Talk:2011 Wisconsin protests/Archive 2

Gandydancer March 9 edit
I have reverted the edits under the Protests section, now called the Timeline section, to my origional edit. Please discuss here. Gandydancer (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indiana
I know this might not be the right place, but could you please make the Indiana Protest page like this, I really like the layout and the template. --96.28.160.188 (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ at 2011 Indiana legislative walkouts. Started anyway. I'll leave it to others to fill in the details. –CWenger (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm currently hesitant to say that this could've went into the 2011 United States public employee protests article instead, but things are still happening in Bloomington, so this is surely still developing. IMO it reads more like a newspiece than anything, but it is a small article, still. –MuZemike 03:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox deletion debate
Hey y'all - please come by over here Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_12 to discuss the proposed deletion of the infobox template that was created for this article. Please don't debate its merit on this page - go to the above link instead. Thanks. -- Y not? 18:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Live video of protests
In case anyone is interested, there is live streaming video of the protests available. The stream goes between live video and recently recorded crowd sourced video clips. This would be interesting to add to the article, but I'm not certain how it would fit into the article. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the video is a collaboration between The UpTake and WORT. Justin Ormont (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Historical context?
It seems to me that a section providing historical context would be useful to many readers. Richard Myers (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have historians written about it in peer reviewed journals, or the academic press? Producing a "context" section without a suitably high quality reliable source explicitly linking the article subject with the academic contexts you wish to discuss is Original Research by Synthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * With more than 11,000 news articles on Wisconsin protests already indexed by Google, do you really believe anyone is going to have a serious problem finding appropriate sources? This is history in the making, and i've received a dozen or so respectable articles mentioning a historical context via email alone. Richard Myers (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree it would be good to learn more about the historical context of this article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do believe you would have difficulty finding such sources as historians, the specialists necessary for your intended area of claims, tend to wait at least 20 years before writing. If you want to talk about sociological contexts, then there's a wide variety of atemporal recent studies on public policy and employee organisations in the US.  None of them would currently mention these protests as the publication cycle in sociology tends to be longer than six weeks.  Don't sell a sausage made of sawdust: original research by synthesis destroys the encyclopaedic project and is against core policy.  Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, your arguments make no sense to me. It is not synthesis to understand that the 2011 Wisconsin protests are protests, and that there have been protests in Wisconsin in the past. It is not synthesis to comprehend that one party in contention is organized labor, and that organized labor has a history. It is not synthesis to report that article 4 of the U.S. Constitution has been invoked by some parties relating to this dispute, that authorities have spoken out on both sides of this question, and that article 4 has a history.

Granted, an editor cannot introduce conclusions based upon these facts, unless such conclusions are already reported in source material. But to suggest that one cannot write about these facts without introducing a synthesized point of view is, in my view, an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia editors.

Indeed, let us look at one specific example. The "Background" section of this article does now provide some useful historical context. It begins,

"Wisconsin was the first state in the United States to provide collective bargaining rights to public employees in 1959. There has been a great transformation in the American labor movement over the latter decades of the 20th century. A movement once led by workers in private trades and manufacturing evolved into one dominated by public workers at all levels of government but especially in the states and cities. In 1960, 31.9% of the private work force belonged to a union, compared to only 10.8% of government workers. By 2010, the numbers had more than reversed, with 36.2% of public workers in unions but only 6.9% in the private economy. The sharp rise in public union membership in the 1960s and 1970s coincides with the movement to give public unions collective bargaining rights... Hirsch, Barry & McPherson, David (2011-03-09). Retrieved 2011-03-09."

Is it your assertion that this historical context must now be removed from the article, because editors cannot possibly include such historical context without introducing synthesis? Richard Myers (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: the above excerpt appears to be from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172701898769040.html


 * The link provided takes me to a different article. Richard Myers (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is precisely the problem. You are making a series of historical claims about capital and labour, none of which are supported by sources capable of making those claims.  You've cited opinion from non-experts, and your citations do not link the context in the article to the event listed.  The industrial legislation context of a particular protest needs to be explicitly spelled out in a source that can carry that claim.  You're citing to an unnamed editor or oped writer in a newspaper which has no capacity to make factual claims about the past at the level required to sustain an encyclopaedia.  The idea that you can run riot with personal synthesis and claim this is fact and not original research is ridiculous.  There are fast publication avenues of a somewhat greater claim to facticity about industrial relations than an unsigned opinion piece in a newspaper.  Consider publishing there yourself; and getting someone to cite you.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems more likely to me that someone simply made a copy and paste error when citing their source. It needs to be correct, but such a mistake could just as easily have been made with a different source that satisfies your requirements.


 * The Wall Street Journal (which this material actually came from) is widely considered an acceptable source for much material relating to finances, politics, etc. You're suggesting that WSJ references should not be used as a Wikipedia source for contemporary or historical events? That will surprise a lot of folks. Richard Myers (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion folks. I was the person who added the historical context to begin with and I inadvertantly inputted the wroung web address it came from. I have now provided the correct Wall Street Journal link. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that a Wall Street Journal unsigned opinion piece is not a reliable source for labour history or the history of industrial relations. Wall Street Journal lacks the peer review capacity to produce scholarly knowledge.  Labour history and industrial relations are scholarly disciplines.  Further, unsigned op eds are rarely if ever suitable sources to cite facts from, regardless of the newspaper. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge this concern, and i do not disagree. However, i believe the fix is finding better sources, rather than dismissing such subject matter out of hand. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be temporarily content (ie: until academic pieces come out in the high quality reliable source literature, probably sociology or industrial relations to start with, then 20 years later labour history) with material sourced to a signed multiple page contextual feature article by an expert industrial relations journalist / piece by an academic expert in a broadsheet. I'd also be happy with expert signed opinion in partisan presses known for fact checking at a high standard (ie: AK Press, the more reliable journals of scholarly opinion from right wing think tanks, etc).  Source quality does have a time context on it.  About 20 years from now we will have to start to seriously rework "current events" feature articles for example.  Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noted the Wall Street Journal piece as being authored by Hirsch & MacPherson due to the following sentence found in the article: We first started running the nearby chart on the trends in public and private union membership many years ago. There is a chart with the two individuals listed in the chart within the article. I also found the study that they did and will reference it in the article. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A further note - The reference I found indicates the following copyright at the bottom - © 2011 by Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson. Use of data requires citation. I presume we can use it as long as we give them credit. If you believe my interpretation is wrong here, feel free to remove it. Thanks - Reference in question -  http://unionstats.gsu.edu/ Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an internationally extremely atypical way for a newspaper to indicate a byline; frustratingly so for a newspaper generally considered to be of a high calibre; and, breaking a number of courtesies to other authors (like us Wikipedia editors). Given the dead-on-topic speciality of both academics this satisfies my minimum concerns.  Keep looking for other expert contextualisation!  Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Governor Walker response section
There was recently added a new section about Governor Walker's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal; it's quite overly long and one-sided. I'm not sure of its relevance (there are barely any articles about it via Google News), and the section seems to be disproportionately long. Has anyone considered really shortening it down, perhaps consolidating it to a few lines in the timeline? Seleucus (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who added the section. I thought it appropriate due to Governor Walker's central role in the protests. Having said that, if another editor could double check it for being too long that would be great. Also, instead of removing the section, I think it would be better to add balance to it by inputting reaction pro and con to his position which I presume ought to be forthcoming in the coming days if information isn't already out there. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline issues
The timeline of this article seems to impede readability, as events in other sections do not flow chronologically. I suggest that it either be split to another article, or headings with different segments of time be added. --thejoewoods (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had neglected to read the above, which still seems to apply. Still, it's reaching that tipping point where something should be done about the readability... --thejoewoods (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Protester Number Update Request
The number of protesters is listed as over 100,000. As the protests have gone on and the crowds have increased, this low estimate now seems to be understating the impact of the protests. For example, today's protest (Satuday, 3/12) is estimated to have brought out nearly 100,000 by itself. Could someone provide an updated number estimate? 76.121.46.94 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel as though this poses another question: do we compile total protesters or go on a day-by-day basis?  I could not find an overall number of individuals whom had attended, just counts for each day.  --thejoewoods (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Statutory Changes section
I'm not a big fan of how 1) it's called "statutory changes" and 2) how it doesn't really fit chronologically. But I don't know how to change it (I mean) what to change it to so that the article flows. --thejoewoods (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on Responses
I've brought this up before, but will again. The Responses section is a violation of multiple guidelines and policies. The entire section needs transformed to prose and narrative relating it to the topic, not a bullet point list.

Detailing the issues:
 * An indiscriminate list of comments by people violates WP:MISC, see number 5. Unless the commentators are directly related to the events of the topic, or unless their comments are being used to build a narrative, they should not be used.
 * Because the position of the commentators is not given in many instances, the list also violates WP:CONTROVERSY. Assertions must be attributed with the speakers bias or position noted.
 * The section also violated WP:UNDUE by giving weight to the opinion of completely uninvolved parties, such as the comments of Arab TV journalists, rabbis, and the like.
 * The section violates WP:NPOV. This violation is probably not by design, but by giving one side the appearance of an overwhelming majority, contrary to the polls and other indicators, it causes the article loose its neutrality.

It is my proposal that the entire section be converted to non-bullet point prose, the unnoteworthy comments and opinions removed, and the remainder made more concise and part of a larger narrative that fits into the article as a whole. Short of this, the entire section must be removed as a policy violation, IMO. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullet points are the lazy way of not writing prose, so I agree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see where this section violates any Wikipedia guidelines and I feel that it makes the information more readable. I think that it should be left as is. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the section is a blatant violation: Quote (my emphasis) "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Which is to say, if they have no direct importance to the topic itself, their comment deserves no mention. Secondly, quote "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", so over representing one viewpoint, or giving significant space to any fringe viewpoint, violate policy. Using bullet points rather than prose violates several points of Manual of Style. And at a base level, I just flat disagree that the opinion of some those included matters at all or is even worthy of inclusion. Unless they are directly involved in the events, like people who showed up and protests, or very major figures like the President, their opinion is of no importance to the event. So some rabbis, and arab tv journalists, and Spanish union leaders all voiced support for the protesters - so did millions of other people - what makes their comments matter? For an example of how to do a response section, take a look at some similar events, like 2005 civil unrest in France. Note how the comments and responses are directly related to the events and people involved in the topic and constructed so they form a narrative. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not correct. Firstly, we are speaking of an event such as the recent Egyptian protests that eventually became the Egyptian Revolution, not an individual.  And, for instance looking at the Egyptian article we find:


 * Apolitical individuals


 * Amr Khaled, a Muslim televangelist, activist and preacher, said the future of Egypt needs a government to listen to the young people and respect them.[38]
 * A large banner in Cairo's Tahrir Square on 1 February: "Go On, Young People!"


 * On 31 January, The Daily Telegraph reported that Egyptian-born actor Omar Sharif called for Mubarak to step down.[39]


 * Ahmed Zewail, an Egyptian-American scientist and the winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, said that Egypt cannot resolve the crisis without changing the system. He offered a proposal of four items to remove Egypt from the crisis and enter a new era. He said that reason for this proposal is his sense of duty towards Egypt and its youth.[40]


 * This is very common in wiki articles and there is no reason that the Wisconsin article should be any different. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree again, those people's comments are useful in that article. They are Egyptians in positions of influence who are directly involved in the events. There are no comments from Danish television personalities, for example. Lets just grab an example from this article. "John Tarrett and a crew from Al Jazeera English TV arrived on February 19. "I think this dovetails very nicely with our reporting on Egypt and Bahrain, and now Libya—where ordinary people are standing up saying enough is enough," Tarrett was quoted as saying." Ok, how does it matter in the least that and an arab tv journalists thinks the protests "dovetail nicely" with the middleeastern protests? This has no value, no context, its just a useless comment that does nothing advance the narrative of the article or inform the reader. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I totally agree with you on this one! It was deleted and then someone put it back.  I'm going to delete it again and see what happens.  Then we can go on from there.  Though I hardly see that Omar Sharif, for instance, is in a position to be of much influence in Egypt. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to end this article
The site DefendWisconsin.org has planned protests until 2015 (Not joking). I feel we should end this article with an "Outcome" section because I don't feel this article and these protests are going anywhere now that what's done is done. The only thing I think we should keep updating is the recall effort. S51438 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This weekend included a protest of 85-100K. That indicates this is quite a fluid situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two issues with ending the article for this reason: one, you'd need an overwhelming amount of evidence stating that the protests aren't going anywhere, and two, just because the action doesn't go anywhere, doesn't mean they aren't happening. --thejoewoods (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And it sure looks like things are going somewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Wisconsin law states signatures can not be officially collected for a recall election until 60 days before the Governor has been in office for one year. This means that from November 3, 2011 to January 3, 2012, over 540,000 signatures must be collected. Then, there is at least a 30 day period to dispute the signatures. According to DefendWisconsin.org, only about 150,000 unofficial signatures of the needed 540,000 have been signed. S51438 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well get ready to edit this article for years. Maybe they'll take the record as the longest time a group of idiots has been allowed to walk off the job without being fired. S51438 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try reading the article I linked. Signatures are being collected to recall the eight Republican senators eligible to be recalled now. If successful, there will likely be attempts to recall Walker and other senators when they become eligible. Two more things: (1) since when does Wikipedia have deadlines? (2) You should be careful in the words you use on talk pages. "Idiots" is not an appropriate word to use. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read the article. The under 5% win rule escaped my mind. I just think people could contribute more to Wikipedia by working on other projects (2011 Sendai Earthquake) than something that could go on for years, and for the time being is resolved. S51438 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That article has been on the main page since Friday, and I'm sure is not dire straits for more editors. People will edit what they feel like editing, and all topics could use more assistance. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [Citation Needed]. --thejoewoods (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's sort of a bottom line concerning this thread. I haven't edited the 2011 Wisconsin protests article yet. But if someone was to "end this article with an 'Outcome' section", i would most probably begin my editing by removing that section. In my evaluation it isn't over, isn't even close to over, it is just the "first act" completed. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "end this article" mean? As long as news media are covering the protests we can continue updating from the media. When they stop covering them, then we can still continue to improve the article, as an article on a past event. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. This article doesn't seem to have an end date because more protests are planned for years to come. We should say "the protests died down" or something along those lines to distinguish the most major parts of this article from the lesser protests of the future. S51438 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "first act" Richard? S51438 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, Saturday's rally brought 85-100k participants. That's your definition of protests dying down? I think we can consider this matter closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm as far away as Denver, and we are seeing significant follow-on activity and events in Colorado. The events in Wisconsin appear to have catapulted organized labor into a new era of activism. Of course it is action/reaction relating to the Republicans and Democrats as well. But by most measures, Wisconsin protests seem to be a significant watershed event for organized labor, unlike some other events that might have been significant.
 * Contrast it with Reagan busting PATCO. There was very little response to that. Something is different this time, and i'm guessing that the Wisconsin protests have simply sparked the imagination of union workers and their supporters, maybe by seeing themselves as possible targets in a way that never happened with PATCO. Richard Myers (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A few comments if I may. First, I doubt the current political scene in Wisconsin is going to evaporate anytime soon, so I highly think that the topic will continue to expand when new developments happen. That being said, "planned protests until 2015" seems like a lot of smoke-blowing, especially when Walker can be recalled in 2012, and the rest of the Republican cadre before that. Keep in mind that Wisconsin (city of Madison and the University of Wisconsin-Madison in particular) has been historically huge into activism and protesting – far more than how most other states would react (though that may not be the case here); Ohio had the Kent State Massacre, while Wisconsin had the Sterling Hall bombing (which, ironically, was a bigger blast that what Tim McVeigh could muster with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing). –MuZemike 01:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obvious why these protests are occurring at all. Besides "protecting" union rights, Democrats have come out in full force because they want to re-energize their base. As for if this will amount to any substantial changes at a national level or outside Wisconsin is unknown at this point. I think Democrats proved in 2006-2010 they do not care at all about the fiscal state of this country. Their denial of a problem and protests will only continue and build momentum over time because the Democratic Party depends on broke-government spending to keep going. S51438 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:FORUM: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" … "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.". Keep discussion on the topic of improving this article, not personal speculation about the subject of this article. Even when you find reliable source speculation about the purpose, orientation or effects of these protests; do not use the talk page to discuss the content of these, but to discuss how to include the reliably sourced speculation into the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not proper to use this page to call the people of Wisconsin idiots as another editor has done. And it would violate Wikipedia policy for me to call that editor an idiot. However, I do feel free to say that his/her idea that this article should be "ended" is idiotic. The fact that our encyclopedia is without end, there is no printing date beyond which nothing can be changed or added - that is the beauty of what we have here. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly proper to say this editor wants to "end the article" because of his/her political bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what SB is trying to say (if I may be so bold) is that there should be some sort of summation from a historical point of view. The bill has been signed into law, the Dems have returned, and the protests regarding the bill have largely subsided. Events that occur now should be viewed as a result of the protest and possibly a different article in the future. Arzel (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assuming good faith, but I don't think it is justified in this case. S51438 has made it clear that he/she would like these protests to go away, to vanish into history, based on his/her own political preference. But I think the discussion here has adequately rebuffed the suggestion that the article should be "ended" in some manner, or that continuing political activity related to this matter should go into some other article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For one thing, Wikipedia cannot (and should not) be the authority on such disputes (just as with the Egypt protests). Secondly, I stand by what I have said, including what Fifelfoo said above, to that effect I apologize to contributing to a continuting bonfire. Any other comments (e.g. why the Democrats want to take control) belong more in the general media as opposed to here (except, obviously, as cited as such, and that is a big exception). –MuZemike 05:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Recall efforts
I recently added that unitedwisconsin.com has collected over 150,000 unofficial signatures towards the 540,000 needed for Walker to be recalled. That was subsequently removed as hearsay. Should this be included, even though it is non-official? S51438 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that suggests that your ref http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/ is acceptable. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The ref was from the Washington Post. I saw it added and removed, and I'm torn on it. For one, it is unofficial, some percentage of these signatures if submitted will be disqualified, and they may have gotten the "low hanging fruit" of people attending protests and motivated to do something, and it's the later signatures that are the hardest. On the other hand, almost half way in a quarter of the time shows momentum. So I'm not sure. I am likely to believe the Democrats have this number of signatures, because if they're lying it'll be exposed. If you're failing to get signatures, you don't say anything about your total, like the Republicans are doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That link is not actually from the Washington Post; it's from an op-ed blog at the Washington Post; so it may not be a Reliable Source. However, I think the information should be included if a more reliable source can be found. The information to be included should not be stated as "The Democrats have collected x number of signatures," because that is unofficial and unverified. It should be "The Democrats SAY they have collected x number of signatures" ... provided a reliable source can be found quoting a Democratic spokesperson (the op-ed quotes party spokesman Graeme Zielinski) saying that. If the fact that they say it can be verified, then the fact that they say it should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WaPo blog is still part of the WaPo media empire, if you will. I'd consider it just as legit as being in the newspaper itself. All journalism needs to move to the internet to survive. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it happened like this: Someone added this edit:


 * As of March 14th, 12 days after recall efforts began (20% of the allotted time), the Wisconsin Democratic Party announced that they had received more than 45% of the required signatures.[138]

Then S51438 added his/her edit. Someone deleted both of them saying they were hearsay. I restored the edit with the Washington Post reference (but not the edit S51438 added using this ref: http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/), and it is still in the article. As for the reference, I have seen this question come up before and it was decided that the blog of an acceptable news outlet such as the Washington Post is acceptable for use as a reference. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I favor keeping it as you have it. But not the other, unitedwisconsin info; for one thing, those alleged pledges are irrelevant since Walker cannot be recalled at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusion over USA Today/Gallup Poll
I have read the article that contains the poll and have noticed that the poll is not clear on who it polled. From the way it sounds; "The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.", it seems they only asked people in unionized states because right-to-work states already have similar laws. This makes me question the relevance of this poll. If you go into a heavily unionized state and ask if they want collective bargaining or not, of course they would say yes. The now-disputed Rasmussen poll may have better insight because it interviews all Americans and not just ones in unionized states. What do you think? S51438 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, They polled people from everywhere. This just shows you how uninformed most people are regarding the bill, its effect, and what the laws are in their own state, and how useless such a poll is.  The entire section is worthless, actually worse than worthless because it purports to actually provide some information, however that information is likely worthless because most people probably don't have a clue regarding collective barganing rights and how they work.  Arzel (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, S51438; much as I may despise so-called "right to work" laws, they do not prohibit unions' rights to the extent the Walker proposals would do so. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Walker's law does not limit unions' rights moreso than "right to work" states. "Right to work" states simply forbid the requirement of a worker to join a union to work in some trade.  Walker's bill only would limit CB to wages for certain groups.  Workers in those groups would still have to join the union, just not be forced to pay union dues....why anyone would despise that aspect?  Arzel (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because unions are unions. They need that money to funnel to Democratic politicians. S51438 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting polls
I've added some new polls recently released by Gallup. They seem to somewhat drastically contradict the earlier polls. Check them out. S51438 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not to sure about the policy when it comes to this, but this poll you cited has a 4% margin of error, which may calls the results into question. --thejoewoods (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The margin of error does not nullify the results. All polls ave a margin of error around +/- 3 percentage points.  However, public opinion polls are generally not that useful from a historical point of view, especially with fluid events surrounding aspects which most people don't fully understand.  Arzel (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you say that all polls have a margin of error of three percent, what exactly do you mean? --thejoewoods (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The margin of error can be influenced by (among other things) the number of people being polled. AFAIK, Gallup typically uses around 1000 people and this results in a 4% plus or minus result.  Joe, you can look this up here on Wikipedia and then some of the refs that are used. You may want to add "plus or minus 4%" info to the article? Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. The margin of error is only affected by the sample size.  It is a purely mathmatical calculation based on the sample size and the standard error of the poll.  Arzel (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI there are several ways that poll results can be in error other than the mathmatical problem which is related to the number of people being polled. For instance, of course there is the wording problem - I recently had a poll call that asked me if I believed in killing babies.  But the wording is not always so obviously constructed to get the response that the poll is looking for.  A more recent problem is the increasing use of cell phones. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the margin of error is only a mathmatical calculation based off the sample size and the standard error. There may be other issues which might call into question the validity of a poll, but the statistical calculations (which these are) only deal with numerical calculations.  Arzel (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to delete the poll about "negative words" and "positive words" with regard to unions. It has virtually nothing to do with the protests which are the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone reinstated that poll, claiming that "it is related and specifically mentions the protests." But the paragraph in this article says nothing about how this poll (on how people nationwide feel about unions) relates to the current protests. And it doesn't appear that any of the questions in the poll were about the protests; they were about how people nationwide feel about unions in general. I'm not going to edit-war over this, but I continue to say that this poll (the final paragraph in the "opinion" section) does not belong in this article. Comments from others? --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the aforementioned negative and positive words poll should be removed for the same reasons. --thejoewoods (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I really had to put a lot of thought into this. I have decided that I agree that the national poll is not appropriate for this page because it was not directly related to the Wisconsin protests. Gandydancer (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinions, all. I will delete it again. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think so, this is not concensus. Arzel (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean? Three people have spoken in favor of deleting that poll, and no one (including you) has spoken in favor of keeping it. If you have an argument for keeping this "negative words/positive words" poll in the article, please make it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the poll as well. In fact, I am the one who added it in the first place. S51438 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section as a whole adds anything meaningful, but this poll is relevant to the topic. I added it back in initially, so I would think that is a vote of keep.  Also, the text of the article directly mentions the wisc protests and ties in this poll in a larger macro view.   Arzel (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, apparently there ISN'T consensus to remove it then. Thanks for your opinions. Personally I think this poll is way too far afield from the subject. It would be like putting a nationwide poll about how people feel about Republican and Democrats into an article about a state gubernatorial election. Or adding a nationwide poll about people's feelings about abortion into an article about an attack on an abortion clinic. To me this nationwide poll about people's general feelings about unions could go into an article about unions, or about unions and politics, but is way too general to include in this article which is about protests over a particular piece of legislation in a particular state. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, I had a hard time with this and kept it in mind for quite some time. I finally came to a conclusion with this thinking:  What if the poll would have showed the opposite, would I still feel that it was not appropriate for this article?  And I came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate.  I agree with Melanie's viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This poll was taken specifically in relation to this issue. It is relevant.  Arzel (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was 2011 Merrill Protest info removed?
The following article was removed from the article and I would like a good reason why: http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14231018 This is clearly pertinent to the "2011 Wisconsin Protests" related to the recall efforts. Can someone please explain the rationale behind this? If we're going to remove information like this, we might as well rename this article 2011 Madison Protests. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no one has responded, which would include the editor that deleted your post, I'd suggest that you put it back. As wikipedia editors we are all required to do the hard and often not-so-fun part of giving the reasons for our edits and the edits we delete.   Perhaps it needs to be very brief.  Sometimes just a mention is important and if a wikipedia reader is interested they can read the reference.  I agree that it is important to show that other, smaller protests are going on. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be put back, but with much less detail. It was a whole paragraph; I'd suggest putting in just a sentence or two to establish the fact that the pro-and-con demonstrations took place. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I'll re-add it and make it more brief. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your ref does not state that protests have been happening throughout the state. Could you please fix that?  Gandydancer (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's try to keep our article as accurate as possible. Perhaps protests have been happening throughout the state but your ref does not say that.  I have deleted your edit because it is not correct according to the ref that you have used.  Of course you may put it back with more accurate information. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replaced "throughout the state" with "in Wisconsin". It's accurate now. Thanks for the help. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cut it out. I am not splitting hairs.  You are misrepresenting what your ref says.  Nowhere does it say that protests are happening throughout Wisconsin, or I am terribly mistaken or reading the wrong reference.  It makes me angry that I have been sucked into this.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My reading of it is just saying the protests took place within the state, not throughout it. But I will defer to anyone else who thinks otherwise. Monty 845 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, there was an edit conflict and I will insert this here) Show me where the ref states that protests took place within the state and I will defer as well. If your reading that one protest took place means that other protests must have been taking place as well, our minds do not work the same at all, and that is not the kind of wikipedia that I want to read. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm really confused by what the fuss is all about. There was a significant development of business owners being threatened and recall organizers having recall petitions being ripped up and persons attending the rally complaining of intimidation tactics being used. It was even discussed on two different radio stations here in my area. Another news organization has reported on the story as well. I'll leave it to other editors to sort it all out as to how this information should be presented in the article - but to be included the article it ought to be (IMO). Could someone please review the following two sources and come up with a reasonable inclusion as to what ought to be included in the article. Thanks! Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) :
 * WAOW - http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14231018
 * Wausau Daily Herald - http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20110311/WDH0101/103110570/Recall-rally-bumps-into-counter-protest
 * I was the one who had removed the section from this page, moving it to Holperin's page instead (and explained as such on the edit summary) because I don't think it's significant on a statewide level, which this article is about. For one thing, it is not being widely reported, and for another, it's one isolated incident in one senate district. I did not feel that it was important to include on a statewide summary of the protests any more than, for instances, the allegations against Senator Randy Hopper regarding residency and infidelity (which have about 5x as many news articles compared to this, via google news.) My viewpoint is that the senator-specific events should be on the senator's page, unless it's very important and merits attention on a statewide level. Seleucus (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit moved up because of edit conflict) Well I don't agree. I felt that it IS important to show that there was a protest going on outside of Madison, and it WAS being reported in a small news outlet.  However to take this ref and run with it and make an edit that suggests that similar PROTESTS are going on around the state is a total misrepresentation of what this ref states. Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Moved up edit as well) There have been plenty of protests going on outside of Madison (the Madison one is just much bigger than the others.) For instance (few-minute search:) http://www.wsaw.com/news/headlines/Budget_Repair_Bill_Protestors_Hitting_Home__117902284.html http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20110316/WRT0101/103160765/1812/Frank-B-Serles/State-Sen-Julie-Lassa-draws-crowd-rally-Wisconsin-Rapids?odyssey=nav|head] http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/15/political.circus/  http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/politics/gov-scott-walker-hudson-wis-mar-15-2011  In my opinion, it would be better to simply sum the events up in a paragraph rather than singling out one protest and giving it disproportionate time. Seleucus (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody has responded, so I'm going to make the changes now; please let me know if you have disagreements/etc. Seleucus (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As for my viewpoint on what should be included in this article: Firstly, I think the section as it is gives disproportionate space to the event (It honestly doesn't merit more than a sentence or two here - if it gets heavily reported, a longer section in Holperin's page would be appropriate); for the most part, it was a common protest and anti-protest. Secondly, the section seems to emphasis a specific event in one SD as opposed to a general statewide picture (which this article is about.) Far better to give a statewide summary summing up the protests briefly, mentioning this in a sentence as a specific example. Seleucus (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. No harm intended - just thought the info was important and I admit I wasn't conveying the information as it could have been (thus the reason I decided to have others look at it). The info included now appears to give enough balance to both sides and does address the issue that protests both pro- and con- are taking place in the state. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we may have blown this a little out of proportion here. I understand that we like to keep everything focused on what is going on in Madison, but there are protesting and other events in other Wisconsin cities, including Merrill (which is near Wausau), about 2 hours or so north of Madison), Green Bay, Milwaukee, and several other cities. It's still focused on Wisconsin, in which what happens in Madison is obviously going to affect the rest of the state.

That being said, because we focused so much on just Madison, it's hard to realize that other events are going on in the rest of the state of Wisconsin. I think the deletion was good faith but rather misguided. ``–MuZemike 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the one that kept deleting the addition and I am the one that has said over and over that I feel that it IS important to include the fact that protests are going on in other Wisconsin areas than just Madison if that is the case. Here is the edit I deleted several times:


 * Rallies both for and against the recall of state senators are taking place in Wisconsin with confrontations such as a recall effort for Democratic Senator Holperin where local businesses have received threats for organizing the recall effort as well as accusations of intimidation tactics by protesters.


 * It simply is NOT factual to say that events are taking place throughout the state and then supply a reference that does not back that statement up - the ref mentions only the one locality (and FYI I am not from Wisconsin and was not aware of any other protests). This is one of many times that I've had to support deleting information that may well be accurate but the ref was not adequate to support the information.  See, for instance, the discussion on the Factory farming article, near the bottom.  In a highly contended article, such as this one, the references must be very exact.  If you still feel that I was somehow "misguided", please explain. Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that in the future, instead of deleting the information altogether, to insert a [citation needed] clarification within the info added so the statement can be expressed with a reference that can help better substantiate the claim. This would help avoid a potential edit war in the future. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually that is not at all what I did. I asked you again and again to edit your information to show that your reference showed that only one protest other than the Madison protests had occurred.  Not only did you refuse, you then suggested that I was splitting hairs to suggest that one does not equal many. For a fast-moving, highly controversial article such as this, I was correct in my edits.  You seem to be confused about the "citation needed" edit.  I would suggest that if you wish to avoid edit wars that you read wikipedia guidelines rather than advise me of them both here and on my talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then, it was my perception of what you were doing. It's not that I refused to do what you were asking of me, it was that I didn't understand what you were trying to accomplish. No harm intended. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid References?
Since when is an "Opinion Blog" considered to be a qualified reference?

This reference (currently number 9) does indeed come from JSOnline.com, but it is in the Opinion section and is a Blog for the author.

(9)^ a b Don Walker (2011-02-18). "Walker rejects union offer on bargaining rights". JSOnline.com. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116502958.html. Retrieved 2011-03-09.

129.54.8.46 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The article states "Commentators noted that the Middle East and North African protests were inspirations for the Wisconsin protests.[12][13][14][15][16]"

I think more needs to be said that the vast majority of people who have been protesting have been inspired by the way the bill affects their lives and not by events in other parts of the world. As a person who watched it grow first hand as a participant, I can promise you that the passion of the protesters comes from a very personal and emotional place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.57.227 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Split Proposal: Timeline of 2011 Wisconsin Protests
The article is getting very long, and growing at a fast rate. After a quick review of the content in the article, I don't see anything that can be outright removed. But I think that the Timeline section could be summarized better, and its current contents moved to its own page w/ a "Main article: Timeline of 2011 Wisconsin Protests" tag at the top of the summarized section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Ormont (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say not yet at least. 85K for something like this is not that bad. Also, I don't think splitting to a "Timeline" would do much to reduce the current amount; there would have to be another way to logically split if it comes to that point. Normally, in other articles, we have splitted the "Reactions" section, but I think we can keep that in check and make sure we keep primarily the most prominent people and groups in that section. –MuZemike 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Were ready fro it now. Or to split the responses as the timeline is more pertinent at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The lede
People are putting day-to-day information in the lede rather than the time-line section since about March 9 to present. The lede should be pared way down and the info placed in the time-line. Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, its way too long.
 * Ive tried to clean it up a bit.Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

reorganisation

 * 1) Firstly the article needs to follow the MOS date dformats.
 * 2) "Statutory changes" is also more pertinent to the article on the bill (whuich needs to and can be created, especially in light of the controversy)
 * 3) "Related news stories" Wikipedia is not a source to collate news. if it doesnt fit in the article it doesnt below here (perhaps wikinews?)
 * 4) the article is also pretty long and can use a split.Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In my experience it matters not what form is used for dating as long as it is consistent. Rather than change to your preference, it would be better to use the existing form.


 * Re "collate" news. Did you perhaps mean to collect news?  I note that you just deleted the entire section.  You should know that in a highly contested article such as this it is very important to discuss such changes and get a consensus first.  I first tried to put the deleted info in other sections but gave up and replaced the section.


 * In time the article may need to be split, perhaps the Recall section, but for now it seems OK.


 * Re "#"Statutory changes" is also more pertinent to the article on the bill (whuich needs to and can be created, especially in light of the controversy)" I have no idea what you are talking about, please explain.


 * Also, if you say in a summary that you have only reorganized info, please do not add or remove any information as this is sometimes done to add or delete information in an underhanded manner. Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not my chouice. its wiki[edia guidelines
 * WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. WP:TRIVIA means such miscellaneous info is not encyclopaedic to warratn inclusion.
 * There was a thread above that called for it too. i added to that.
 * for many laws that are passed (esp. the controversial ones), seperate articles on that law is created. which would make this the article for the protests, and the article for the details of the law. and the amendments as done in this section would be more fitting there?Lihaas (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read again the guidelines that you seem to think cover your editing because you have twisted them to justify your edits rather than follow them. We are asked to be bold, but we are also asked to not be reckless.  AFAIK this is your first edit of this article and it is arrogant of you to step in and decide that you know more about the article than the editors who have been working on it for some weeks now.  Furthermore, you are quite new to wikipedia even though you seem to have thousands of edits.  I don't know if you are attempting to edit too rapidly and that is the reason that you do not take the time to correct your spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure, but if it is I'd suggest you slow down.  If you are just not aware of the correct way to write, what makes you think that you should be making thousands of edits?


 * That you should step in and call "Related news" trivia is once again arrogant on your part and shows a misunderstanding of what wikipedia means by trivia. Do you not think that there are good editors with opposing views on the protests that are watch-dogging each other?  Read this talk page and the article and you will find we have all tried to be neutral and present a balanced and fair article.  To have someone step in out of the blue and tell the group we don't know what we're doing is hardly the way to work together for good articles.


 * If you plan on future editing, please discuss changes first. Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we start Wisconsin Supreme Court election, 2011?
That section is just going to keep growing. The vote totals will probably swing back and forth between the two candidates, and that's before the results are certified leading to a recount. Is this election notable enough that we should split it out? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that it would be best for now to leave it in the article but not feel the need to post every detail of the back and forth swings. ...and perhaps pray that it does not develop into a Coleman/Franken spectacle? :D Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really get the feeling there's so much there it may need an article. I mean, a recount/legal battle is highly likely. I read the Republicans are bringing in the lawyers (or at least some of them) from Florida 2000, so forget about Coleman/Franken, we may be looking at Bush/Gore. Plus the legitimacy of those 7500 votes that were "found" is sure to be questioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a new article on the subject. And in a response to Muboshgu, no votes were "found" and the number wasn't 7,500. You've probably been reading Daily Kos because I saw their article lying to their readers and trying to convince you only 7,500 votes were found. In fact, nearly 14,000 votes were found to never have been submitted from Brookfield, Wisconsin due to the county clerk never saving the votes. Even Democrats who work with the county clerk confirm the error in Brookfield. See these quotes; "Ramona Kitzinger, the Democrat on the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers, said: "We went over everything and made sure all the numbers jibed up and they did. Those numbers jibed up and we're satisfied they're correct." As a Democrat, she said, "I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true." Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas, who sat in on Nickolaus' news conference, said voters can be confident in the results because "all the votes are in that office. If anyone wants to look at them and verify, they can. It is obvious in my opinion these votes are not fraud or Democrats wouldn't agree with the subject matter. This magic 7,500 vote number came from subtracting the 3,000 Kloppenburg received from the 10,500 Prosser received. The votes now in have also pushed Waukesha County into a more even turnout with the bordering conservative counties of Ozaukee and Washington. Before the votes were added, Waukesha had a 37.4% turnout, well below the 44.1% in Ozaukee County and the 40.9% in Washington County. The votes bring the Waukesha County turnout to 42.2% which is much more even with the bordering counties. Before making false claims, read the facts. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has already reported everything I talked about. See for yourself. S51438 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say those votes weren't valid, but I also read about some of the shadiness of Nickolaus' past and her insistence on keeping the votes on her own personal computer rather than an updated system other places were using, which makes some questions likely to be asked and possibly investigated. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See here, the Kloppenberg campaign is questioning this situation. I feel this is meeting criteria for a standalone article based on our election article guidelines. I'm very involved in electoral articles, so I'll probably start one over the weekend, unless there's serious objection. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that an investigation needs to be done, but using past actions as a means to try and void the results today is nothing but a smear campaign. S51438 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it's the case, and I'm not running a smear campaign, but stating the fact that an investigation is likely due to the oddity of the entire situation. Try to maintain a neutral point of view before claiming liberal bias, as you have in a few places on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Additions to the lead
Two things here. I was wondering why there was no mention in the lead of the article of Democratic senators having fled the state to postpone the vote. That was a big issue of contention for a while, and I find it surprising that this questionable measure isn't mentioned there. Also, should there be some mention of the death threats state senators have received? I admit I haven't been following this too closely, but it looks like this has happened more than once over the course of this debate. I would think both of these elements (if not the second, then certainly the first) are significant enough to warrant mention in the lead in some capacity. Thoughts? »S0CO ( talk 21:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is ran by Liberal moderators who undo anything that isn't liberally biased. That's why you see nothing of the sort. S51438 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking up on that. Looking back, I see that the info was removed by Lihass a few days ago in a "reorganization" that I was not at all happy about.  It was done in a lump edit and hard to follow all he'd changed.  (I had noticed some other info he removed and did not mention in the edit summary - see above thread.)  I have now put it back exactly as it was and perhaps it could use some improvement.  As for the death threats, they used to be here - I don't know who removed them if they are gone.  Anyway, I don't think they need to be in the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Budgetary impact of budgetary repair bill
This is something that I'm quite confused about and would think it helpful for someone more knowledgeable to explain. By definition, the budget repair bill must - well, repair the budget (this is something Wisconsin legally requires if there is a deficit above a certain point.) And of course, the Senate Republicans as well as Governor Walker have continually made statements that passing the bill will save large amounts of money (the exact values seem to depend on the sources.) Yet, at the same time, the Senate Republicans claimed that the bill was nonfiscal and had absolutely no impact on the budget in order to pass it without a quorum necessary. Is there something I'm missing here about this issue? Seleucus (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Catch 22? Gandydancer (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Republicans, no longer requiring state workers to belong to the union and giving local municipalities the ability to make their own decisions on pensions/health care with the minimum contributions specified in the state law, is not a fiscal component that requires the spending of money by the state and therefore non-fiscal. However, it still repairs the budget because the local municipalities can control their own budgets. For example, there has been critics by some conservatives as to why voter ID was not implemented at the same time as the budget repair bill. A former legislator stated that a voter ID bill requires a fiscal component because the state would then need to spend money to help create state ID's for the citizens who do not have a driver's license. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo Requested - can I help?
I'm a current resident of Madison and a recent graduate from the UW, as well as photographer for The Daily Cardinal. I have some photos that may be helpful for this article, and am wondering about how best to make them available for use. Are there any particular shots that are wanted for it? hezy (talk to me) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any photos are welcome. You can upload them on the commons and assign the proper licensing. They can all be linked directly from this article to the commons, the the best placed in the article where appropriate. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)