Talk:Wisconsin State Fair

Cream Puffs

I'd like to add a section to this page regarding the cream-puff operation. If anyone has objections or ideas, please post them here, otherwise I'll begin working on something.--PaddyM 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! No reason to ask for permission to edit this article, especially since no one else appears to be editing it. --BaronLarf 14:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, let me know if I can help.DC (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Events & Entertainment

I notice that the section is tagged for cleanup. Just an FYI to other editors, I'm working on this right now, trying to turn it into more of a paragraph than a list.TheBigFish (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

2011 violent flash mob

Please do not remove content without a clear policy, guideline, or essay based reason. Event received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not label legitimate differences of opinion as vandalism. It's a violation of WP:CIVIL.32.218.47.7 (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked blanking verified content can be considered vandalism. The event in question received national media attention, from a multitude of reliable sources, more so than any other event that has occurred regarding the subject of this article. Per WP:DUE the event, in some form, should be kept in the history section. Just because the event was not a positive event, does not mean it should not be included. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor gave a clear, valid, and legitimate edit summary: "Irrelevant information considering long history of fair". That's not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, WP:VANDAL states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Calling it such is not only a violation of WP:CIVIL but also of WP:AGF. 32.218.47.7 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, this is that editor. I apologize for not including an essay reason. Here's why the inclusion to 2011 events is inappropriate to include, in my opinion: With the "History of the Fair" paragraph including 3 short paragraphs, it should not include an incident as such. As someone who witnessed the events of that night firsthand, many details are incorrect. Notable events of the Wisconsin State Fair and it's 163 year history are many, and should not include one isolated incident from 3 years ago without more comprehension. I wish to remain fair, however, so I propose a solution: A comprehensive History of the Wisconsin State Fair, lows and highs, including events of such nature as to include year-by-year successes and controversies alike. How does that sound, fellow editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.154.132 (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not against expanding the article, I never have said I was. If other verified content can be added, please add it. But I do not think erase this part of the events history, that arguably could meet WP:EVENT, serves to benefit the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are good points, RightCowLeftCoast. But I feel the Wisconsin State Fair can be better summed up by histories of the architecture, agriculture, youth groups, and racing prowess throughout the years rather than events that occurred 3 years ago. Perhaps the 2011 fair events could be listed under a separate heading entitled, "Controversies". As it stands now, it appears evident to me that undue weight is given to that aspect of the fair's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkmac (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the national coverage it received I think it actually meets due weight. Can any other editor point out another series of events where the subject of this article received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? I looked; majority fall clearly under WP:GEOSCOPE. Compare this to the 2011 mob violence event which received national coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That is also a good point, RightCowLeftCoast. But the Wisconsin State Fair is not known for the events of 2011. If the History section of the article were expanded, then it would be prudent to include the subject. As it stands now, it is given undue weight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkmac (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even heard of the fair until this incident. Please show me non-local, national reliable source coverage of what the fair is known for? If other editors can find it, please add it! Just saying it is undue doesn't make it so. If it is undue than we should be able to find thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of non-local reliable sources about other events that have occurred at the fair (its history). I have looked, so I have given the consideration that the event is undue, and that is not what my research has found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not the place for an extensive recounting of a minor incident, and have trimmed the content for due weight. I've also added a quote from a commentator for context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two reliable sources verifying that hate crime charges were considered (including the Christian Science Monitor source (that was deleted) and BET), while it was bold to delete the content, should that not be considered? Furthermore, the quote is unsourced as of the most recent edit.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore how is this a minor incident? Over a dozen people were injured, and what was also removed was over two dozen people were arrested? Why leave out that people were arrested but only include how many people were injured?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:UNDUE suggests that we give incidents due weight based on the length of the article. Extensive discussion of the incident in an article this short does represent undue weight, because it is such a short article with very little context. If this article was expanded to featured-article length, then it might not be undue to have more than one paragraph about the incident. As it is, the incident takes up fully one-third of the fair's "History" section. You can't possibly be arguing that the incident is the most important thing that has ever happened in the 164-year history of the fair, and I'm pretty sure you don't have any reliable sources claiming that it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wisconsin State fair is known for the Guinness Record of the World's Largest Cream Puff. The inclusion of IndyFest to the Milwaukee Mile. Breaking the 1 million attendance record 2 years in a row. The oldest operational cow barn structure in State Fair circuits. It's also known for fascinating controversies like Jeffery Dahmer's arrest, the attack on the Milwaukee Mayor, and and the Sky Glider malfunction. Let's make a comprehensive history of the Wisconsin State Fair, highs and lows, so as to include events that will have significance to mention in a 164-odd year history. Discussing the minutiae of one hour of one day in 2011, in my opinion, is irresponsible until we can provide a full History of the Fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkmac (talk • contribs) 10:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't claim that it is, I am looking at the national reliable sources about the fair. As I said, I did the research, I am not finding significant coverage of other events that have occurred at the fair. If there are other events that received non-local (within the state, as this is a state fair) multiple reliably sourced coverage, I invite other editors to expand the article. This event meets all parts of WP:EVENT, except for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, as the coverage lasted about a week or two, and then non-Wisconsin sources did not follow up on the result of the arrest, those who were injured, or the possibility of hate crime charges (other than the mention in the book cited in the paragraph).

Again, just saying something is undue, doesn't make it so. If there were other events that received significant coverage outside of the local area (again WP:GEOSCOPE) that have greater coverage, I hadn't found them, and I have been looking. Looking at news coverage since 1990, I find three non-Wisconsin sources that give mention of the fair:

• Q&A: Kevin Healy on Milwaukee IndyFest activation heading into Wisconsin State Fair
• He keeps Minnesota State Fair's livestock barns real (and rural)
• The Wackiest State Fair Competitions Around America

Now let us look at the searches for the event, 416k hits. Compare this to when one adds "violence" to the search (almost all about the 2011 event), 51.6K hits. That comes out to 12% of all searches about the event or about 1/8th of all hits about the subject of this article. That is significant, IMHO. Compare this to populations of different states, this one event would be like California (11.91%) to the rest of the United States' population.

I kindly ask the above editor, while this matter is still being discussed, so that others who are new to the discussion can see all the content, that are the subject of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there lasting coverage of this "flash mob"? That is, has there been significant continuing coverage and interest in the event, or are all of those hits simply repetitious news stories from 2011? My Google search detects very, very few reliable sources which consider the event of current interest. I find that search returns a ton of 2011 blog posts (many of them on racist, white supremacist sites, by the way, which doesn't exactly help your case.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There are also plenty of reliable source sites that gave significant coverage of the case, as I have provided in the article, and in this discussion. The 416k non-violence hits, also contains plenty of non-reliable sources as well, however no one other than myself have provided reliable sources that give significant coverage to other events that have occurred at the fair during this discussion.

Also, on the above question, I already answered that in my previous post; therefore there is not need to ask that. If we were to go for lasting, has there been lasting coverage of any other event that has occurred at the Wisconsin State Fair? If not, then would the other editors want the history section blanked? Why target this one event that meets two of three parts of WP:EVENT. Please look at that guideline, that is for a stand-alone article. Why are we judging the notability of a single event using a guideline for a stand-alone article? What we should be doing, as I have done, is look at what reliable sources give weight to in regards to events that have occurred at the subject of this article (the Wisconsin County Fair). No other single event received as much national reliably sourced content as this event. Therefore, it deserves to be in the article per WP:DUE.

If others would like to suggest a condensed version of the content as it was before NorthBySouthBaranof boldly and unilaterally removed verified content, that preserves all the reliable sources, thus allowing the reader judge for themselves whether the event was significant or not, than I would be willing to work towards a consensus compromise. But to remove the content outright would be like removing California from the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I consider the current version to be an acceptable compromise, as long as the rest of the article remains this length. If you want to work together to quadruple the length of the article as a whole, which would make it no longer undue to perhaps slightly expand the section, then we could have that discussion. Otherwise, it's fine as-is, IMO.

Also, I have reworded the section in accordance with the sources, which do not state exactly the number of people alleged to be involved - a source which says "dozens to hundreds" does not allow us to state "hundreds" as unequivocal fact. The sources supplied also hedge their statements about the alleged motivations, with statements such as "some people claim racially-charged attacks" and "Questions Arise Over Whether 'Flash Mob' Attacks in U.S. Cities Motivated by Race." We must similarly hedge our discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with signing posts, RightCowLeftCoast. Part of the reason I decided to edit the page in the first place was because of the undue weight given to the History section. As of right now, it can be summed up as: 1. First State Fair, 2. Second State Fair and moving, 3. The events of one night of the 2011 State Fair. I just think that the apparentness of undue weight is almost... glaringly obvious. As the article stands now, is still is summarized as such (1. First State Fair, 2. Second State Fair and moving, 3. The events of one night of the 2011 State Fair), but I suppose I must compromise with the new edits. Since I live in Milwaukee and posses the Wisconsin State Fair historical archives, I might as well get going on filling completing the page to it's full potential! I think that would be the best way to solve any disagreements.Quarkmac (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Why exclude information about the numbers arrested? Is that not as relevant as how many were injured? It could be included along with the injury figures. Also I see two (1 2) sources were deleted that are both reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Because there's no need to stack multiple sources for the same information we already have. That's citation overkill. I have removed the Business Insider source with an incredibly inflammatory headline - no other source has used such incendiary and unsupported wording for the incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, found something that can have the event meet WP:PERSISTENCE, coupled with the book mention, the event was discussed a year later by the event organizers (including here, here). And found that no hate crime chargers were pressed.

Inflammatory or not it is still a reliable source, there is also inflammatory content in the NPR source

But at some point, the fighting spread outside of the grounds of the fair - and at that point became a racial incident with black kids basically targeting and attacking and in some case, robbing predominantly white fairgoers. So it was a pretty disturbing dynamic for people to see happen.

— Eugene Kane

Should that be removed to? What else should be removed? Please see WP:NOTCENSORED:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so.

When did NorthBySouthBaranof begin to become the owner of the content of this site? Why instead of deciding on your own what should and should not be in the content, do as I had proposed, and come up with compromise content here first?

Given this new problem I am taking this to a noticeboard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Of the four editors who have weighed in on the content in question, three have identified the last paragraph of the History section as UNDUE. Therefore, NorthBySouthBaranof's edits would seem to be in line with the consensus of this group. 32.218.38.67 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair (no pun intended) to insert a sentence about the followup. How about Fair managers added a youth curfew and worked with civic and youth leaders to prevent a recurrence sourced to the Fox 6 News article? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent addition. As I see it, the WP:UNDUE problem with the last paragraph stems less from its length than from its tone: it's newsy and sensationalistic. A paragraph more in line with WP:NOTNEWS might read something like: "In 2011 the fair became the target of a flash mob, as a group of adolescents attacked fairgoers both within the fairgrounds and in the surrounding area. Some witnesses asserted the attacks were racially motivated. In response, fair managers added a youth curfew and worked with civic and youth leaders to prevent a recurrence." 32.218.38.67 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That is OK, but it wasn't just some witnesses asserted, some attackers asserted it (CSM, Smoking Gun, BET, WBBM), IMHO that should not be avoided. Why hide that fact?
How about this:

In 2011 the fair became the target of a flash mob, as a group of adolescents attacked fairgoers both within the fairgrounds and in the surrounding area. According to West Allis Police an attacker said the attacks were racially motivated. In response, fair managers added a youth curfew and worked with civic and youth leaders to prevent a recurrence.

This is due to this quote from WBBM:

Police investigating the violent incidents at the Wisconsin State Fair has led to the arrest of a 16-year-old boy who said he targeted white fairgoers. The Milwaukee teen told police he and other African-American juveniles beat up white people because they were “easy targets,” according to West Allis police. He also said he “was going along with the crowd” in the robberies that happened after the midway closed last Thursday.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it is truly okay for discussion of a major attack to be in an article about the state fair as long as it took place there, but I do know it shouldn't be in the history section. So what I am going to do is move the race attack to its own section and put the Milwaukee Mile as a subheading under the history section.208.107.174.235 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edit per WP:BRD. There is no consensus for the change boldly made by the IP editor. The reversion also removed other content added by the IP editor that was not properly cited, and thus removed per WP:BURDEN.

Last I checked 2011, is in the past, therefore it is history.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)