Jump to content

Talk:Wisconsin

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

Status as an authoritarian enclave

[edit]

Hey, @TylerBurden:. It is relatively undisputed within the literature that the pre-1960s Southern United States — as well as modern day states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina — do not meet the standards of a liberal democratic polity and this has also been stated in a multitude of other sources, including Harvard's Electoral Integrity Project/Pippa Norris. (See here.)

As The Washington Post states:

Even though Wisconsin, for example, is a 50-50 state, a gerrymandered Republican map could give the GOP a veto-proof, supermajority in the legislature. Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels quipped last week that, if elected, his party “will never lose another election” in the state. This has been achieved by design, argued Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Antidemocratic politicians supported by safe seats and polarization have walked through and begun enacting an authoritarian playbook,” she wrote. “This playbook has massively accelerated democratic disintegration over the last five years.”

Wisconsin has widely been described as an authoritarian enclave within the political science literature. Why were the edits reverted? KlayCax (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, content shouldn't just be shoehorned into the lead without first being established in the body, I have left part of your edit remaining in the lead, but I remain unconvinced that the abortion material (still not in the body yet was restored) is WP:DUE for the lead. Since you are being reverted on other state articles for the same thing, it might be good to slow down a bit.
TylerBurden (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a general article about the state as a whole rather than the politics of Wisconsin. While politics will be part of the article this seems to be too detailed and focuses too much on what is a recent trend and one that may be in dispute/relies too heavily on political opinions rather than verifiable facts. I think the whole section removed for these reasons. Springee (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it from the lead into the body of the article and made edits to improve neutrality. The sources are opinionated. Further discussion needed. Bloodyboppa (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scratching my head as to how Wisconsin can be described as an "authoritarian enclave", just a month after Democrat Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in an election that was a de facto referendum on abortion. Let me get this straight...it's a tyrannical MAGA dictatorship, that recently voted a leftie into their Supreme Court, tipping the balance to the left. Methinks there has been some "cherry-picking" of sources to support a "narrative". Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scratching my head as to how Wisconsin can be described as an "authoritarian enclave"
The edit does not describe Wisconsin as an authoritarian enclave. It describes Wisconsin as a hybrid regime within the broader liberal democratic United States.
just a month after Democrat Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Statewide elections are fair. House of Representative and state legislature elections are not. That was already stated in the article.
it's a tyrannical MAGA dictatorship
Again, this is a strawman. The edit doesn't term Wisconsin a dictatorship.
What part is objectionable?
  • "Since 2011, Wisconsin's politics have been dominated by the Republican Party, under whom the state has experienced democratic backsliding"
  • "The state's House of Representative and legislature elections are considered to be free but not fair"
    • "With districts undergoing "extreme partisan gerrymanders" to entrench Republicans beyond electoral rotation"
What's objectionable here? KlayCax (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • summoned from WT:WikiProject United States. I think KlayCax is confused. There have been quite a few scholarly publications over the past five years, that, approximately, have downgraded the United States (and various individual states) from a 5 to a 4 (where 1 is authoritarian and 5 is democratic). Taking this to mean "the US is no longer a liberal democracy" is a misinterpretation of that data. I certainly don't see Wisconsin as an outlier among US states in this regard, and thus it shouldn't be in the lead section. A more nuanced version (possibly including the phrase democratic backsliding) might be appropriate in the Politics section. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this "authoritarianism" hyperbole was just resentment by the left that the good people of Wisconsin preferred Republicans. Last Wednesday, Slate wrote that voters in Wisconsin "took their democracy back" after coming to their their senses and voting for a Democrat. I would even go so far as to say that--except for the $1 million Soros contribution to the Democratic candidate--this is a shining example of American democracy at work. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: As our article on the topic explains, referencing Soros in that way has been "described as 'the perfect code word' for conspiracy theories that unite antisemitism and Islamophobia." We're here to build a neutral encyclopedia, so I would caution you to drop that stick and never pick it up again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wisconsin has widely been described as an authoritarian enclave within the political science literature." {{citation needed}} Being a resident of the state I've followed a lot of the news coverage related to this, and from that this seems like a stretch. But news isn't academic literature, so I'd love to see the citations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saw notice on WP US talk. Describing Wisconsin as in the process of democratic backsliding (as my comparative politics professor would insist on calling it) is definitely a stretch. We live in interesting times and we might be witnesses to major changes in how American democracy operates. However, the 2022 Cambridge study that best lays out the concept of a backsliding Wisconsin suffers from the same procedural issues many studies of this sort have. The metrics are mostly norms–established practices polisci scholars identify as either positive or negative indicators of certain governance styles/trends. These indicators are afforded semi-arbitrary values for or against indicating democracy (an unfortunate but necessary trade-off in this field). The compiled ratings for a democracy measured this way can thus suffer from institutional biases/inconsistent valuation. The Cambridge study mitigates this somewhat by using the well-regarded State Democracy Index (which itself uses what might be called the "industry standard" valuation system). By most directly discussing Wisconsin only as having "taken similar actions" to the more intimately detailed North Carolina developments, we lack any concrete basis for the claims. I don't wish to come across as discounting these generally extremely reliable studies/indices, but the recent coverage of Wisconsin as "democratically backsliding" rests on too many presuppositions and vague statements for Wikipedia to present it authoritatively; I wouldn't be opposed to its mention in the body with an inline attribution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Wisconsin’s flora and fauna which should be added to the article

[edit]

Here is information about Wisconsin’s wildlife which should be added to the geography section:

https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/wildlife/ 2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:80B:7909:7A64:73F7 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

[edit]

The top countries of origin for Wisconsin’s immigrants were Mexico (28 percent of immigrants), India (8 percent), China (5 percent), Laos (4 percent), and the Philippines (3 percent). Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immigrants_in_wisconsin.pdf 103.164.138.55 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

[edit]

Greeks immigrated to the state in the early 20th century. https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS430 91.192.81.61 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German (empire) flag

[edit]

Someone pls remove the flag image. It does not meet MOS:PERTINENCE. --Ykwc 12:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wisconsin&oldid=1235083796"