift store. Some of the hardcore Packer fans wear them, but the mainstream won't. The Cheesehead Homepage proves that they've been selling hats for over 15 yrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

'Cheesehead' definitely existed by the late 1980s (I used ther term myself in high school) - and it wasn't just relegated to non-Wisconsinites' usage, either. Heck, Cheesehead indicates the term was in use in Wisconsin by 1987. --moof 05:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Placing CULTURAL emphasis on "cheesehead" rather than the rich cultural background of the state does the article an injustice. "Cheesehead" is a minor thing. It doesn't belong in a category regarding Wisconsin culture that includes little else. --τнєÇάťşMξόω♀ 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that most of the "cultural" tidbits in the article, indeed throughout the article's history, are a result of assertions made by out-of-staters based on uninformed idle speculation resulting from various stereotypes that circulate around the country about what goes on in Wisconsin. (Hey, at least we're not Arkansas, eh?! :-p) Anyways...I commented about the same myopia several months ago, when the assertion was made in the article that a large part of Wisconsin culture revolves around rivalry with Illinois. Down a few sections, you'll find others have registered similar complaints... Tomer^talk 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Location of Pettit Ice Center? West Allis or Milwaukee?

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)

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)

• 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)

* 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)

Major Businesses

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)

Etymology

[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Alleged "Wisconsin-Illinois rivalry"

I agree with User:Mtz206's removal of a statement and image inserted by User:Illinoisian. These should not be reinserted without discussion and consensus being reached here. The statement was:

A large part of the culture of Wisconsin includes a rivalry with Illinois, producing many friendly and not so friendly jabs between the two states.

The image was Image:Iwantyou_wisc.jpg, a picture of the famous "I Want You" poster with Uncle Sam clumsily replaced by Lincoln and the caption "I Want You to help fight Soviet Wisconsin." (An odd characterization of Joseph McCarthy's state).

During the ten years I lived in Wisconsin I never noticed any reference whatsoever to any such rivalry. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering the Illinois term "Cheese Heads" and the Wisconsin term "FIB" (F***ing Illinois B******s) I have to disagree with the "vetern Wisconsonites" here and say that yes, such a rivalry does indeed exist. Agriculture 01:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The "rivalry" is so trivial as to call into serious question its encyclopædicity. Having lived in Eau Claire for the vast majority of my life (24 of my 33 years), I can attest to the fact that some Illinoisans derogatorily refer to Wisconsinites as "cheeseheads", although Wisconsinites have largely taken this jab in stride, whence those ridiculous foam cheese-head "hats" now so common a sight at Green Bay Packers games. That said, the "FIB" thing is rare, although it is found throughout the state--for the most part, however, it's not because of any "rivalry" between Wisconsin and Illinois, rather it's a result of the perception by many Wisconsinites that people from the Chicago area who come to Wisconsin to "use us" as a vacationland, are representative of some overall condescending attitude on the part of Illinoisans, presumably not just against Wisconsinites, but against the entire world. An older prejudice against Illinoisans (who, on an equally irrelevant note, it should be noted, are so "dumb" they can't pronounce "s" at the end of words—whence the widespread purposeful Wisconsin mispronunciation of "Illinois" as "All the noise") is that "they can't drive". When I was younger, the prejudice was that Illinoisans were "insane" because they drove 90mph on the freeways when the speed limit was 55mph. Nowadays, however, I can testify that Illinoisans are incredibly annoying, since they insist on driving at least 2mph below the posted speed limit. This is, actually, probably a result of the contemporaneous confluence of two recent historical trends: the fact that an apparently much more widespread earlier dislike of Illinoisans led many Wisconsin patrol officers to stop Illinoisans on sight if they were going so much as 1mph over the posted limit, and the fact that during the reign of Tommy Thompson, the Wisconsin State Patrol loosened up a lot, so Illinoisans, thinking they had gotten "wise" to the anti-Illinoisan attitude of the police, slowed way down, and Wisconsinites, finally freed in some small part from the 1984-style fear of the police for accidentally going more than 1mph under the posted limit, kind of clashed midstream, to the extent that nowadays, when you get to the front of a holdup in a "clot" of traffic, you find that it's caused by 2 Illinoisans, both afraid to pass each other at more than 1/4mph difference in speed. (I'm seriously not kidding...it's incredibly annoying. I have to say, in the past 18 years of driving, I've never once been passed (in Wisconsin) by a car with Illinois plates, although I can't begin to count the number of cars with Illinois plates I've passed, in a convoy of other cars getting around the roadblocks they create. Minnesota cars are almost as bad, but I have been passed by a number of Minnesota-plated cars in my driving career, so my real annoyance is reserved for Illinois-plated cars.) THAT SAID, while Joe McCarthy was certainly from Wisconsin (in fact, he was the Justice of the Peace who officiated at my paternal grandparents' wedding, when he was a judge in Winnebago County, Wisconsin, Wisconsin has a proud (and sometimes idiotically proud) tradition of not being able to be characterizable in the neat pigeonholes the media likes to try to put states and their electorates into. Wisconsin is at the center of the unusual distribution of rural democrats, who, despite the fact that I think they're utterly deluded, and can only imagine that their "democrat-ism" is inherited, are sufficiently powerful to keep the state just about evenly balanced between republicans and democrats, in-state as well as at the federal level (40 years ago, that would have been a good thing, but now it's not, IMHO). In light of that, I'm not at all surprised to see that someone would have clumsily put together an image characterizing Wisconsin as "Soviet"--although that characterization is somewhat humorous, in light of the fact that many center and right-of-center Wisconsinites (and Minnesotans) frequently refer to Minnesota as "The People's Democratic Republic of Minnesota". All of that said, however, User:Illinoisan's edit was rightly removed. While this curious interstate rivalry does exist on a minute scale (usually only on an individual level, except among workers in the tourism industry, who, in my experience generally despise Illinoisans), it's probably not worthy of mention, but even moreso, the assertion that "a large part of the culture of Wisconsin" is bound up in this supposèd "rivalry" is patent nonsense, <bias>likely a result of the fact that Illinoisans are so hopelessly ignorant and arrogant that they think that the fact that Wisconsinites notice the pathetic existence of Illinois is the highest cultural achievement of Wisconsin</bias>.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 09:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wow... I don't think I've ever seen a Wikipedian so hopelessly insecure with himself... amazing really. My point was simply the rivalry exists. I draw no conclusions about Wisconsin or Illinois from it. Both states are integral to the Union, and powerful forces in the modern day that rival many of the older states to the East. Whether or not it should be mentioned that they share a rivalry is ambigious, and I'm not debating that point. Only that such a rivalry exists, specifically in the Chicagoland region of Wisconsin. The fact that you my friend are quite a piece of work, however, is without debate pure and utter fact.

I would also note you prove the existance of this rivalry and may even help declare it noteworthy by your shear and utter lack of ability to control your hatred of Illinois and the people who reside in that state, resorting to frequent insults in your lengthy and needlessly hostile diatribe. Agriculture 09:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I apparently neglected to include what I assumed was a fairly obvious tag, namely <tongue position="firmly in cheek"> for that post. Any hatred for Illinois or its people is, I assure, you, read into what I wrote, not out of it. Tomer ^TALK 10:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. A rivalry exists "specifically in the Chicagoland region of Wisconsin." I didn't live in that area, so I wouldn't know about it. Our article on Chicagoland says that that includes only one county. So, are we just talking about Kenosha and the Lake Geneva tourist area? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a rivalry, not only Kenosha as Chicagoland in a strict sense but also farther north to Milwaukee, and I would guess other border areas, although I wouldn't know. In football terms, at least, the rivalry extends throughout the state. Since natives of both states happily travel to the other for leisure, I would say the rivalry is friendly. That being said, given the other contributions of User:Illinoisian (including creating an article on "the Republic of Illinois", which was deleted), let's keep the edit out of the article. (P.S. People from Illinois drive like maniacs ;p) HollyAm 13:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a rivalry but it rarely shows it face outside of a game of professional football or teasing at a local bar. Its a very similar feeling as what natives of Maine feel about those from Massachusetts, massholes, perceived wealth and arrogance. But it's not really anything beyond a feeling of jealousy expressed in mild teasing. So many people from Illinois have so much property almost strictly for leisure in the state that many people do feel jealous of the average income of the Chicagoan person in addition to a perceived arrogance on the part of wisconsinites regarding those from Illinois. It should also be noted that this rivalry doesn't really extend to people not from the greater Chicago region of Illinois. In reality this isn't worthy of an encyclopedia, it's just a regionalism with little meaning, it has no significant effect on the identity of a Wisconsinite or Illinoisan. --Ic0n0 01:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Whence my position that claiming that rivalry with Illinois constitutes a major part of Wisconsin culture is not only erroneous, but denegratory and just a bit insulting. That said, User:Illinoisian has long since become my favorite vandal... :-) Tomer ^TALK 09:30, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I do live not far to the West of Milwaukee in Oconomowoc, and I can verify the rivalry does exist. Near the border, no more than 2 or 3 counties north, there is a sense of a rivalry, and the term FIB is prevalent. Here in Wisconsin, the rivalry is often fueled by the differences in cultures between this area of Wisconsin, which is known for it's "Gemutlikeit" and laid-back bar attitude, whereas people from Chigago are concieved as people always rushing around from here to there, never slowing down. Another source of this rivalry is how Illinois has placed toll-booths at every entrance into their state on the interstate system, charging many commuters from Wisconsin an ever-increasing amount of money to drive on there interstate system, which might I add is falling into disrepair. And no Wisconsinite can get away with liking the Bears. Heh. I can't speak for Illinois and why they don't like us. --72.128.76.97 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I can personally attest to there being a Wisconsin-Illinois rivalry, or at least a Milwaukee-Chicago one. For one, the student body at Marquette is made up of mostly white kids from the Chicago suburbs, and the neighborhoods surrounding MU are predominantly Black and poor. The residents in this area constantly feel jaded by the students' condescending attitude about living in a "low class" neighborhood and the fact that they require so much police protection (the MU campus police drive down Wisconsin Ave every 5 minutes after midnight... it's ridiculous). Another is that the north side of Milwaukee has a decent number of Chicago transplants who love to talk bad on Milwaukee, yet don't seem to remember that they CHOSE to move to here and can't seem to shut up and move back. And then, of course, there's the Cubs fans who try to take over Miller Park whenever they play the Brewers. User:MuthaFnTruth —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world...?

My parents learned a song while in outing club in college in upstate New York in the 1950s that names some places that they thought were in Wisconsin but I can't find any references to any of them. These would presumably be places that hikers and canoers would find of interest. Thought I'd ask here before going to the general help desk. In part, the lyrics are:

It's the far northland that's a-calling me away...

...By Lake Duncan and Clearwater to the Bearskin I will go...

...If you're thinkin' in your inner heart there's swagger in my step,

You've never been along the Border Trail.

Anyone have any clue where these places are? Elf | Talk 20:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain, because those placenames are outside my ken...but there is a "Duncan Creek" in Chippewa Falls, which is dammed into a pond (hardly a "lake") at Irvine Park, before it flows into the Chippewa River, in downtown Chippewa Falls, approximately 8 miles upriver from downtown Eau Claire, which, in French, means "Clear Water". As for the "Border Trail", ein li musag... :-p Tomer ^TALK 09:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I found a couple of commercial canoeing/rafting outfits[2] in Minnesota (I guess they had the wrong state) that mention everything except "the border trail" but they do refer to "the boundary" a bunch, so I'm guessing that's related. Thanks anyway. Elf | Talk 20:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Could be that "the border trail" is the Rainy River, Pigeon River or one of the many other waterways up in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Tomer ^TALK 21:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Duncan, Clearwater, and Bearskin are all lakes in the eastern Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, north of the Gunflint Trail. And the "Border Trail" could refer to the waterway that defines the US-Canadian border, the Border Route hiking trail, or the Gunflint Trail itself, which are all in the same area up there. -- BlueCanoe 06:32, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Info loss in large edit

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? Tomer^talk 03:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Culture" Section

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)

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)

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)

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. -Nick^talk 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the Belgians?

I'm surprised that Wisconsin's Belgian-American population is not mentioned in the demographics section. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.97.23 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And the Czechs. Tomer^talk 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

..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)

I think the Belgians are still worthy of mention. Wisconsin is home the largest rural settlement of people of Belgian nationality in the entire country (about twelve contiguous townships between Green Bay and Sturgeon Bay). You may say that there are more people of Polish and German origin in Wisconsin than Belgian. But German immigrants formed communities just as large throughout the United States (particularly Pennsylvania and Texas) and the largest communities of Polish immigrants are in Texas and Illinois. The largest settlement of rural Belgians in America is in Wisconsin. Does this not warrant mention? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.97.23 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Political "balance"

What exactly is this line supposed to mean: "Since 1945 the state has been evenly balanced politically, with conservative Republicans matched against liberal Democrats." Are we saying that most elections are very close? That there are equal number of Dem and Rep citizens in the state? I think we need to provide citations to back up any such claim. --mtz206 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It means that the state is competitive in presidential and gubernatorial elections, and that the Congressional delegation is approximately equal. That is it is not a one-sided political state. (From 1900-1945 the Dem party practically did not exist as a force.) It also says the GOP is on average conservative in Wisconsin, and the Democratic party is on average liberal. Citations are hardly necessary as these are well known facts and the statistics are included in the many articles on presidential etc elections. For elaborate detail see The Almanac of American Politics, 2006 by Michael Barone (biennial since 1975). Rjensen 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that these are "well known facts," that does not mean citations are not necessary. Citations are always necessary; see the verifiability policy, linked under every box. By all means find and insert the appropriate citations from the "Almanac of American Politics." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this kind of abbreviated political history even necessary in the lede paragraph? --mtz206 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will add the cites. Yes, politics is a big deal in Wisconsin--maybe we should say more about cheese too :) Rjensen 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Thanks for the cite.

2) Thanks for not linking to Republican party and Democratic party, sometimes I think I'm the only person who's read WP:CONTEXT.

3) Yes, Wisconsin politics is interesting enough to be worth a mention in the first paragraph. LaFollette absolutely deserves first-paragraph mention. Wisconsin may not be utterly unique but I don't think there are many states whose biggest city had a Socialist mayor for decades. Or that could have produced a senator like Joseph McCarthy yet had Eugene McCarthy campaign signs posted in cornfields.

4) (Donning asbestos suit) New York State produces more cheese than Wisconsin does.

Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa for linking to the national parties, and I'm glad BaronLarf has already made and linked to Wisconsin party pages. I think the mention of "balance" makes much more sense now that the LaFollette era is identified with Progressivism. --mtz206 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal and conservative

I believe that qualifying the Democrats as 'liberal' and the Republicans as 'conservative' is misleading. Both parties are big tents: the Republican Party includes libertarians, centrists, and people some might consider liberal. The Democratic Party includes conservatives and socialists, both factions of which would take umbridge at being called liberals. I'm removing the 'liberal' and 'conservative' adjectives once again because they are misleading, and I ask that before someone reverts my edits again to please bring it to this talk page first. aliceinlampyland 12:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

the center of gravity of the GOP in Wisconsin is conservative and the Dems liberal. Three different citations make the point. How could this be misleading? We are not talking about Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island--we're talking Sensenbrenner and Obey in Wisconsin. Rjensen 16:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many Wisconsin Democrats that would object to be called liberals, myself included. Take, for example, Tammy Baldwin who describes herself as progressive as opposed to liberal. 'Liberal' is not a synonym for 'left of center'. aliceinlampyland 17:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

as long as Tammy votes 95% of the time with self described liberals she will get classified as one in every encyclopedia. To avoid that fate she should vote more often with the Republicans--not try to rewrite the encyclopedia to hide her votes. Rjensen 20:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I write, rather than ranting. 'Liberal' is not a synonym for left of center. 'Progressive' in America usually signifies an alignment with ideas that would be considered social democratic elsewhere. Where the 'progressives' and liberals in the Democratic Party disgree is the proper forms of state intervention in the economy. Please have a read of the articles on liberalism and social democracy for insight. Rep. Baldwin's characterization of herslef as 'progressive' rather than 'liberal' is not insignificant and means something. aliceinlampyland 21:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

The balance can be seen from the Pivot state statistics for the past 2 national elections.--Billymac00 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Representative Tammy Baldwin voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 93 percent of the Representatives. That's why Wiki calls her liberal source : http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS021382&type=category&category=National%20Journal Rjensen 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That is silly and reduces politics to a false 'liberal'-'conservative' dichonomy. aliceinlampyland 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

yes history is false, political science is false and encyclopedias are false. But we do soldier onward anyway, Rjensen 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted Rjensen's latest edit: [5]. Doesn't make much sense to compare a Rep senator from the 1950s to a Dem senator from current period. (Plus, Feingold has been in the senate since 1993). I like the current version [6], which shows how both parties were strongly represented in both the 1950s as well as today. --mtz206 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"yes history is false, political science is false and encyclopedias are false. But we do soldier onward anyway."

Whatever. I'm content with the current version because the party leadership is indeed liberal. aliceinlampyland 22:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

Monona Terrace

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)

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)

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. -Nick^talk 23:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Very unprofessional intro to article

This article’s introduction needs major rewriting. First of all, introductions should be nothing more than overviews of the state, maybe including generalizations, such as general facts about the state and short previews of things to come in the article to give readers a little "heads-up" (if you will). In-depth racial make-up and political history, for example; these things should go in subsequent sections.

Secondly, punctuation and grammar errors are common, notably the usage of commas (or lack there of, in this case). Also, word usages and sentence structures are very unprofessional. For example: "Yankee"? ... You’ve got to be kidding. Without sounding too sarcastic, can we please be a little less unprofessional? Instead of "Yankee," why not specify the people in question as being from New England or simply the United States in general? Also, saying that the "Yankees" long dominated industry and the economy sounds more like something written by some resentful post-Civil War southern businessman, and should probably be deleted anyway since it is vauge and confusing (not to mention inappropriate and maybe even slightly offensive). Another example is the word "Vacationing" used to describe an economic sector. "Tourism" is the proper word to use. Please, somebody rewrite this introduction.

Just browsing through the other state articles for some examples of good introductions, it appears that almost every state has a better introduction than this one (sorry for sounding harsh). When rewriting, be general. --Okiefromokla 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've got some time so I'll see what I can do with it. --Dbackes 13:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

disagree-- I think it's an excellent opening; it stresses the people rather than the geography. Rjensen 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead section "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article." It currently discusses ethnic heritage and political history. Instead, it should provide "an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable". Needs some work. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dbackes edit isn't bad [7], but I think Wisconsin has more going for it than progressive politics, cows, and cheeseheads. Perhaps mention of beer, financial services (Milwaukee), biotech & .com work (Madison), tourism, etc? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was having trouble getting one sentence to properly segue to the next and I didn't want the opening article to sound like a list of random facts about Wisconsin. I agree with Rjensen that there should be a mention of culture in the opening, but a long diatribe into the original settlers of Wisconsin is unnecessary.--Dbackes 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin's history is based on its complex ethnicity, which has to be covered. This does it in succinct fashion --one sentence each on Yankees, Germans and Scandinavians does not seem excessive. I doubt it offends anyone: The state has always been ethnically heterogeneous. The Yankees arrived first and long dominated industry, finance, politics and education. Large numbers of Germans arrived between 1850 and 1900, centering in Milwaukee, but also settling in many small cities and farm areas in the southeast. Scandinavians settled in lumbering and farming areas in the northwest. Small colonies of Belgians, Swiss, Finns and other groups came to the state. Irish Catholics mostly came to the cities. After 1900, Polish immigrants came to Milwaukee, followed by African Americans from 1940 on. Rjensen 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be covered. Just not necessarily in the lead. perhaps just a single sentence like "Wisconsin has a strong ethnic heritage marked by its European immigrant base" or something like that. Again, the point of the lead section is to summarize the contents of the article itself, not get into great details on its own. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the reference to Yankees should be kept, and more added where appropriate... read any Wisconsin/Milwaukee history book (especially one written by a local historian) and you'll find its usage. The word not only describes locale but also heritage, the long family ties in the new world, money, and so on. It is used when describing the initial settlers in comparision to the immigrant influx ten years later, and is not meant as a "backwater" word for northeasterners. 72.131.44.247 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a show of hands: who thinks of "Yankees" when I mention the word "Wisconsin"? Thought so. C'mon folks, this intro should be a summary of what Wisconsin is, not a stroll down immigrant lane documenting each ethnic group that happened to move there (btw, why no mention of the natives???). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that "Yankees" is confusing, why are baseball teams settling wisconson? :) Also remember that the opening should not introduce material not present in the article. Wikipedia:Lead_section -Ravedave 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Yankee" in modern vernacular is ethnically ambiguous. If it is meant to refer to dutch settlers it should refer to them as such. The intro should make people want to read more of the article, giving them the choice of what part about Wisconsin's heritage they want to read about, not forcing them to learn about Wisconsin's extensive ethnic heritage, that's what the ethnicity section is for.--Dbackes 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Yankees (New Englanders) are very much present in Wisconsin--they dominated much of its political and financial history. Are peopole forced to learn new things? Tough love. What do we think they really want, the religious statistics? The dairy production data? The Yankees founded and dominated the state as Gara explains:

Wisconsin's transplanted Yankees soon became "westernized" and contributed considerable talent to the new state. Many brought with them the advantages of higher education and previous political or business experience which they found useful in the West. The Yankees formed a self-conscious element in the population and they often favored political, social and economic relations with others of the same background. Some of the Yankees espoused reforms like anti-slavery and temperance. From their ranks came many land speculators, lawyers, merchants, newspaper editors, town promoters, railroad boosters, and political leaders. The majority of delegates to both constitutional conventions came from New York or New England and for the first quarter century of statehood, as the power of the lead miners waned, such Yankee leaders as Rufus King, Alexander W. Randall, James R. Doolittle, George B. Smith, Timothy O. Howe, Edward V. Whiton, and C. C. Washburn controlled Wisconsin politics.

[ A Short History of Wisconsin. by Larry Gara 1962, p 88] Rjensen 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Point being, the word "Yankee" doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, so why should it have prominence in the lead? If you feel it deserves mention, add it to the history or demographics. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

good point so I fixed that and provided a basic history of the main ethnic groups. Rjensen 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Below is a rought draft intro I typed up. I tried to fit in aspects of the culture and history to come to some sort of compromise. I put Yankee in there followed by "from the northeast" for clarity purposes. My concerns are that it is a) long and b) to culture-heavy. What do you guys think? Of course, there are probably some typos and it needs lots more inter-wiki links but those can be put in later.--Dbackes 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin (IPA pronunciation: [wɪs ˈkɑn sn̩] is a state located in the midwestern United States. The first Europeans to settle in the state were French fur traders. The French ceded the territory to Britain after the French and Indian war. After the American Revolution the territory was given to the United States as part of the Treaty of Paris, but would remain largely under British control until the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1815. Shortly thereafter, there was a lead boom in the territory leading to a large increase in immigration by Yankees from the North Eastern states. Mining would continue to drive industry in the territory for several decades. Then, in 1848, with the lead boom dying down and the imminent gold rush of 1849, Wisconsin became a state. As the lead mines began to close down, logging and farming would take over as the main industries of the young state, drawing in new immigrants from Scandinavia and Germany. At the turn of the century, the Industrial Revolution would see the rise of manufacturing in Wisconsin as well as an increase in immigrants from Poland.

Many cultural aspects from early settlers remain to this day. Brewing, an industry borne out of the large Scandinavian and German presence, is also a very large part of Wisconsin’s industry and culture. Another aspect of Scandinavian and German culture, the polka, remains alive today in Wisconsin’s various polka festivals. Progressive politics are another aspect of Wisconsin culture. When the first draft of Wisconsin’s constitution was written, it was considered to be one of the most progressive of its time. Though the first draft was vetoed in favor of a more moderate version, examples of “forward” (as is the state’s motto) thinking can be found throughout Wisconsin’s history.

Modern Wisconsin is seeing rise to some new traditions as well. Professional football, in the form of the Green Bay Packers, has become a staple of Wisconsin culture. The Cheesehead is often shown as the stereotypical Wisconsinite. The city of Milwaukee has changed from its humble beginnings into the 22nd largest state in the U.S. Milwaukee is home to the Summerfest music festival that is among the largest music festivals in the world.

[END ROUGH DRAFT]

the goal is to help people understand Wisconsin today, and yesterday. People in the state are very proud of their long heritage and minimizing it seems unwise. What new points need addressing in the summary? Polka = czech. beer = German. Rjensen 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The purpose of a lead section is pretty clear: to provide "an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable". Your perception of the citizen's ancestral pride notwithstanding, the lead shouldn't focus on that any more than its relative mention in the rest of the article. All it needs to do is summarize the key points of the article. No more, no less. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a succinct attempt, focusing on brevity, letting the reader continue below for more details:

Wisconsin (IPA pronunciation: [wɪs ˈkɑn sn̩] is a state in the United States, located in the Midwest. The rural economy was originally based on furs, then came mining, lumber, farming, dairy, and tourism. Industrialization began in the late 19th century in the southeast, with Milwaukee as the major center. In recent decades service industries, especially finance, medicine and education, have become dominant. The state is noted politically for both being the birthplace of the Republican Party as well as having a strong Progressive movement. Its capital is located in Madison.

The state has a strong ethnic heritage, including an European immigrant base at its founding, later followed by African Americans, Hispanics and Asians. Ancestral pride is shown through the various ethnic festivals held throughout the state. Wisconsin is home to three major professional sports teams, notably the Green Bay Packers, whose fans are often referred to as Cheeseheads.

Brevity is a virtue... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Being too brevious can be bad though, according to this User:AndyZ/Suggestions an article > 30KB (which this is) should have 3-4 paragraphs. I don't think quaint Cliché hold any water here...-Ravedave 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and my draft is likely too brief. I think the focus, however, must be on the lead being a summary of the article, and not a place where particular topics are discussed at length. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new version you put up, the cheesehead comment at the end seems tacked on, and it needs a bit of expansion, but it's a good starting point.--Dbackes 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New intro suggestion

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: [wɪs ˈkɑn sn̩]) 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.

Salmar 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well since Yankee is offensive and I have read the previous discussion and it seems "Yankee" means dutch new englanders, I changed the sentence from "Yankees from New England came..." to "Dutch settlers from New England..." The link from the word "yankee" went to the baseball team... come on guys. "Yankee" is a racial or cultural slurr and should not be used. 70.128.110.178 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"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)

I think that this intro is good, can we get and up/down vote on the implementation of this intro? I vote yes.--Dbackes 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

'Yes--agree with Dbackes. Rjensen 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days, I'm putting it up--Dbackes 23:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the fact that Chicago was almost part of Wisconsin in the lead? It seems wrong to put it there, since it states something that could have happened, but didn't. 71.102.134.129 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Midwest in Intro: RfC on Talk:Michigan

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)

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) and updated 10:01, November 20, 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Tomer^talk 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation

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

Somebody made a typo on the population count of Madison

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)

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)

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 Edit this page 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)

Demographics section

Before my edit, the article stated that "Wisconsin is widely regarded as the most 'German-American' state in the Union (although North Dakota, with 43.9% German ancestry, can also make this claim)."

I find the second part of that sentence arguable, since North Dakota has fewer than 700,000 people and a declining population, and Wisconsin is actually well-known as a center of German-American culture (or at least as a place where people like beer and cheese). Any thoughts or further edits are welcome. -- gohlkus 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I notice that you’ve changed it to read, “Wisconsin, with many cultural remnants of its heavy German settlement, is known as perhaps the most "German-American" state in the Union.”

1. Are there objective ways of measuring how German-American a state is?
2. Does Wisconsin qualify under any of those methods?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then cite something to that effect and get rid of the weasel words. If the answer to only the first question is yes, then find some sources that say that Wisconsin is more German-American despite the evidence to the contrary. If the answer is only yes for the second question, then find some sources to attribute that claim to. The theme here is sources: If we can’t find some authority on the German-Americanness of Wisconsin, then, frankly, it’s just some schmoe’s opinion and there’s no reason to mention it here at all. --Rob Kennedy 05:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

vote banning gay marriage

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

I also agree. I'm removing the political issues subsection. Factual statements are fine, but this section just invites POV rants. -Nick^talk 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

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)

New Weather section added to page

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)

Vandalized!

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)

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 Edit this page 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)