Talk:Wisconsin

Archives
Archive 1

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? -Nick^talk 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -Nick^talk 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)

"Culture" Section

The "Culture" Section seems to be reeeaaaally underdeveloped. There is very little information about what makes wisconsin's culture unique. What about Wisconsin culture's strong Germanic heritage? Beer Brewing traditions? Brats? Traditions like Tailgating, the Festivales-- Oktoberfest, Summerfest, and even [Shudders...] Fuddfest? and the fishing/hunting/camping[And that area's whole branch of tourism might also be worth putting up] and the Relationships with The U.P.? The Accent[s] The Different Cultural Regions [IE the Northwoods, door county, and The Dells.] I'm Just Pitching Ideas, but right now it seems like the whole article is only statistics, and doesn't really tell anything about the Culture [Which, without much effort, one could write an entire book on by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.34.117 (talk)

This is a community-edited encyclopedia, which means users (registered or anonymous) contribute what they know and others check their work for accuracy and neutrality. If you believe the culture portion of this article is underdeveloped, then you can easily add all of these traditions yourself. No one person works specifically on this or any other article, so there is really no one "in charge" of adding or not adding a portion. In this project, everything that you read here, and in every other article has been added little by little over time by several people. It is apparent that none of those people had much to say about Wisconsin's culture. If you want to become one of these contributors and help improve the Wisconsin article, simple click on "edit this page" and add what you know (of course, remember to cite sources and keep it neutral). If you truly believe a book could be written, start an article called Culture of Wisconsin and link to that section along with a small paragraph. If you don't feel up for it, you could always contact the users at WikiProject Wisconsin and have them do it. PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhhm, no. Wikipedia is *not* edited by the world-at-large, it is edited by a clique of ~600 editors. If someone were to substantially edit the culture section, the changes would most likely be removed as vandalism or deleted for being non-notable. Many well-read people are growing too timid to bother contributing because their work is (more likely than not) deleted within a day or two of submittal. If one of the de facto authorized editors of the Wikipedia would be willing to expand the culture section of the Wisconsin article, that would be much appreciated. Anonymous edits are generally considered hostile, so it is not reasonable to expect someone not part of the Wiki clique to dive in and write their own section of the article. It'd just be a waste of everybody's time. 69.129.196.12 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe there are about 40,000 "regular" editors (who make dozens of edits each month). Maybe the "600" comment above was accurate back in the early days, but there is ridiculous to think that a small group of editors is controlling 1,800,000 articles. Anyone who wants to edit the culture section should go ahead and do it. (All anyone here asks is that your edits are neutral and that you cite some sources. -Nick^talk 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the Belgians?

I'm surprised that Wisconsin's Belgian-American population is not mentioned in the demographics section. [1]

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

..or the Russians, or the Italians, or the Swedes? I think the point is that the Belgian-American population is not as pronounced as the populations of Germans and Polands, even though there is a significant population of said people as there are of many communities. Shawn 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Belgians are still worthy of mention. Wisconsin is home the largest rural settlement of people of Belgian nationality in the entire country (about twelve contiguous townships between Green Bay and Sturgeon Bay). You may say that there are more people of Polish and German origin in Wisconsin than Belgian. But German immigrants formed communities just as large throughout the United States (particularly Pennsylvania and Texas) and the largest communities of Polish immigrants are in Texas and Illinois. The largest settlement of rural Belgians in America is in Wisconsin. Does this not warrant mention? [2]

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

Political "balance"

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Yes, Wisconsin politics is interesting enough to be worth a mention in the first paragraph. LaFollette absolutely deserves first-paragraph mention. Wisconsin may not be utterly unique but I don't think there are many states whose biggest city had a Socialist mayor for decades. Or that could have produced a senator like Joseph McCarthy yet had Eugene McCarthy campaign signs posted in cornfields. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

4) (Donning asbestos suit) New York State produces more cheese than Wisconsin does. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal and conservative

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

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

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

I just reverted Rjensen's latest edit: [3]. Doesn't make much sense to compare a Rep senator from the 1950s to a Dem senator from current period. (Plus, Feingold has been in the senate since 1993). I like the current version [4], which shows how both parties were strongly represented in both the 1950s as well as today. --mtz206 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Monona Terrace

In the Miscelaneous section it says that Monona Terrace was designed by Frank Loyd Wright. I don't think that's true. I think it was inspired by Wright or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.85.116 (talk)

It was designed by him but it was built long after his death. Although it did have a few changes it is still amazing that someone designed that (relitively)a long time ago.

Specifically, the exterior was built almost exactly as Wright had designed it, but the interior was redesigned by one of Wright's students. That's why it's not an entirely Wright bulding. -Nick^talk 23:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Very unprofessional intro to article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dbackes edit isn't bad [5], but I think Wisconsin has more going for it than progressive politics, cows, and cheeseheads. Perhaps mention of beer, financial services (Milwaukee), biotech & .com work (Madison), tourism, etc? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin's transplanted Yankees soon became "west-

ernized" and contributed considerable talent to the new state. Many brought with them the advantages of higher education and previous political or business experience which they found useful in the West. The Yankees formed a self-conscious element in the population and they often favored political, social and economic relations with others of the same background. Some of the Yankees espoused reforms like anti-slavery and temperance. From their ranks came many land speculators, lawyers, merchants, newspaper editors, town promoters, railroad boosters, and political leaders. The majority of delegates to both con- stitutional conventions came from New York or New Eng- land and for the first quarter century of statehood, as the power of the lead miners waned, such Yankee leaders as Rufus King, Alexander W. Randall, James R. Doolittle, George B. Smith, Timothy O. Howe, Edward V. Whiton, and C. C. Washburn controlled Wisconsin politics. [ A Short History of Wisconsin. by Larry Gara 1962, p 88] Rjensen 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midwest in Intro: RfC on Talk:Michigan

There is currently a discussion going on the Michigan Talk page about the potential US-Centric bias of the terminology Midwest in an article versus using a different geographical description. Wisconsin has been mentioned as an example page and it would be nice to get other view points on this discussion since a consenus will probably have influence on this article. Agne 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not particularly like using Midwest either. I like calling it part of Great Lakes region better. That, of course, does not apply to all the areas that would be in the Midwest (which IMHO would include Texas and the like). Benn Newman 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) and updated 14:24, August 11, 2024 (UTC)

As the comment below notes, some geocentric residents of the East and West Coasts label anything inland as "Midwest." And no one who actually lives in the Midwest would consider Texas to be Midwestern. There is no good reason for imparting people's geocentric preferences and ignorance to WP, which already has an entry for Midwestern United States that shows both the common understanding of the term and the official US Census Bureau definition of the term. I think the Census Bureau definition trumps any idiosyncratic opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.131.110 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Great Lakes Region for a couple reasons. For one, anything east of California and west of maybe Pennsylvania can arguably be considered the Midwest. That's just way too broad of an area to paint with one brush. The other is that there's a tremendous difference in the ethnic, political and social cultures of the Great Lakes States when compared to the rest of the "Midwest." These states tend to be more liberal and share more socially with Eastern states. In fact, the Great Lakes states were the only non-coastal states to go blue in the last presidential election (other than Ohio... but even that's debatable).--207.74.196.20 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To tilt at a windmill — If you look at a map of the U.S., Wisconsin is clearly mideast, not midwest. Kansas and Oklahoma, even Colorado, could be considered midwest. I, too, like Great Lakes area. Jeff dean 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You realize you're a bunch of clowns right? I mean, if the definition of clowns is people who try to make other people laugh, every one of you fits into it. Wikipedia is not about people looking at a map and redefining words like "Midwest" based on their perceptions. To bend a phrase from FoxNews, "We report, we don't decide." Saying "I don't like 'Midwest'" is an egregious violation of WP:NOR, when that philosophical outlook is used as a basis for editing. Tomer^talk 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New intro suggestion

I'm suggesting another new introduction; my main concern with it is that it might be too long (longer than both suggested above), although I tried to briefly summarize the major points of geography, history, economy, the ethnic heritige of the state and politics:

Wisconsin (IPA pronunciation: [wɪs ˈkɑn sn̩]) is a state in the United States, located in the Midwest. Its capital is Madison; the current governor is Jim Doyle.

The Wisconsin area, bordered by the current-day states of Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois, as well as Lakes Michigan and Superior, has been part of United States territory since the end of the American Revolution; the Wisconsin Territory (which included parts of other current states) was formed on July 3, 1836. Wisconsin became a state on May 29, 1848, the thirtieth in the Union.

Wisconsin's rural economy was originally based on furs; in the 19th century, emphasis shifted to mining, lumber, farming, dairy, and tourism. Large-scale industrialization began in the late 19th century in the southeast of the state, with the city of Milwaukee as its major center. In recent decades, service industries, especially medicine and education, have become dominant. Wisconsin's landscape, largely shaped by the Wisconsin glaciation of the last Ice Age, makes the state popular for both tourism and many forms of outdoor recreation.

Since its founding, Wisconsin has been ethnically heterogeneous, with New Englanders being among the first to arrive; for many years they dominated the state's industry, finance, politics and education. Large numbers of European immigrants followed them, including Germans, mostly between 1850 and 1900, Scandinavians and smaller groups of Belgians, Swiss, Finns, Irish Catholics and others; in the twentieth century, large numbers of Polish and African-Americans arrived in the state.

Today, 42.6% of the population is of German ancestry, making Wisconsin one of the most German-American states in the United States, although there are many other major ethnic groups, including one of larger Hmong populations in the nation. Various ethnic festivals are held throughout Wisconsin to celebrate its heritage.

During the period of the Civil War, Wisconsin was a Republican and pro-Union stronghold. Ethno-religious issues in the late nineteenth century caused a brief split the Republican coalition. Through the first half of the twentieth century, Wisconin's politics were dominated by Robert La Follette and his sons, originally of the Republican Party, but later of their own Progressive Party. Since 1945, the state has maintained a close balance between Republicans and Democrats. Major Republican figures include former Governor Tommy Thompson, while major Democrats include Senator Russ Feingold.

Salmar 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I upgraded the summary a bit--adding some fresh detail. it's important to emphasize the people rather than trivial aspects like the exact boundaries in the summary. Rjensen 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Added mining as an example of early industry. Also, I think it should be "politics were dominated by"? I'm no grammar expert so I wanted to check. Overall I really like it. --Dbackes 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transportation

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

Somebody made a typo on the population count of Madison

Madison, population 208,054 (588,885 in metropolitan area), state capital

I assure you, it isn't more than everybody in the metro area of milwaukee. munboy 01:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I don't understand your meaning. The 208,054 figure for the city is from the 2000 Census. I'm not sure where the 588,885 figure for the Metropolitan Statistical Area is from. The Census Bureau lists a population of 501,774 for the MSA as of April 1, 2000. The Madison, Wisconsin article has this correct. The article list population for the city of Milwaukee proper as 596,125 and for the MSA as 1,709,926 -- both of which are larger than either figure for Madison. older ≠ wiser 02:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Demographics section

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

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

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

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

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

vote banning gay marriage

that was pure crap. The article needs more on this. How Wisconsinites try to control people's lives they won't even be involved in which is really what the ban does. People who should vote on it are gay people and that's it. It might be because of all the religious people forcing everyone to comply with their beliefs when there is no proof that there's a God. Lonelyboy 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you can thank the kkkristian right for once again infiltrating the Black churches in Milwaukee and offsetting the city's strong Fair Wisconsin base that was needed to beat the ammendment. In fact, it's because of the Black communities strong church ties (in Milwaukee and elsewhere) that the stereotype of the Black homophobe comes from. Don't get me wrong... I love my people, but the church has done nothing for the Black community but drain it's collective resources (mainly money) and turn it against other groups it should be uniting with. Not sure that this has any direct relevence to the article, but I needed to rant--207.74.196.20 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole political issues section is suspect I think it ought to go. Unless you want to also add things about the formation of the republican party, the underground railroad, school choice, sufforage, the ku klux klan, smokes for votes, The fugitive slave law and countless others. Although many of these subjects need mentioning somewhere in the wikipedia, and some in appropriate sections in Wisconsin History, I don't think a political issues section in Wisconsin article is the place for it. Particularly under the thinly veiled guise of "political issues" This is just so wrong in so many ways. It reeks of bias. Remove the entire subsection. 16:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a Social Worker and a step backwards was taken in November and I will make that known. I am bound by a Code of Ethics that does not allow discrimination in any way. I am not "vandalizing" Wikipedia, only speaking the truth.

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

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

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

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

New Weather section added to page

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

Vandalized!

I don't know where do such muppets spawn, but some stupid troll (of the Warcraft kind) just vandalized the article. Please fix that, for the good of all. 84.10.20.238 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Rob Kennedy 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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? -Nick^talk 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. Tomer^talk 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> Tomer^talk 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. -Nick^talk 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. [[6]] 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. --BlindEagle^{talk~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. -Nick^talk 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)

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)