Talk:Wisconsin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Population Bug

The population is listed as {{{2000Pop}}} . I took a look at it, but can't figure out how to fix it. If anyone knows how, or wants to take a look, please do. Baribeau 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't seem to figure this out. Anyone good at infobox/template programming? -Nicktalk 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. -Nicktalk 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

State Representatives

How many does Wisconsin have? -King23

The General Assembly has 99 members; the Senate, 33; Wisconsin has 8 members of Congress. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

English official language?

An edit was just made suggesting that English is the official language of Wisconsin. I can't find any documentation for this and I am pretty sure it that Wisconsin does not have an official language. I know some counties and towns in Wisconsin have made English their official language, but I can't find any documentation that the state did. Can any Wisconsin residents verify whether or not this is correct?--HarryHenryGebel 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A few years ago there was some controversy over making English the official language, but it never happend. So no Wisconsin does not have an offical language.--ChesterMarcol 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

English could probably be the de facto langauge of Wisconsin since its practiced by the majority of the population.NuKkEm 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is no category for "de facto language," a phrase which is itself bilingual! In my part of town, the de facto language was German for a long time, with Yiddish a few blocks away. --Orange Mike 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For those seeking further information, I suggest they read this 2002 document from our Legislative Reference Bureau. --Orange Mike 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sports

The sports section is getting pretty long. What do we think about moving most of it to a new article (Sports in Wisconsin) and leaving a short summary of the current pro sports teams? -Nicktalk 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, lets start bulking up the Sports in Wisconsin. I think that the Sports in Minnesota page is a very good example of how the sports in Wisconsin Page should look. --Dbackes 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does only one "ethnic group" deserve a link?

I placed links to various "ethnic groups" to correct the omission of links to them. Before I acted, I observed that only "African-Americans" possessed a link. Why was that so?Velocicaptor 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an oversight? WP:AGF. And, thanks for fixing it. Tomertalk 03:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

French spelling

Is it necessary with a French spelling guide? As far as I recall from my visit in Wisconsin, French is certainly not a widely spoken language in the state. Thus I suggest that the French spelling guide be removed, due to lack of relevance for the article. Is there consensus for this? --Thrane 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MAIS MONSEIUR!!! Your travelles did not then take you far! We all speakes the Frenches ici! I'm kidding. Nobody speaks French in Wisconsin, including French teachers. :-p </gratuitious disparagement> Tomertalk 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It clarifies where the word came from, since the French were the first European explorers and settlers here. Let it be. --Orange Mike 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the source (but am looking for it) but I remember reading the name was Ouisconsigon. And that the state of Oregon may also derive its name from this word. A mention of a possible link does appear in the Oregon article. There are also other explanations mentioned. It would be nice if anyone might be able to help me find a source on this. Anonym1ty 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


I was taught by an Ojibwe language teacher from Black Earth that the name derives from miskwaabigan ("red earth/clay/stone") or Wiishkoonsing ("muskrat house/lodge") with the latter being the name he gave more weight to. Later nicknames for Wisconsin, such as "the badger state" reflect the original name, as badger in Ojibwe has a similar connotation to muskrat.

Comment on voting method edit dispute

I believe that pencils are widely used; however, markers are also used in some locations (I do recall using a marker myself). The Election Worker Manual lists "Pencil or Proper Marker in each booth" in the setup supplies list (page 11). Also, the Election Security in Wisconsin statement from the state government notes that 85% of ballots are optically-scanned, 10% on hand-counted paper ballots, and 5% on touchscreen electronic ballots (and so it is necessarily incorrect that pencils are universally used). As for observing, any citizen can observe the election process; however, since most votes are scanned via OMR (optical mark recognition), the tallying is done via computer (and so I don't know how one would "observe" the tallying). I assume the scanning machines send their data to a central computer that aggregates the data.

In sum, the statement as written is partially incorrect (pencils are not the only thing used), and the assertion about observing the tallying is misleading (how do you be "present" when a computer tallies votes?). On Wikipedia, the bias is toward omitting disputed "facts" until they can be substantiated via a citation (better an omission than an falsehood). Therefore, I think the statement should be deleted. -Nicktalk 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I used a sharpie last time... – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Number of lakes?

As a Minnesotan living in Wisconsin I am occasionally attacked with the claim that Wisconsin has more lakes. The Minnesota wikipage lists a number ~700 higher than the Wisconsin page but the latter is without a source, reputable or not. I'd like this matter settled once and for all but repeated Internet searches on my own to find Wisconsin's true number has yielded numbers from 7,000 to 14,000 amongst tourist websites.

Levelistchampion (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it said when such arguments arise, that Minnesota only has more lakes because a lot of Minnesota lakes are what people in Wisconsin refer to as "ponds".  :-) 71.87.23.22 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard that too but in that blustery rivalry sort of way. Minnesota's DNR webpage states a lake is a body of natural water of 10 or more acres. I'm sure that if there was an official Wisconsin count somewhere online it would state its criteria and, should the minimum acreage vary from Minnesota's, require further research such as a complete account of all lakes in Minnesota under Wisconsin's scale. At that point it would just be tedious and worth dropping. If it doesn't come to that, I'd love to see what other people can dig up.Levelistchampion (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rome, Wisconsin listed as a fictional city in Wisconsin

I was just wondering why Rome, Wisconsin was listed as a fictional city under Television shows set in fictional cities in Wisconsin ( Picket Fences ). My grandmother was born in Rome, Wisconsin. [[1]] slmcgowan2003 Tues. Jan. 15th, 2008 1:28 pm

If you go to the article Rome, Wisconsin, you will see that there are at least two real-life Rome Townships in Wisconsin, in addition to the fictional town/city from the TV show. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article opens, "Wisconsin (IPA: /wɪˈskɑnsən/, local pronunciation [wɪˈskansən])". I understand what the first pronunciation means, but I am not sure what the second is supposed to mean because "a" does not appear at Help:Pronunciation. Is it supposed to rhyme with "can"? Is that a legitimate local pronunciation? I know people who were born and raised in Wisconsin who pronounce "Wisconsin" with the first one listed, but the article makes it sound as though local people only pronounce it the second way. Do any regular editors of this article have any input as whether or how to improve this? -Rrius (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The first transcription /between slashes/ is a phonemic transcription; the second transcription [between brackets] is a phonetic transcription, intended to represent the actual sound used by Wisconsinites, who typically realize the phoneme /ɑ/ (known as the "short o") as a low front vowel [a], as opposed to most Americans outside of WI/Northern IL/MI/Upstate NY etc., who realize that phoneme as a low central vowel or a low back vowel. That is, depending on where you are from, the phoneme called "short o," which is conventionally transcribed with the IPA symbol /ɑ/ in American English, may have different sounds--[ɑ] or [a] or something in between, or [ɒ], or even (more rarely) [æ] or [ɔ]; Wisconsinites typically have [a]. That being said, I personally would remove the phonetic transcription; I only added it because User:TShilo12 had tried to use the "a" symbol in the phonemic transcription, which was just confusing, since a phonemic transcription is supposed to indicate the correct pronunciation of a word or name *regardless* of your accent. Phonologically speaking, the name Wisconsin has the same pronunciation in California as in Wisconsin--i.e., /wɪˈskɑnsən/; but the actual sound may be different, because the accents are different. Note that some other names may in fact have variant pronunciations (used by outsiders) that are phonologically different from the local pronunciation, examples being Oregon and Nevada---*/ˈɔrɪˌgɑn/ and */nəˈvɑdə/ as opposed to /ˈɔrɪgən/ and /nəˈvædə/. HTH, Jack(Lumber) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you say WHIS-cen-sen or whisCONsen? I've heard both pronunciation on television... 82.73.87.116 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I was raided in WI and have lived in all points North, East and South within the state, the second pronunciation is how I say it and how I hear it as well. I've never heard the first one stated. In MI, they prunounce it WES-con-sen. It's a bit annoying. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I know that native WI people might pronounce it more like whis.CAN.sen due to the upper midwest nasal-y accent, but as I've lived in other parts of the country, I've never heard it pronounced anything other than whis.CON.sen. -Nicktalk 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't resist. Here's an old favorite among Wisconsinites, to the tune of a popular UW-Madison Marching Band song (which is more nationally known as a jingle for a beer company ironically not based in Wisconsin): "When you've said WESconsin... you've said it wrong!". Another joke, when someone refers to WESConsin, is to ask if that is anywhere near East Consin. 69.95.234.19 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, whateveer the pronunciation is, it has to rhyme properly when you chant: "My name is Yon Yonson, I live in Wisconsin. I work in a lumbermill there. The people I meet when I walk down the street, they ask me my name and I say: My name is Yon Yonson, I live in WIsconsin..." etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Population Density

The seems to be a bug in the population density as the figures do not match to the states area and its population stated in the infobox. (Strahli82) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (CT)

Very perceptive. It appears that the density figure in the infobox is from the 2000 census, when Wisconsin's population was around 5.35 million, while the population figure is from a more current estimate, like 2006 or 2007, and shows the population to be around 5.56 million. So I guess we should decide on which figures to use, the official yet out-of-date 2000 ones, or the more current estimate, and then apply it to all demographics data. This is perhaps a larger problem, though, as the infobox links to lists of the populations and population densities of the states, so perhaps we could simply specify 2000 for the density and 2007 for the current population estimate. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM

It seems like this page has been subjected to vandalism! I am only registered user here on English wikipedia because I have translated some articles to Norwegian wikipedia. I have a very limited knowledge of how to do things here, so I can only wave the red flag. Maybe the page should be locked?--Politicus (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is suspicious irrelevant content intended as vandalism here. I tried to edit for relevance but what I planned to edit was not accessible for editing. -- Turtlens (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the intro paragraph?

Okay so I noticed in 2006 you guys had a good debate on improving the introduction. So how from then to now, the whole thing has disappeared into a mere sentence or two? Could someone revive it please, I am not an editor on here. Please see Minnesota for a FA-style intro. .:davumaya:. 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(The "debate" mentioned in the above post refers to two inactive discussions which are preserved in Talk:Wisconsin/Archive 1#Very unprofessional intro to article and Talk:Wisconsin/Archive 1#New intro suggestion.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WI voting procedures

Dual Freq,

My dictionary defines "interpret", as, "To construe in the light of individual belief, judgment, or interest". How are you "finding" personal interpretation in the below? If you cannot set forth a rational explanation for your contention that the below is "interpretive" by me, I trust you will stop vandalizing this article by reverting my non-interpretive contribution to it. I will give you 24hours to respond.

"In Wisconsin, pencils are used to mark the election ballots, and the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied. However, in select communities, some voters are still allowed to use a proper marker. [1]" 68.77.202.11 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the handbook. Your little paragraph says "the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied" but the link you provide explicitly says on page 51 (PDF p83) "While counting votes occurs after the polls close, the process of counting is a public activity. Any interested person, including a candidate, may be present and observe the counting as long he or she does not interfere with the process." Also nowhere does it say pencils are required, it says "Pencil or proper marker in each voting booth" and "If your polling place uses optical scan machines, be sure you have a supply of appropriate pens." Your "interpretation" is incorrect an misleading. Do not continue to attempt to add false material to this article. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous editor: it seems like Dual Freq is correct. I can understand your rationale for wanting something like this in the article. Clearly, you are concerned that Wisconsin's election procedures are inadequate to protect against election fraud, and you want to point that out. But I am afraid that your additions are based merely on your reading of the election manual, and don't give any information about actual procedures. But, more importantly, I don't know that a description of the details of WI's election procedures is appropriate for an encyclopedia article on the state as a whole (that is, it may not be notable; see WP:N). If these voting procedures leave the potential for fraud, then I suggest you write an op-ed for the state newspapers and explain your concerns. However, if you do, I think it would be useful to know how many polling places actually use pencils vs. pens/markers, and whether there has ever been a case (in WI or elsewhere) where ballots have been changed after the fact by erasing a pencil mark. Furthermore, it seems like the public is welcome to view ballot tallying, although I don't think too many people make the effort to do so. Perhaps you could implore people to observe the tallying, but, again, that is something that should appear in an op-ed rather than here. Just to reiterate, I (and other WP editors) can certainly understand your motivation for posting this information, but it is simply too light on the details (i.e., too speculative) and simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -Nicktalk 01:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


I will further parse-out my sources before I re-add my non-interpretive contribution to this article:

As to my statement, "In Wisconsin, pencils are used to mark the election ballots", this is not subject to dispute, as this shocking bit of information is found clearly stated on page 15 of http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Wisconsin Election Officials Manual, January 2008, and is certainly of interest to anyone wanting to know about Wisconsin, particularly as this state is still influencing the outcomes of primaries and participating in presidential elections. I can understand why a biased person from Wisconsin might not want this audacious fact to be known, but personal biases of locals should be kept out of articles.

"and the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied", is also true in the common understanding of the terms. Although the Wisconsin public IS allowed to be present when the electronic tabulating equipment is reported as counting the votes, the Wisconsin public is not allowed to inspect the tallying process itself, i.e. they are not allowed to inspect the ballots as they are being tallied so as to see that they are being tallied correctly, which is really the only point of interest when one is referring to "being present when the votes are tallied" - as watching an electonic box while it manipulates transistors is a moot point. Your quote from p51 of the election manual, i.e. "Any interested person, including a candidate, may be present and observe the counting as long he or she does not interfere with the process", is what is actually misleading, not my statement in the article, in that on page 47 of the same manual, the footnote states, "It is considered 'counting' once the polls have closed and all ballots are tabulated, either by equipment or by a hand tally", and, whereas, optical ballots are not counted by hand unless they contain a write-in vote (Election Manual p56); they are tallied outside ALL MEANS for public inspection/observation of the tallying process, since even the software programs that do the tabulating are "secret software" programs that the Wisconsin public is not allowed to inspect under statutory law (Wis. Stat. 19.36(4)), either by doing a reverse-engineering on the tabulating equipment, or by inspecting either the source code or machine code that is supposed to be loaded into it. If the public is not allowed to inspect the actual process of the tallying of the physical ballots, either by inspecting the actual ballots so as to observe that they are actually being tallied correctly, or by inspecting the tallying software programs, it is entirely accurate to say that, "the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied", as that conveys the real sense, i.e. the only meaningful sense, without going into extreme detail about as to why that is a true statement.

As to my statement that, "However, in select communities, some voters are still allowed to use a proper marker", I have added the following additional citation in support of my statement, so that you can know with certainty that it is true and properly sourced that some communities are forced to use pencil (What we may wish to document further is that some are actually still allowed to use a "proper marker", as the Election manual says that they can use one or the other, and we have only documented with certainty that pencils are actually being used). The City of Milwaukee Election Commission Poll Worker Training Manual", p 25, states "pen.. cannot be read by Optech Eagle". Milwaukee County voters have not been allowed to use other than the Optech Eagle, i.e. pencil, to mark the ballots, for many, many years. It is only the smaller communities that may still be allowed to use, as the Election manual correctly terms it, a "proper marker", if in fact there are any still left which are actually doing so.

As now being fully sourced, and fully explained as to why my way of stating it is an accurate compilation of the source material, do you find anything further to object to in the below, which I have modified slightly so to add another important piece of information about Wisconsin?

"State statutes do not specify the manner for actually counting ballots. (http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Election Worker Manual, January 2008 p52). In Wisconsin, pencils are used to mark the election ballots, and the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied. However, in select communities, some voters may still be allowed to use a proper marker. ("The City of Milwaukee Election Commission Poll Worker Training Manual", p25); http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Wisconsin Election Officials Manual, January 2008 p15). 64.109.201.46 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have still provided nothing but original research and your opinion / interpretation of various voter manuals. Nothing you've said here seems appropriate for a state of Wisconsin encyclopedia article. Your painting with a very broad brush saying "some select communities" and trying to say pencils are required in others, but offering no secondary sources. That might be suitable for a blog, but not for a state encyclopedia article. Personally, I'm not concerned that someone is going to go through and erase a pencil vote, that's too time consuming, its a lot easier to just lose a box of ballots in an area friendly to one candidate over another than it is to erase ballots. If your concerned about voter fraud in Milwaukee, join the crowd. Dozens of articles have been written about election irregularities in Milwaukee. Skimming them, I don't see any related to pens, pencils, crayons or proper markers. An investigation into November 2004 election voting in Milwaukee revealed that record keeping was so screwed up that it was impossible to audit and that, among other things, the total number of votes exceeded the number of registered voters by more than 4,600 and this was in a presidential election where Wisconsin was carried by only 11,000 votes. See also More Milwaukee Voter Fraud Claims, More than 200 felons illegally voted, more than 4,600 votes counted than were registered to vote, Voter registration information often doesn’t match driver records, Database will check names against felons, dead people. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"You have still provided nothing but original research and your opinion / interpretation of various voter manuals." You still haven't identified anything that is "original research", "opinion", or "interpretation" of various voter manuals." Therefore stop reverting. 69.215.155.111 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire text is original research with deceptive and selective quoting which makes it a worthless and misleading paragraph. What is "State statutes do not specify the manner for actually counting ballots" supposed to mean? The publication you reference describes a method to use in the very next sentence. It also says nothing about pencils being required only in certain communities but not in others. It also says nothing that would prevent a voter from bringing in their own writing instrument. If you don't want to use a pencil, bring in a crayon or something else. And again, the manual explicitly says counting is public, so you can not reference the manual and say it is not public. The paragraph you've added makes no sense and is not appropriate for a state encyclopedia article. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous editor... While a I agree with Dual Freq's critique, arguing over the edit is moot considering the fact that this topic is definitely inappropriate for a general article on the State of Wisconsin.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
ENOUGH ALREADY! This dispute has gone on long enough. As pointed out by others, the particular method of vote counting in any state does not qualify as important enough to warrant entry into a WP article. It's not in the article for any other state. If there were a separate article on Wisconsin Voting Procedures, then it would belong there. But there's not. So stop the silly edit war!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.156.197 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My edits don't talk about anything except what is in the sources I cite. I don't talk about crayons in the edit, because the subject of crayons hasn't been shown by you to be relevant to the accuracy of my edit, or in any way relevant to my edit. As to whether the vote-counting takes place in public, you haven't refuted the rationale I used in selecting the wording for the article which I did. If you at least attempt to address my discussion points on as to why I selected the wording which I did as to the public not being allowed to present while the votes are tallied in Wisconsin (as being based on how Wisconsin election officials are defining "public" in the same document) then you would not necessarily be violating the rules of wikipedia by reverting my edit. But you haven't done so. As I argued above, I am using the common meaning of terms in my expressed compilation of the source documents, and as I have shown in my preceding talk entry, you are taking a quote from the source document "out of context", in what is then a failed effort to "prove" that what I have written is not accurate to the source.

As to your merely conclusory statements, please spare us from anymore of that. It serves no purpose but to evidence that you are at a loss to rationally oppose my contribution to the article, which it must be then assumed that you are opposing out of bias. What, then, is your real reason for not wanting the accurate, sourced information in the article?

As to "edit-warring", if we all follows the rules, the person who is in the wrong will stop making the wrong reverts. 69.215.142.15 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have voted in 2 relatively large cities and one small township. The source must be wrong, because I have not experienced what you are writing. I have mainly used electronic voting methods. Pencil is sometimes an option, but it is not required. Maybe your source is dated. About your comment about the results not being able to viewed by the public: again, you are are wrong. My brother-in-law was a major campaign worker for several major statewide candidates, including being a campaign manager for the house of representatives candidate and a relatively high member of a national Senate candidate who has a Wikipedia article but lost in the final election. Part of his job was to view the counting at selected polls to make sure there wasn't counting fraud. I don't believe that there is any difference between the voting in Wisconsin and voting in any other state, so I believe that there should not be a section on it. Yes there are occasionally problems, but they don't deserve mention. The source must not be credible or it is dated. Royalbroil 03:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are irrelevant because they constitute original research, and because you can't support them with citations, and because they don't relate to my contribution to the article. Being able to use a pen in some communities other than Milwaukee, doesn't refute what my contribution to the article states. As to your friend supposedly viewing the "counting" of the votes, the computer software that does the "counting" is "secret software" which the public is not allowed to inspect under a law specifically passed to prevent such inspection, and which source therefor, I cited in my contribution. You have set forth no cause for doubting the reliability of my sources. Check them out. Checkout all the manuals and statutes. It's been this way for a long time in Wisconsin. 69.215.153.157 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You have an issue with electronic tabulation machinery used for voting; in a democratic republic, that's a legitimate concern (you and I might even be in some of the same organizations or on some of the same mailing lists seeking to address such concerns). However: that is not justification for your constant re-insertion of this matter into a general article about the State of Wisconsin, as if this were a problem somehow peculiar to Wisconsin or to some specific portion thereof. Please take your crusade elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
After this came up last weekend, I looked at the State Elections Division webpage on voting equipment that describes the process on certification of voting equipment and has links to audits of the equipment where the machine count is compared to a manual count. One of the items mentioned in the board's approval process is that "The vendor shall, at its own expense, furnish, to an agent approved by the board, for placement in escrow, a copy of the programs, documentation and source code used for any election in the state." If some inaccuracy turns up in an audit the source code and software is being held in escrow and can be examined. Certainly this is not going to satisfy everyone, but it does show that steps have been taken to guard against fraud via electronic voting machines. So secret code or not, the machines seem to pass the initial testing and random audits. A state article is not the place to include this material anyway. Even Florida's article does not address specific methods used in voting. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All my contribution to the article states is: "State statutes do not specify the manner for actually counting ballots." <*ref>http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Election Worker Manual, January 2008 p52,</ref>. In Wisconsin, pencils are used to mark the election ballots, and the public is not allowed to be present when the votes are tallied <*ref>"The City of Milwaukee Election Commission Poll Worker Training Manual", p25; http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Wisconsin Election Officials Manual, January 2008 p15, p47)</ref>. However, in select communities, some voters may still be allowed to use a proper marker. <*ref>"The City of Milwaukee Election Commission Poll Worker Training Manual", p25; http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Wisconsin Election Officials Manual, January 2008 p15)</ref>.

My contribution to the article doesn't go into the propriety of the way things are being done in Wisconsin. It just sets forth the facts as they are stated in the source materials. My contribution isn't arguing for either side as to whether marking ballots in pencil is a good idea, or as to whether electronic vote-counting is good idea, or as to whether it's fair that the public is prohibited under Wisconsin law from observing the election process in a way that allows them to verify that the votes are being tallied correctly. My contribution to the article is just a statement of the facts as they are documented in the source material about Wisconsin. Not one of you has found anything in the above edit which is not accurate to the source material. Please re-read my edit, and try to respond to what is actually in it. If you have no objections based on fact, I trust you will obey the rules and stop reverting based on your desire (biases) that the facts not be known. 69.215.158.158 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, there were/are two issues with your additions. One of them is the veracity of your statements, and the other is the notability of your statements. On the surface, your additions have proper citations and therefore could be said to pass wikipedia's citation criteria. However, my concern (which is shared by some of the above editors) is with the notability of your statement. There are likely millions of facts about the State of Wisconsin, each one true and fully supported by verifiable sources. But that doesn't mean that every one of those facts belongs in this article. This article (and Wikipedia in general) is not a collection of factoids. Your addition seems out of place and without context. This is not to say that your concerns aren't important, or that this information doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Rather, it would seem like it would be more appropriate to an article on election procedures in the US. At some point, if this edit war continues, the article will be protected and you will not be able to edit it. -Nicktalk 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Also to the anonymous editor: Please see WP:Consensus. If you want to add something that others are opposing, you need to gain consensus for your addition on the talk page. As it is, there are a multitude of editors who have either reverted your addition, or spoken here in opposition to it, so you have a very long way to go in gaining consensus for your addition. As for my opinion, this addition, as others have said, is too specific for a general article on the state of Wisconsin. AlexiusHoratius 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"A new report says Wisconsin has the best voting and election laws out of 10 swing states in the presidential election." from Report praises Wisconsin election, voting laws. Associated Press. September 16, 2008. On another note, why was this article "fully protected"? Semi-protection was requested (and was definitely the appropriate action), but I fail to understand the reasoning on the full protection. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why the admin went with full protection. I requested semi-protection to stop the onslaught of anonymous edits from different IP addresses. Anyway, the protection expires tomorrow, so we'll see what happens... -Nicktalk 06:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The first sentence in the Religion section has not reference even though there is one (http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/55_2000.asp). Is Lutheranism a denomination like the Catholic or United Methodist Church? It's rather a family or group of denominations sharing a common background. The ELCA is not a synod, but a Lutheran denomination like the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod and the WELS. These are two Lutheran denominations having the word "synod" in their name. Synod can mean quite a lot of things, it's not necessarily a denomination. Am I too strict? 80.132.36.2 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A "religious denomination", as our own article says, "is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition and identity"; that article then goes on to mention Lutheranism as an example of a Christian denomination. I'd say yes, you are being over-strict. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And there is a footnote (currently #15) citing where those figures came from! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Clever Vandalism

This page has been subject to some clever vandalism throughout, and is need of a major edit/clean up. Jgb09 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph ends by describing Wisconsin as the largest state in New England.

Miller-Coors

Does the sentence about Milw being the headquarters for Miller need to be changed? Isn't Miller-Coors headquartered in Chicago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.241.131 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Wisconsin History Really Begin In 1631?

I think the American Indians would disagree...could someone with knowledge about the earlier history of the state please fill in this huge gap? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

TOTAL DUH

Does it bother anyone else that there are two separate "Economy" sections? ," said The Person Who Is Strange. ~Yup. It's all true. Click here for more. My page is outdated, but there are a lot of boxes. 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol and WI Culture

While I'm sure the intent was to incorporate some of the ground breaking research from the MJS series, terms like "popular belief is" doesn't really lend to a neutral voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.255.130 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes

I think we should have at least a section for these.... or a whole new page--174.103.195.12 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion in The Great Lakes Region (North America)

I made a minor edit, to become consistent with the other Great Lakes Region states and Canadian Province of Ontario, pointing out that Wisconsin is part of bi-national The Great Lakes Region (North America).

The other states are: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota; as well as the Province of Quebec.

All these American states are plenipotentiary members of the bi-national Great Lakes Commission, and border The Great Lakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatLakesdemocracy (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

crime stats

Could we break down the crime from state to cities and regions? I highly doubt the crime in Milwaukee has any relevance on the northern cities in the state. --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Crime is higher in rural areas, per capita. Speciate (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Orangemike deletes my proposed new lead-section in favour of the 'standard lede format'. I suggest it might be time to review the benefits and drawbacks of this format, which lists all the least interesting features of the topic, instead of summarising the content, as often requested by Wiki. 86.144.116.230 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not enough climate data

The climate section isn't very detailed enough, it needs information about extreme weather such as tornadoes and blizzards. Lamp301 (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

America's Dairyland

I'm not sure why "America's Dairyland" is listed as being the state's nickname, when it is actually the State's Slogan. "Wisconsin State Symbols". Wisconsin Historical Society. Retrieved 21 May 2015. It's also erroneously listed as the nickname for Wisconsin on List of Wisconsin state symbols and List of U.S. state nicknames. I'm going to be bold and change it. Does anyone have a source (that isn't a Wikipedia mirror) that indicates this is a nickname rather than a slogan? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nyth83: My edit was not unexplained content removal. My edit summary was "See talk". The explanation is directly above this post. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, according to WI Bluebook, "Badger State" is also an unofficial nickname.[2] I don't think there is an "official" nickname for the state, so I'm not sure how this is going to be resolved. The license plates do say America's Dairyland, not Badger state, but then again that's more of a marketing slogan. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that a nickname has to be official. I am trying to say, both here and on Indiana, that not every phrase associated with a state is a nickname. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Page 5, very top bar, "Nickname: The Badger State or America's Dairyland". [3] --Dual Freq (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I added a source showing its use as a nickname dates to at least as early as 1913. It did not become a slogan until 1939. Nyth63 01:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll agree to the term as applicable here and I added a recent citation to it. However, "America's Dairyland" is only used as the title for the second part of the article on page 4 of that Newspaper article, it doesn't make use the term "America's Dairyland" in the body of that article and it doesn't say that it is a nickname. I understand what you're trying to do there, but that source only proves that the term "America's Dairyland" existed in 1913, and appeared in a newspaper, not that it was applied as a common nickname for the state. It is in the real estate marketing section of the paper and could easily be interpreted to be referring to the Marshfield, WI area as America's Dairyland, rather than Wisconsin as the aim of the article is to get people to move to Marshfield. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I found other sources, that was just the oldest. You are still removing something without a consensus when it is clear there are editors that feel it should remain in the article. There needs to be more research and dicussion about this obviously. Nyth63 15:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"SUPREMACY OF WISCONSIN IN DAIRY INTERESTS". Marshfield Times (Land Edition). 10 Sep 1913. pp. 1, 4. <- Verification of that reference failed, the article does not say that it is a nickname for Wisconsin, it uses it as a column heading on page 4, not in the article body, and I feel it refers to Marshfield, WI since the entire article is a real estate sales pitch for Marshfield, WI. All that reference does is demonstrate that the term existed in 1913, and no one is saying that it didn't exist. Also, I do agree that it was a nickname, you just can't use that as a reference. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that I misplaced my comment above as you were not not the one to remove the phrase. sorry for the confusion. Nyth63 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wisconsin Blue Book is the authoritative source here. It says that "Badger State" is an unofficial nickname. It further says that "America's Dairyland" was a slogan added to license plates. Nowhere is "America's Dairyland" listed as an officially designated slogan. Just because an advertising slogan appears on license plates doesn't make it an "official" slogan. That requires that the legislature pass legislation officially adopting it as the state slogan, which has not happened. 32.218.41.208 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere is The Badger State listed as an officially designated slogan either. So are you saying both have to be removed? That's absurd. It is a nickname in common use, as evidenced by the citation provided. There can be no "authoritative source" for an official nickname when there is no official nickname. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Examples of books specifically describing "America's Dairyland" as a nickname for Wisconsin. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Amtrak

There are eight Amtrak train stations in seven cities in Wisconsin. See: [4], [5]. 32.218.35.156 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

Wisconsin is also famous for cheese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.218.180.98 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional Demonym

"Sconnie" is growing in popularity both in Wisconsin and beyond; when will it reach a level of use to add it to the list of demonyms? 108.171.131.161 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. I have lived in Wisconsin for more than 50 years and never heard this until a couple of months ago. I actually hate the sound of it. It sounds like a skin disease. My guess it is probably more of someones marketing idea of some type in which case it does not belong here. In any case, you would need some reliable source to prove it's supposed popularity. My guess it is a short lived fad that will not last long because it just sounds so damned ignorant. Just my POV so prove me wrong. Nyth63 22:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, did a quick google search and looks like it comes from a store in Madison. Also checked the USPTO database and it is trademark registered to the same store. So it's a marketing campaign and definitely does not belong in an encyclopedia. Nyth63 22:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I take umbridge with several of your points. Firstly, it doesn't matter if you like the sound of it or not, as a personal opinion is irrelevant on the encyclopedia. Secondly, it is widely used in Dane County (as it does indeed seem endemic to Madison); it is certainly a term preferred by those who come from out-of-state for the university, but that doesn't invalidate its use. Indeed, I know several people that use the term, myself included, that didn't realize it was a marketing gimmick. This implies that its popularity is detached from the company that owns the trademark, and thus won't die out when the product does. Check social media around the University--"sconnie" is used much more often than "Wisconsinite" ever is. Thirdly, as you have contributed to articles on the Kohler Company, you more than anyone ought to know that marketing names can become permanent aspects of vernacular and dialect, and that beginning as a marketing term doesn't invalidate its dialectical usage (see: bubbler). 108.171.131.161 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
As a further update, I just ate at the Sprecher restaurant in Sheboygan, and they use the word "Sconnie" in their menu without attention to copyright. It's definitely not as isolated as you suggest. 108.171.131.161 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In your response you did not address the most important point of the initial response to your post. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say. Unless reliable sources are found that verify the use of the term, it does not belong in the article. -- GB fan 19:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I never suggested adding it to the article in the first place. I was simply curious at what level of usage it would become acceptable to add (with a source at that time, obviously). Nowhere did I suggest adding it now or even remotely soon; it was simply to suggest a consideration for the future. 108.171.131.161 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I never said said you wanted to add it to the article now. I answered your question, when it is discussed in reliable sources. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on what reliable sources say. -- GB fan 00:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Climate Map

  • New map: Köppen map based on 1980-2010. 800 meter resolution
    New map: Köppen map based on 1980-2010. 800 meter resolution
  • Old map: 2007 map, assumed to be 1970-2000 normals, but not clearly stated unknown resolution
    Old map: 2007 map, assumed to be 1970-2000 normals, but not clearly stated unknown resolution

I don't understand what the problem is with the new map. Files like File:WI_koppen.svg are being used on many other state articles. I think the 1980-2010 800m res image is fine. The two are very similar looking to me, except the 2007 one looks to be based on a lower resolution dataset since it was extracted from a world map. Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota articles are all using the higher resolution images. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the newer Koeppen climate map, and would be more than happy to answer any questions or concerns about it. Redtitan (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Dual Freq. The new map is more detailed and comes from a reliable source (Oregon State University PRISM Climate Group). The old map is cruder and its provenance less clear. 32.218.152.35 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Redtitan: I'm all for the newer map, but I was curious where at Prism you got the map (or did you use geolocated data for it?) Just moved to Wisconsin and was curious where my town is on it too. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir:Hi Evergreen Fir, I calculated the Koeppen types from raw climate data, available on PRISM's website as raster files. I used GIS to create the map, and still have my original work for the Wisconsin map. If you'd like, I could easily look up the type for a specific town. Redtitan (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
That would be awesome. I'll email you. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The map was just reverted again today by 184.55.159.10. Same user also vandalized climate graph on article for Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Redtitan (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I just checked the contribution history of 184.55.159.10. The page they first edited - Frederikshaven - also had significant vandalism from this IP address 75.184.102.196, which is now blocked, and has extensive history vandalizing climate graphs across the Midwest (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/75.184.102.196&offset=&limit=500&target=75.184.102.196). I suspect both IP addresses are the same person. Redtitan (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Redtitan: The aggressive language in edit summaries also sounds like the same person. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to proceed in this situation... — Eru·tuon 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: User reverted it this morning a few times, and has now been temporarily blocked (for 24 hrs.). I'm expecting they'll be back tomorrow. Redtitan (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

Could someone please correct the misspelling in the Transportation-Major highways section? (In case you can't figure out the misspelled word: "transverse" should be "traverse".) 32.218.41.139 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: "Transverse" and "traverse" are arguably both correct but they are also both more-convoluted ways of saying "are located in". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who is a native speaker of English, has at least a ninth-grade reading level, and understands the difference between a noun, an adjective, and a verb, please address this request? ("Transverse" is an adjective or a noun, not a verb; "traverse" is a verb.) "Are locate in" is incorrect because most of those interstate highways are also "located in" other states. 32.218.38.11 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Somebody who is a native English speaker with a graduate-level education and a profession in writing already responded. Transverse is also used as a verb, being the present participle of transversing, which means to cut across. Also, "are located in" does not necessarily mean or imply "are exclusively located in" and the inclusive sense of the phrase is made explicit by the fact that it modifies Interstate highways. Please also see the policy on implying lack of qualifications about another editor. Wikipedia is not Facebook or other social media and treating it a such is a good way to earn quick blocks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Just because Wikipedians like sources, here's a very early usages of "transverse" as a verb: "The ceilings of these apartments were low, transversed by large unwrought beams in different directions, and lighted, if that phrase could with propriety be applied, by small casement windows."[2]

References

  1. ^ http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=872 Election Worker Manual, January 2008 p15
  2. ^ Moser, Joseph (July 1802). "Vestiges, Collected and Recollected". The European Magazine, and London Review. XLII: 11. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Undue material in agriculture section

I've tagged @Soibangla:'s addition to the agriculture section as undue.[[6]] The rest of that subsection and the parent Economy section was largely factual and didn't contain specific political commentary. The material added was a partisan assessment of Gov Walker's efforts in the area. Beyond undue, the material restoration doesn't follow WP:BRD as this is new material that was challenged and restored without gaining consensus. Springee (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not a partisan assessment. It is a fact that Walker instituted the program and it resulted in a glut and depressed prices, and it is a fact that retaliatory tariffs have exacerbated the situation, as reliably sourced. I realize these facts may cause some to experience cognitive dissonance, but they are facts. Please remove the tag and allow the edit to remain. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The rest of the section has no political material and doesn't address the outcome of any specific policy initiative. It is certainly undue to include a very political paragraph sourced to a single RS in an otherwise non-political section that delivers high level assessments. For example the manufacturing section just below doesn't talk about retaliatory tariffs resulting from Trump's trade war that have targeted Harley Davidson. It doesn't talk about how medical device spending will impact GE's imaging business located in the state etc. This isn't a case of facts causing some to "experience cognitive dissonance". This recent addition is the only material of its kind in the whole section. Per BRD (and CONSENSUS) the proper procedure is to remove the material until consensus supports inclusion. Rather than just remove the material outright I've added the undue tag. Other editors can decide if your addition was reasonable. Springee (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I stopped reading at "political material." There is no political material. Period. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that Harley and GE are not mentioned in the article does not mean that this material regarding "America's Dairyland" should not be here. "America's Dairyland" is in the lede; are Harley and GE? Feel free to add material about Harley and GE. I would also appreciate if you would specify precisely how the edit deviates from the facts and ventures into the political realm. soibangla (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Especially considering the source used (a dairy trade publication), this does not belong here. Unless other, more neutral sources can be proffered, this does not belong at all. Even if it can be better sourced, it doesn't merit that much space and it certainly shouldn't lead. Wisconsin has been a state for close to 200 years. An event in this decade does not merit that prominent of coverage. Further it is a drastic fail of WP:NPOV. I'd support and suggest immediate removal (which I would do myself right now due to failure to follow BRD, but I cannot completely load pages with pending changes on my phone so I cannot), with discussion of other possible sources here looking toward possibly adding a sentence or two in proper chronological order. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The RS is the NYT. Wisconsin has been a state for close to 200 years Relevance? that much space and it certainly shouldn't lead Two sentences deep in the article, actually. drastic fail of WP:NPOV The edit is 100% factual and unbiased, in fact. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:I believe I have adequately addressed your stated concerns. Is there anything else you would like to express? soibangla (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You haven't made any arguments to respond to, Soibangla. You've only asserted things, not responded with argument based in sources and policy (see WP:ILIKEIT. Just so you are clear, I am arguing that a bit of this size, sourced only to a trade publication of an involved organization cannot possibly be neutral. Further, I'm arguing that it certainly shouldn't lead as that gives it undue prominence. It should be in chronological order. Additionally, the amount of copy gives it undue WP:WEIGHT. I still oppose including your preferred version. It appears Springee opposes anything on this, a position he supports well. I might be amiable to inclusion of a small (like one sentence) bit about this with better sourcing in the proper chronological order. Why don't you propose something and see if it flies? John from Idegon (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to understand why you continue to assert that the edit was in the lead when it clearly was not. It wasn't even the lead of the section. I deliberately placed it as the second paragraph, but if you still believe that placement is too prominent, feel free to move it down. Easy! I also explained that the source is the NYT, a reliable source, yet you continue to assert it's from a trade publication, and even if that were true, it tends to refute your concern because trade publications closely follow their specific industries. You continue to assert that it gets too much copy, when it's actually three sentences deep in the article about what is the most prominent industry in the state. Now you ask me to propose an alternative, but instead of doing that yourself, you chose to falsely assert there was consensus to revert the edit (as later tagged by Springee) in full. A reasonable person might conclude that this was not a good faith action to collaborate. soibangla (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with John from Idegon, this material is undue in the section in which it was inserted (regardless of how many RS's back it) and more so since it was sourced to a single NYT article. Soibangla, I don't see the bad faith editing you are seeing. Perhaps @Ponyo: could suggest what I've missed. Springee (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I am fully confident that I have decisively demolished the arguments of both of you, and your responses are to repeat flat falsehoods or dodge. Consequently I now have reason to suspect that specious arguments are being made to filibuster valid, factual content that some find inconvenient, and I may seek admin intervention unless you can convincingly persuade me not to. So far, it ain't workin', as any reasonable, objective observer would agree. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Soibangla: The material you are edit warring to restore has been challenged by multiple editors as WP:UNDUE. You need to get consensus for its inclusion prior to restoring it to article space. I'd leave a notice on your talk page affirming our policies in this regard, but you seem to blank it regularly claiming that your moving the material to an archive which doesn't really exist. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The editor's assertion that there was consensus to remove the edit is false, as is this: you seem to blank it regularly claiming that your moving the material to an archive which doesn't really exist soibangla (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The burden for inclusion of challenged material is on the editor who wishes to restore it. Regarding your blanking of talk page content in lieu of archiving, could you provide me a link to "archive 3" that you note here? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Ponyo No, I will not indulge your request after you falsely accused me of devious behavior. Perhaps there was an error, but there is no attempt at deception. I encourage you to strike your accusation and apologize. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I never accused you of deception, I just noted that there didn't seem to be a point in trying to explain the policy to you on your talk page as you blank the content noting it has been archived when it doesn't appear that any archives exist (also here for example). It's not nefarious, just not particularly accurate or helpful (see Help:Archiving a talk page). No point in taking up any additional space here discussing it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not blank it "regularly," I have done it thrice in the lifetime of my account, and BTW, archive3 does exist, there was no error. Please strike and apologize. And BTW, why do you have in interest in monitoring my Talk page so closely? soibangla (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I have an interest in your talk page due to the fact that I am an admin who, upon stumbling upon an edit war, was looking to see whether you had been warned previously regarding edit warring, only to find a blank page and edit summaries for archives that don't appear to exist. You still have not provided a link to archive 3 (or any of the others). But again, as I have obviously captured your attention and was able to remind you of our policies regarding consensus, this is no longer a relevant discussion for this page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you believe it was proper for John from Idegon to assert consensus by reverting an edit in full, after it had been tagged by Springee, when this matter wasn't even half a day old and only three editors had engaged the matter? soibangla (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla, I won't be saying this again. If you have a problem with my behavior, take it to a noticeboard. Please limit your posts here to discussion of the issue at hand. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I am, in fact, discussing the issue at hand. Now, do you have a response to my earlier edit regarding your repetition of false and specious objections to justify exclusion of the edit? soibangla (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, we were both recently, gently warned about edit warring by MelanieN.[[7]] CONSENSUS is clear that if an edit is challenged then we head to the talk page. If consensus for a change can't be reached then the previous stable text is restored. Springee (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Springee:Please respond to my questions above soibangla (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Winconsin" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Winconsin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Wiscansin" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiscansin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

In AMERICAN english please !

All the states of these pages are written in british english IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet). It is not Wisconsin (/wɪˈskɒnsɪn/ It is Wisconsin (/wɪˈskɑnsən/)[1] /ɒ/ and /ɑ/ are two different phonems.
/ɒ/ sound does not exist in american english[2], it is a british sound.

The persons who have written these words in API should edit them.

American states should be pronounced in american english, not in british english.

The current prononciations of these articles are real traps for non fluent English speaking persons like me. One believe to find here a reliable reference. In reality, this is not the case.


--MYR (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)boi

References

  1. ^ http://lingorado.com/ipa/
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c97xwLdSsXU
As if there is only one American English? Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:4301:2880:613D:2CEE:91D6:10E3 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The Chicago metropolitan area only covers 2 counties in Wisconsin. Why is it listed as largest in Wisconsin?

Shouldn't the Milwaukee area be considered largest in Wisconsin instead of Chicago area? Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

I just wanted to add some more facts about my home state of Wisconsin. Thanks dere guy Larry LarryTheGamer (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not doneIf you wish to request a reduction in protection, you need to contact the protecting administrator. This isn't the venue for that. John from Idegon (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Split Geography into its own article

Make Geography of Wisconsin its own article. Many other states do already, and there would be enough interest, as our geography is quite unique. Not every state had glaciers drift over it some time ago. Anyway, I'm not quite sure on the consensus thing here, so if there is no opposition, I will get started on the article in a week or so. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly moved it over, as I doubted that anyone would complain. Going to work on expanding it in the next few days. Feel free to help me out if you want! JackFromReedsburg (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Split politics section to new article

The Politics of Wisconsin is a topic of particular current interest. Here are some potential sources of information:

-- M2545 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll add it to my to-do list. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wisconsin dairy industry

I think the Wisconsin dairy industry should have its own article. There is so much source material, enough for its own state specific article. Thriley (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Created! JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism - WI does in fact exist

The line "A lot of people believe that Wisconsin exists, however, that is actually a common misconception" has been added to an early paragraph. This should probably not be included. Please remove above string and replace with nothing. 147.155.225.20 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

- Change population density from 105/sq mi to 108.8/sq mil (source = https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/historical-apportionment-data-map.html)

- Change density rank from 23rd to 27th (source = https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/historical-apportionment-data-map.html)

- Change median household income from $59,305 to $64,168 (source = https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0400000US55)

- Change land area from 54,310 sq mi to 54,153.1 square miles (source = https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0400000US55)

- Change area rank from 23rd to 25th (source = https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0400000US55)

- Change racial compositions from:

Total population 5,754,798 100% White 4,961,193 86.2% Black or African American 361,730 6.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 51,459 0.9% Asian 148,077 2.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1,378 0.0% Some other race 105,038 1.8% Two or more races 125,923 2.2%

to

Total population 5,893,718 100% White (not hispanic or latino) 4,634,018 78.6% Hispanic or Latino 447,290 7.6% Black or African American 376,256 6.4% Two or more races 359,534 6.1% Some other race 182,054 3.1% Asian 175,702 2.98% American Indian (Indigenous) and Alaska Native 60,428 1.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2,199 0.04%

(source = https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0400000US55) 2003:F3:EF37:E6A6:7537:9F41:147D:259B (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

8.1 airports

the article states that general Mitchell is the only commercial international airport, yet when you click on the list of airports, three airports are listed as international airports in the commercial section. general Mitchell international, Appleton International, and Green Bay- Austin Straubel international. BrewCityStu (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "largest".Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request for the film industry section October 9 2022

I would like to add the following sentence to the end of the filmmaking section;

"Wisconsin's film tax incentives program was eliminated in 2013".

[1]

I believe it's worthy of including this information because at present, the filmmaking section is worded in such a way that it sounds like Wisconsin currently offers film tax incentives, when it hasn't in almost a decade.

Onenightandonemoretime (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onenightandonemoretime Added. TylerBurden (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Onenightandonemoretime (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2013/06/21/wisconsin-state-budget-eliminates-film.html

Edit Request: Add Topic “Cheesy Roads In The Badger State”

According to multiple sources, Wisconsin’s roads rank among some of the worst in the country with numerous potholes, and rough unmaintained roads creating hazardous driving conditions for residents and passers through.

https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2015-12-21/budget-policy-and-priorities/wisconsin-roads-ranked-third-worst-in-nation/a49399-1

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/wisconsin-third-worst-roads/#app

12.20.208.194 (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Transcript symbols

In the Etymology chapter, Jacques Marquette's rendition of the origin of the name 'Wisconsin' is accompanied by a few symbols. What is the system employed here? B. A. M. 2001:9B1:4605:FE01:556E:8BB6:9438:BBEB (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add explanatory note to portion between [27] and [28]

In the bracketed suggestion beginning with 'likely...', the symbols ᒣᔅᑯᐤᓯᣙ apparently emanate from (one of) the Canadian Aboriginal writing systems, like i.e. Cree and/or Ojibwe. This may be household knowledge around North America but, sadly, Greek to some other parts of the world. So, any hint here will do. *)

In case of a more advanced explanation, I can contribute the following:

Judging from some syllabic grids available, the final (rightmost) sign ᣙ ('n') seems to be turned upside down.

Reportedly, final consonant signs do vary between regional versions of the script.

Being a complete ignorant in the field myself, I was greatly helped by this piece of info. B.A.M __________

  • ) Related Wikipedia articles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree_syllabics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_writing_systems 2001:9B1:4605:FE01:556E:8BB6:9438:BBEB (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Film Industry section

Hello,

I would like to add note of the film "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" having shot in Milwaukee. At present, the section sounds as if the only major production to have utilized Wisconsin's tax incentive program was "Public Enemies". I've included a source below to back up the claim.

https://archive.jsonline.com/entertainment/movies/98266574.html/ Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinnamonrollsaregood Added. TylerBurden (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

I believe that there should be an added paragraph to the 'Civil War' subsection of the 'History' section stating the importance of Wisconsin in the formation of the Iron Brigade, with 3 of the 5 divisions of the Iron Brigade comprised of residents of Wisconsin. This Brigade is of significant importance to the outcome of the Civil War and as such deserves mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Brigade Troutking (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Largest county or equivalent

In the info box it lists marathon county as the largest county. The "largest county or equivalent" link goes to largest counties by population. Maybe change that link to largest county by area? Benmsch (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wisconsin/Archive_2&oldid=1215996742"