Talk:Illinois

Elevation

It says the mean elevation is 970 m, with the highest point being only 376 m. That can't be right, of course. I would correct it myself if I could find the right figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.191.136 (talk • contribs) .

It was probably supposed to read 970 ft and 376 m. -snpoj

General edits

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?

The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

How is Round Lake Beach an important Suburb of Chicago? It's barely even a suburb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.231.113.72 (talk • contribs) .

WikiProject

Would anyone be interested in starting an Illinois WikiProject? This article looks like it needs major work and its usual sub-articles, (Government, History ect.) are nonexistant. I would like to start fixing them up and maybe in the future (long way away) make Illinois a featured article. I am currently involved in WikiProject Chicago and I know that there are people there who would join and contribute, but we would need members from downstate. Is anyone interested? --Gpyoung ^talk 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in contributing, as most of my edits already do contribute to the overall content on Wikipedia about Illinois. Though as a correction, we're not down staters :) We're from Central Illinois. Downstate is Carbondale and below. Agriculture 02:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I am obviously from Chicago where people and the media refer to anything south of Chicagoland as "downstate", even though I now realize its incorrect-please write that off to nievity. Anyways, I wiil create the project page and send you the list. It would be great if you could recruit some more downstate and central illinoisers (sub-chicagoan illinoisians?). Thanks --Gpyoung ^talk 03:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's even worse in State government where we refer to Cook and Downstate as the two possibilities, thus Waukegan and Rockford and even Aurora are Downstate to us. Tedernst 17:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Downstate is always dependent upon where you are and where you are from - For Chicago, it's all 'downstate' even north of the city. For Springfield, it's the half of the state to the south. From Golconda, for example, it's all upstate. And count me in for the improvement of the Illinois wiki entries. Robovski 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Robovski

How do you write a history of Illinois and completely overlook Jean-Baptiste Point DuSable's founding of Chicago? http://cpl.lib.uic.edu/004chicago/timeline/dusable.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.94.17 (talk • contribs) . 12:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Geography

The article claims that there are three divisions in Illinois, but then identifies them as "Chicagoland", "central Illinois", and "southern Illinois". This really leaves out the Quad Cities, Galena, and the Quincy area, none of which fit into any of these three divisions. I think this section needs to be rewritten somewhat. Kelly Martin 05:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a "simplification", more designed for elementary education. Illinois is somewhat unique in the number of natural divisions (geological, hydrological) as well as how the state was originally settled. Needs work. For example, the Military Tract of 1812 was not even listed in Wikipedia, until I added it. This is 15% of the overall area of the state's western region. G. Beat 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

American descent?

In the demographics section, there is a reference to American descent. What the heck is that? Tedernst 17:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

i think it means people whose families have been in this country for so long that they don't identify with any one particular European country. 66.28.14.121 17:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, to those mathematically inclined, "100% American". (Apologies to Richard Armour). Wahkeenah 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure they didn't mean American Indian?--65.16.61.35 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual offenders list

Hi, this is io:user:mithridates from the Ido Wikipedia. I've been uploading city files translated from the English for our Wikipedia but I've noticed a lot of vandalism, POV comments and whatnot in a lot of the articles and have been cleaning them up a little bit when I come across them. One thing I've noticed that I'm not too sure about is an external link to sexual offenders in the city, all linked to the same site and divided up by region. Like this:

http://www.sexualoffenderslist.org/illinois/edgar/chrisman/

For the city of Chrisman. Often these links will be right at the top of the external links section or even the only link. I personally think that it doesn't belong there being too specific for a general article on a city but I also don't want to step on any toes. What do you think? These links are in a lot of other states as well and I'm uploading them in alphabetical order, and there are some 30-something states to go. Mithridates 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think the links are appropriate for the articles, no. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 18:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, sounds good. I'll be taking them off too then. Mithridates 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rogues

Why is there a section entitled simply 'rogues'? Does anybody else believe this to be appropriate, especially with no context? And, in the interest of fairness, if the majority of you wikipedians out there think that it is, why is Dan Rostenkowski not on that list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.95.110 (talk • contribs) . 2 November 2005

• It's a counterpoint to the Favorite Sons section. It could certainly be enlarged. It just seems like Illinois has more than its share of corrupt politicians (a redundancy, as Groucho Marx once noted). Feel free to add Rostenkowski and anyone else that seems fitting. Wahkeenah 17:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the Rogues gallery section just for politicians or is it for actual criminals from/in Illinois? I'm talking about real criminals like Leopold and Loeb, Richard Speck, H. H. Holmes, John Wayne Gacy, John Dillinger or Al Capone, not just some politician who was acquitted for tax evasion. Are these supposed to be in some kind of order? Chronological by date of alleged crime? Alphabetical by middle initial? I would add them to the list, but I don't want to ruin the list if it's only for politicians. --Dual Freq 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• The list at present happens to be people in government who stole from taxpayers, or were accused of same, and their real impact was far greater than most of the so-called "real criminals" in your list. With the possible exception of the gangland types, those street criminals made headlines but their actual impact on people was only to their victims and victims' families. Gacy killed 33 individuals. How many do you suppose may have been killed or maimed thanks to George Ryan's office taking bribes to issue truck license to people who weren't qualified to drive those trucks? Wahkeenah 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no specific knowledge of the ones currently listed as 'Rogues', but picking the first one on the list as an example, William Stratton. His wikipedia article says he was acquitted of tax evasion with no mention of any murders or similar heinous crime listed. If this is a list of infamous people to balance the famous people, then certainly Speck, Gacy, Dillinger and Capone fit that criteria. They are recognizably associated with Illinois and their exploits are widely known. Maybe if it's a list of accused or suspected dirty politicians then it should be labeled as such. I'd never even heard of William Stratton until I read the Illinois rogue list, but based only on the wikipedia article he doesn't seem too roguish to me. --Dual Freq 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that it's a meaningless category--especially when Gacy and Capone don't make the cut. So I deleted it. Rjensen 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What "consensus"? You, yourself, and one other guy? Gacy and Capone were criminals. They behaved as criminals do. Big deal. The ones in the list were supposed to be serving the public trust and betrayed it. Thus they are opposite from the Favorite Sons. I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Illinois and its history. Wahkeenah 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a rogue anyway? dictionaries don't seem to help. no other state history has such a section as far as I can see. To include people who were acquitted does not seem right. The list is just junk history. Wiki is not in the business of deciding whether, say, Altgeld or Daley were "rogues". This is an encyclopeda and rests on the consensus of experts, and in this case, as Wahkeenah notes, there is no such consensus. Rjensen 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Look it up. Rogue. I can't write such a list for the other 49 states because I don't know them the way I know Illinois. Maybe you would prefer a more "encyclopedic" section title, like "Politicians who were indicted"? FYI, this is not an encyclopedia, it's nothing more than a pretentious weblog. Until they stop a-nones from freely updating it, it will remain so. Wahkeenah 05:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So who's a rogue? the dictionaries suggest something totally different than indicted officials. People we don't like? It's a bad list. One was acquitted, one was never accused of anything, a third (Ryan) is not yet convicted . Walker was NOT convicted of anything connected with government. Rjensen 05:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am done trying to explain it to you, non-Illinoisian, as it appears hopeless. Wahkeenah 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Education

Would the recent issue of low education funding from the state be pertinent to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.46.166 (talk • contribs) .

yes I think so, but it should be in context of trends in state spending for education over last 50 years Rjensen 06:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be hard pressed to include that. the only way is if could be part of a large trend about how illinois stacks up compared to other states for funding, i.e. 2rd in healthare spending, 40th in education, etc. (numbers not relevant) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuyFromChicago (talk • contribs) .

deleted references and links

I've moved the following stuff. comments? - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• "other accounts"
  • Tails and Trails of Illinois, Stu Fliege, University of Illinois Press, 2002.
• Scholarly Secondary Sources (now references)
  • www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59301214 WPA. Illinois: A Descriptive and Historical Guide (1939)
  • www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65659204 Meyer, Douglas K. Making the Heartland Quilt: A Geographical History of Settlement and Migration in Early-Nineteenth-Century Illinois (2000)
  • www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=71151873 Hoffmann, John. A Guide to the History of Illinois. (1991), highly detailed annotated bibliography.
  • www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=79398589 Gove, Samuel K. and James D. Nowlan. Illinois Politics & Government: The Expanding Metropolitan Frontier (1996)
  • www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94852725 Adams, Jane. The Transformation of Rural Life: Southern Illinois, 1890-1990 (1994)] (the author is no relation to Chicago's Jane Addams
  • history.alliancelibrarysystem.com/IllinoisAlive/files/bp/htm7/bp000182.cfm Peck, J. M. A Gazetteer of Illinois (1837), a primary source online

This is pretty high quality infromation you're removing. There is nothing remotely as good available outside university libraries. (I'm delighted you did not remove MY history of the state.) Rjensen 10:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing that, it's just that I'm very very uneasy about heaps of links to a commercial site. Especially multiple links from the same page. I'm happy to wait a bit and see if WP:ANI generates any meaningful feedback. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This User has also deleted links to on-line texts at a wide range of Early Christian sources too: a partial list of deletions is at Talk:Papias. Surely it must be unnecessary to defend the appropriateness of external links that lead a reader to on-line texts of patristic writers who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. How many of the deleted References here support statements in the article? Are these actions what we want? --Wetman 10:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, thanks for the wikistalking? It's the same argument in both places, actually: we must weigh carefully the benefit of having access the source texts (something the libraries are better suited to, I'd opine). - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wike has no rules against linking to commercial sites. It does have a rule recommending listings of publishers. In the book world, if you exclude the commercial presses you will empty the libraries pretty fast. The goal of Wiki should be maximum access, not restriction of information. Weighing benefits: I've made my case but Aaron has not yet made his case for the negative. Please let's have it. Is he suggesting that the Questia links are fakes or inferior or something? or that my library link to a rare 1837 Gazeteer of Illinois is somehow inappropriate for readers of an article on Illinois history? Honest, I've read that book years ago and there is no porn in it! Rjensen 11:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• C'mon, if it had pr0n in it I'd want you to upload some photos! WP:ANI is pretty strongly supporting Questia right now, and especially Bish's word carries a fair bit of weight. You're correct of course that there's no "rule" against commercial sites, just that we prefer free ones if we can get them. There's no urgancy, agenda, or attack here, and it's a bit unfortunate that the call-to-arms a few comments up has changed the tone.
• Again, I'm pretty happy to wait and see a bit. Look at it this way: the fact that I even took the issue to a broader audience suggests that I'm on your side. You'll notice that I haven't bothered to do so with regards to the early christian text links. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Call to arms?? Erasing solid information is close to vandalism. Isn't there enough vanadalism on Wiki already? Aaron calls for dialogue but cannot give any reason whatever for his actions--only one key seems to be working on his keyboard: the delete key. Rjensen 13:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hey that was really uncalled for. Please see WP:CIV. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Aaron is unable to defend his vanadalism he feels bad when people call him that. OK, let's just say he's wholly ignorant of Illinois history, ignorant of the bibliography that supports that history, grossly careless (one site he deleted came from the Bloomington Public Library), and heedless of the needs of Wiki users, putting his own political preferences about commercial sites ahead of Wiki policies (which encourage publishers to be listed). I have explained the reasons why at length, he is unable to explain his actions, and now he feels bad when people point that out. Rjensen 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. You've been here six months, so I'd have hoped that you would have had enough experiance to know that the behavior that you are demonstrating is totally unacceptable. I'm not sure why you've chosen to go all vitrolic when I

a) Committed a good faith and reasonable removal of multiple commercial links,

b) Brought those links to this talk page for review,

c) Left a very nice note on your user page explaining what I had done,

d) Took my concerns to WP:ANI#www.questia.com and asked for wider input,

e) Indicated that I would probably be happy for the links to go in, and

f) Responded quite mildly to your first personal attack above.

Responding to this with further personal attacks is beyond the pale, really. I'd urge you to step back for a moment, reconsider the course of events, and redact. Every edit is a value judgement, whether it is adding in a link or taking one away. Respect for the contributions of other editors, even ones we disagree with, is vital to Wikipedia.
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Has "I know you are, but what am I?" ever worked? At all? In the history of existence? Danny Lilithborne 02:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Politicians

Is it necessary to include a list of corrupt politicians, or for that matter a list of politicians in general, on the main Illinois page? The rogues list has appeared on this page before with no apparent consensus, I would suggest it be removed for the same reasons listed above. Maybe it belongs in an article about the Politics of Illinois, Illinois State Government or Illinois political corruption, but not in an article about the state of Illinois. --Dual Freq 23:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

it's a bad list--it has no historical perspective, and no meaning. It includes people who were not proven guilty of anything. Rjensen 23:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How long have you lived in Illinois? Answer that before you delete it again, son. Wahkeenah 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do live in Illinois and have for 50 of my 53 years. Although I see nothing wrong with an article on political corruption in Illinois, I too think that the list lacks context and is out of place in a general article on Illinois. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what bearing state residency has on this, I'm looking for some opinions on whether this list should or should not be on the main Illinois page mainly because I don't want this to result in a revert war. The list is flawed in several ways, listed above. Additionally, two of the names on the list are red links, so there is no real reason for them to be included since no Wikipedia article exists. Daniel Walker was convicted of a crime committed 10 years after he was governor and it was not apparently related to his position as governor. William Stratton was accused, but not convicted of tax evasion. If this list is supposed to list every accused politician, convicted or not, in the state of Illinois I'm afraid it would be quite a large list. Will it include everyone elected, from dog catcher on up to Governor? I think the list is flawed, pointless and POV. It has no place on the main Illinois page. --Dual Freq 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

excellent points--and if you want some POV debate ask whether Mayor Harold Washington should be on the list (he spent a year in jail). Rjensen 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means add Harold to the list. It is not intended to be partisan. And it is timely, what with "Lyin' Ryan" having been convicted today. The last time it was reverted, you groused that Ryan was still on trial. Well, Ryan's history now. And state residency does have a bearing on it, because its history of "colorful" polticians is part and parcel of the state's personaility, something you would not know unless you lived here. Wahkeenah 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of Orville Hodge and Paul Powell just because they don't have separate articles betrays how little you know about the state. Wahkeenah 01:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Wahkeenah is being a little insulting by suggesting other editors know less than he does. He has not explained why he seems so knowledgeable about illegal activity in the state. Hodge was never officially accused of anything. Rostenkowski's crimes were in Washington not Illinois. Rjensen 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This list is pointless. I removed the red linked names because none of the other lists of people on this page contain red links, why should this one be special. I'd prefer the entire list be removed. If you think the state's politicians are so colorful, then write an article about them and link the article here. This is not something that belongs on the state's general page. --Dual Freq 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You all are decidedly lacking in a sense of humor and perspective. Keep in mind that Honest Abe Lincoln himself was significantly aided by good ol' backroom maneuvering. Wahkeenah 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's really a worthless list. It shows no historical sensibility whatever (no scandals before 1950??), and personalized a serious issue involving corruption in the state, while ignoring the many debates on the issue. Junk it now or we'll just have to go to mediation. And no, Abe was not aided by any illegal activity whatever. Rjensen 02:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just scanning the article, I think there are too many lists on the page, period. This article should look more like Chicago, Illinois in terms of structure. While corruption is more than prevalent in the history of Illinois, it is far better addressed in prose, not as a list of convicted politicians.—Rob (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You're onto something. The article is probably way too long. There could be separate articles for the lengthy list of famous persons and infamous persons both. As far as the infamous, I intended it as a starting point, not an exhaustive list. And I never said Honest Abe was aided by any illegal activity. Wahkeenah 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm taking this off my watch list, so do whatever you want. I'll check back in six months or so, expecting to see massive improvements. Wahkeenah 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

I've added the Illinois article to the "raise article to the level of a Featured Article" section of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois todo list. Skimming the featured article list, there doesn't appear to be any other states on this list to compare to, except Rhode Island which is listed as a good article. Abraham Lincoln is an example of a featured article. --Dual Freq 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Towards the above stated goal, I've removed several lists and other things that look very redundant. The university list is a duplication of the list page I added. The important cities and towns list is too lengthy to list and redundant of the list page and the template at the article bottom. I drew the line at cities >100k pop. Corrupt politician list, somewhat reworded and added to government section, though it would fit better in a separate article. I think it would be wise to keep the lists down to a minimum especially when the are duplications and focus on adding verifiable content, citing sources when appropriate. I'd also like to trim the people from Illinois list down as well, but I'm not sure what criteria to use. --Dual Freq 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that the list has been narrowed down the Famous from Illinois list by the age when they left Illinois. Could you clarify a year so we can kind of hash out an informal policy for the list so that it doesn't become huge. --Dual Freq 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The criteria should be people who spent a significant part of their lives in Illinois, starting with their first career activity. In a few cases people who left right after college might be included (Reagan was a student leader in college for example.) A reasonable list can't be much longer than 100 names, and there is no room for people who built their fame elksewhere. [Likewise I would say Florida should not list famous people who retired there after their careers were over.] The list is weighted to minor celebrities of the present day, unfortunately--leaving out Jane Addams for example or george Halas. Rjensen 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the politicians listed in there? For example, the State US senators are listed on this page 3 times. But, I suppose it's POV or something like that to remove some of them, but not all. I certainly wouldn't remove Lincoln or the former Pres/VPs. --Dual Freq 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead voters

I don't want to re-revert this thing all night, but the Associated Press is probably an acceptable source for wikipedia. The author of the story makes mention of the dead voter thing along with other cases of Illinois corruption. I was simply converting the list discussed earlier to a paragraph and expanding that to include the item. The dead voter thing might go, but in order to referenc the shoebox part the ref has to stay. --Dual Freq 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

newspaper stories--dubious value

Popular newspaper stories are of dubious reliability for historical material in Wiki. (I am not talking about very recent events when newspapers are essential.) Especially when dealing with issues that have been very well covered by scholarly books. For example, the Paul Powell shoebox story--Wiki can't report discredited old stories when there is a solid scholarly book on the subject: Paul Powell of Illinois: A Lifelong Democrat by Robert E. Hartley; Southern Illinois University Press, 1999. Powell was accused of not reporting income to IRS, but he was a businessman with millions of investments, plus he received hundreds of thousands a year in campaign funds that he doled out to party groups in every county. (all legal at the time.) On corruption in Chicago there must be 50 solid books. Rjensen 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I can read a book summary page too.[1] I saw it Monday night after the other editor added the information. I'm not going to pretend to have read the book because I looked at the executive summary, and I'm wagering that you haven't read it either. The book was written by Robert E. Hartley, a journalist from 1962 to 1979, not unlike the AP author from the above reference. I only moved the reference along with the list because it went along with the other corruption section. I added the dead voter material because it goes with corruption and was mentioned in the same article. Delete the whole paragraph for all I care, but as you say, corruption in Illinois politics has been extensive, I was simply trying to touch on a few examples. Feel free to assist in the efforts to make this article higher quality and possibly reach the Wikipedia:Featured Articles list. --Dual Freq 03:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

yes believe it or not I did read the book (it's online at Questia,com). He did not spend a few hours, he spent 20 years working on the story, and the university press had it reviewed by two panels of scholars. Hartley interviewed people who were there and looked at mountains of documents. To quote him: "Through the years of research into Powell, I leaned heavily on professional researchers, archivists, and keepers of files. I believe they all became fascinated with the subject, and this interest increased their value to the project. In no particular order, they are researchers Claire Martin, who scoured the papers of Powell for me, and Peggy Turk Sinko, my right arm in Chicago; Cheryl Schnirring and Mary Michals of the Illinois State Historical Library; Tom Wood, oral history archivist at the University of Illinois at Springfield; Judy Travelstead, librarian at the Southern Illinoisan in Carbondale; Stephen Kerber, archivist of Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville; and the staffs of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch library and the St. Louis Mercantile Library." He has 10 pages of bibliography--including the biographies he wrote of Gov Thompson and sen Percy. As for corruption stories, Wiki needs better sources than a popular newspaper account based on hearsay. Rjensen 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

References vs Further reading

I've been looking at the items in the references section in an attempt to attach them to the material they are citing. However, it appears that they were added in bulk and not related to any particular information in the article. Since it would be nice if this article could reach FA status, I'd like to find out if those are just general purpose recommended reading list for the state of if they are meant to cite something in the article. Wikipedia:Citing sources seems to indicate adding a Further reading section for recommended reading lists. If there is no problem, I'm moving all of the refs not pointing to a specific part of the article to the Further reading section. Thanks for helping. --Dual Freq 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added most of the references, according to Wiki guidelines to search out the best available sources. It's a bad idea to have two separate bibliographies. Rjensen 23:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's almost like we need some one who's written a book about the history of Illinois to help make this a Featured Article. I'd like for this article to cite its sources, but your list of Illinois history references isn't specifically used in the actual article. I don't want to remove the list and Wikipedia:Citing sources seems to indicate that it should be in a further reading section. That's why I moved those. --Dual Freq 01:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need someone who's written a history of the state? Try, The History of Illinois (2002) by Richard Jensen. Rjensen 12:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed when I moved the refs and added ISBN's, just before I added the slightly sarcastic remark above. I didn't want to 'out' you, just let you know that I knew. You really should put that and a link to your other website on your user page. Thanks for the help with the intro and everything else you did to help make this a Good Article, maybe a featured article, someday. --Dual Freq 14:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks  :) Rjensen 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

100 Names of Famous Illinois People pre 1940

let's name 100 famous Illinois people pre 1940 (from WPA Guide Book): Addams, Jane; Ade, Geroge; Adler, Dankmar; Algren, Nelson; Altgeld, Gov. John Peter; Armour, Philip D., ; Louis Armstrong; Rev. Edward Beecher; Mrs Bradley [Peoria]; Bryan, William J ?; Burnham, Daniel H., ; Cannon, Speaker Joe ; Cermak, Anton; Coughlin, "Bath House John; Darrow, Clarence; Dewey, John; Douglas, Stephen; Dunne, Finley Peter; Du Sable, Jean Baptiste; Edwards, Gov. Ninian; James T. Farrell; Theodore Dreiser; Eugene Field; Marshall Field I ; Marshall Field III; Ford, Gov. Thomas; John T. Frederick; Gage, Lyman C., ; Grant, Ulysses (?); Frank Gunsaulus; Harper, William Rainey; Harrison, Carter I; Harrison, Carter II; G. P. A. Healy. ; Hecht, Ben; Holabird, William, ; Hood, Raymond; Horner, Gov. Henry; Hutchins, Robert Maynard; Ingersoll, Robert; Insull Samuel, ; Jenney, William Le Baron; Keeley, Dr. Leslie; Kelley, Florence; Kinzie, John,; Knox, Col. Frank; Kohlsaat, Herman; La Salle, Robert René Cavelier, Sieur de; Lawson, Victor; Lewis, Lloyd, ; Lincoln, Abe; Lincoln, Mary Todd; Lincoln, Robert; Lindsay, Vachel; Logan, John A., ; Lovejoy, Elijah P., ; Lowden, Gov Frank; McCormick, Cyrus Hall,; McCormick, Col. Robert R., ; Mann, James Robert; Masters, Edgar Lee,; Medill, Joseph, ; Merriam, Charles E., ; Monroe, Harriet; Moody, Dwight L; William Vaughn Moody; Mundelein, George Cardinal; Newberry, Walter Loomis, ; William Butler Ogden; Oglesby, Gov. Richard J; Palmer, John M., ; Palmer, Potter, ; Parker, Col. Francis W.; Peck, John Mason; Pullman, George M., ; Rainey, Henry T., ; Root, John; Rosenwald, Julius; Rusk Dr. Benjamin,; Rutledge, Ann, ; Edward Wyllis Scripps ; Sears, Richard W., ; Small, Albion W., ; Smith, Joseph,; Spalding, Bishop; Stagg, Amos Alonzo, ; Starr, Ellen Gates,; Shiel, Bishop; Melville E. Stone ; Stevenson, Adlai I; Swift, Gustavus F., ; Taylor, Graham,; Thomas, Theodore; Turner, Jonathan; Ward, A. Montgomery; Wentworth, "Long John," ; Willard, Frances E; Wright, Frank Lloyd; Yates, Gov. Richard, I; Yates, Gov. Richard, II. Rjensen 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How do we deal with people like Frank Lloyd Wright, who are claimed by Wisconsin or other states? --Dual Freq 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to put the entire list of famous people into a separate page called List of famous people from Illinois (or something like that) and just link there listing less than 10 on this page or maybe listing none. I see no real need to list every single person who spent >5 minutes on TV or are famous in someone's POV on this page which is supposed to be about the State of Illinois. --Dual Freq 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it. List of people from Illinois. --Dual Freq 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I need a lead section that is one or two paragraphs long. That chunk taken from the geography section seemed appropriate for that purpose. I'd like to put it back in the lead unless, you have something better. --Dual Freq 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

People can see the map. The into should say something more meaningful. I'll try something. Rjensen 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Dual Freq 00:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Future of the article

I've made some changes to this article, mostly layout and trimming / conversion of lists. I've also started a todo list at the top of the talk page that lays out some of the things this article needs. Right now I'm pretty much tapped out on Illinois ideas, so I think I will step back from the article for a while. I'll still be watching to see if there is anything I can do for the page. Rhode Island and West Virginia are listed as Wikipedia:Good articles, certainly this page is similar in quality to those. With more work this page can be a featured article. Anyone out there feel free to help out and any recommendations are appreciated. Anyone think it's ready for Peer review or Good article status? --Dual Freq 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

This article is close to being a Good Article. There were several grammatical inaccuracies, which I will correct presently. My major criticisms, however, are that the lead doesn't really summarize the article very well, and that the "History" section contains nothing about the twentieth century. Also, the statement, "As much as any state it is a microcosm of the nation" is not directly borne out by the body of the article. NatusRoma | Talk 22:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with the intro. I think it's a pretty good description of the state, maybe the article doesn't completely explain that, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Do you have any additional ideas? I've also added a 20th century section. It's more like a list, but I don't want to turn this article into a History of Illinois article, I just want to provide a summary. --Dual Freq 11:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The history section is good enough now. I'm not sure about the lead. Looking around articles on other states, the best one I see is California. However, this article has improved, and is very close to GA status. NatusRoma | Talk 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added some new material to the intro, it's an attempt to summarize ownership and colonization, similar to Cali article, but it's just a rewrite of the same stuff in the history section. Opinions? --Dual Freq 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Texas, Rhode Island and others have the origin of the name in the intro, I was thinking that this article would do the same. Other than that, thanks for the rewrite. --Dual Freq 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we getting any closer on the intro? --Dual Freq 11:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the name issue belongs in the summary, which should focus on the big issues. Put it under geography. Rjensen 11:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every other state puts the naming in the lead paragraph. Maybe it's poorly written, but it seems like it should be there to be similar to the other state pages. --Dual Freq 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work changing the other states! :) Seriously why should it be there. I think 50% of users only read the opening, so the more beef the better. Rjensen 11:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

After seeing that all of my objections were satisfied, I decided to pass the article. In particular, the second paragraph of the lead is very, very good. NatusRoma | Talk 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports Table

I reverted because the new sports table was more difficult to read than the previous list. The recreation information is more appropriate in that area and should be expanded, not removed. The postage stamp messes up the format of the economy section. I would prefer to minimize the sports list to only the most important, (no minor league teams) and point to a List of Illinois sports teams (or similar name) article. --Dual Freq 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else dislike the sports team table. I'm about two clicks away from dumping the entire thing to another page. It's pretty much an eyesore to the Illinois page, and it's more difficult to read than the previous version, which was grouped better by sport. Again, as stated above. I suggest removing the entire list pointing to a list page and listing only Major league Baseball, football and basketball. --Dual Freq 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, I don’t like the Professional sports teams table. I think a paragraph on the major sport teams in Illinois and a page with a list of sports teams would be the best course of action. SenorAnderson 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed it once and it was readded. I think its something the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states want to have. However, that page says it's optional to follow their format. I'm for removing it and replacing it with a see also or more info template pointing to the list as well as a nice paragraph summarizing the major pro teams of the state. However, I must recuse myself from writing that paragraph, since I know absolutely nothing about pro sports in Illinois. --Dual Freq 11:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a new page called List of professional sports teams in Illinois and copied the list there. If someone would write a compelling paragraph to replace the table, I think it would be safe to delete it. I could make an attempt, but I'm not sure that would be wise. --Dual Freq 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois#Sports, looks like there are 4 or 5 decent paragraphs in the Chicago article. Might be a place to start. --Dual Freq 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made an attempt at replacing the table. I'm not trying to discriminate against downstate, but there are no major league teams downstate. I copied mostly form the Chicago article, maybe someone could reword. I'm looking for something that summarizes pro sports in Illinois without mentioning every team, thats what the list page is for. --Dual Freq 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a good start. I want to help but I am studying for finals. SenorAnderson 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can Illinois be pronounced ill-ih-nwa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs)

Can California be pronounced Kal-ih-forn-eye-ay? --Dual Freq 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I have submitted for a peer review, the results can be viewed at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Illinois. One of the primary complaints seems to be that the current article is heavy on lists. I'd like to trim the famous person list down to only historically significant Illinois residents, maybe a list under 10 names. It would be better if someone could prose-ify the list and get rid of it totally. My initial thoughts were that the current politicians were not necessary in the list, especially the state senators, they are already listed twice on the page. I'm open to suggestions, but it seems the lists need to be trimmed down, I'd like to start with the famous person list. Ideas? --Dual Freq 05:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a viewpoint, but lists contain useful information. By all means, the main article should be a overview of important subjects, but the lists could easily be moved to sub-articles and linked from the main article. Prominent examples should still be cited, but in the sub-articles the lists can be as comprehensive as the editors wish. Robovski 09:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty much the goal, point to a list page and prose-ify or trim the list on this page. I removed some pop names and redundant names of senators form the famous person list and it was reverted inside of 10 minutes, so I figured I'd better ask about it here. Hopefully Rjenson will make a comment. I only mention it because both reviewers pointed out that the lists seemed excessive. I tend to agree with them. --Dual Freq 13:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Stamp

{{USPSstamp}} says they are copyrighted post 1979, I suggest replacing it with a PD image, unless the article is going to discuss the stamp, it should go. Dual Freq 16:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the stamp was integral to the Illinois article, and per the peer review it was pointed out that we should have a fair use rationale to keep it. Please add a rationale to Image:Wiki illinois.jpg. --Dual Freq 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

doneRjensen 16:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale says that a user should sign the fair use rationale. I have updated the rationale to fall within the guidelines on that page, maybe you would like to sign the fair use rationale so that someone can come back and ask you to clarify it in the future if necessary. Thanks. --Dual Freq 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

College Section

Are there any other anonymous folks from Houston that want to add POV "elite" tags to the University of Chicago? Maybe we need a photo of an elite downstate college there instead. The Texas article is awaiting your thoughtful edits. --Dual Freq 21:22, 16 June 2006 (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. Illinois 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 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems fairly well stated to me. It says: "located in the Midwest region of the United States of America." No mistake as to country it is talking about. It links to a lengthy article fully explaining the term. There is a prominent map just to its right in case anyone is confused. If anyone wants to learn about the US there is no better way than to learn the terms used here. No need to alter the intro of this page. Should we question the Nebraska folks about their usage of Great Plains? --Dual Freq 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Climate

What is the fact in question? 400 mile length? Varying climate? The word widely? The source is in the paragraph a few lines after that sentence. Dual Freq 19:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A "citation needed" template doesn't say the fact is disputed. It says the fact is unsupported by a citation. Wikipedia:Verifiability says we need support for anything we say.

Reference #3 does not support the statement it is attached to. There's nothing on that page which says that normal annual snowfall exceeds 38 inches in Chicagoland, nothing on that page that says that it's because of lake effect snow, nothing that says the south normally receives less than 14 inches of snow.

Reference #4 does not support the statement it is attached to. There's nothing on that page that says the highest temperature recorded in Illinois is 117F, nothing that says it was recorded on July 14, 1954, nothing that says it was recorded at East St. Louis, nothing that says the lowest temperature recorded was 36F, nothing saying it was recorded January 5, 1999, nothing saying it was recorded at Congerville.

Yes, the 400-mile length of Illinois is unsupported by any reference. But so is the statement that the climate varies widely witin the state.

The fact that the climate varies widely is not disputed by me; I don't know enough about climate to dispute it. OTOH, it WAS disputed by user CrazyC83, who at 12:24 inserted a statement that the entire state falls within the humid continental climate zone, which statement you (Dual Freq) deleted at 13:10. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, any editor is free to delete an unsupported statement at any time, and I don't challenge your right to delete that statement. On the other hand, the fact that the climate varies widely is also unsupported, and if CrazyC83 were to delete it, I wouldn't challenge his right to do so, either.

Providing citations for what's in Wikipedia both allows users to see that they can trust Wikipedia, and it prevents edit wars. Citations that don't point to the facts they supposedly support are a fraud upon the user, and unsupported statements may be rightfully dismissed as mere blather. This article has only 17 references to support 5000 words of content, and in addition to the two here which are worthless, there's at least one reference to WikiSource, which doesn't count because it's a circular reference. There's been too much work expended in creating this article to have users dismiss it so lightly. It needs sources, badly. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)