Talk:Madison, Wisconsin/Archive 2

Beth Heiden?
Although our article on Beth Heiden states that "She was born in Madison, Wisconsin," no source is cited.

The article on Beth Heiden in Great Women in Sports. Visible Ink Press, 1996, Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006 says "Beth Heiden was born and raised in West Allis, Wisconsin." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

Celebrity Locator 2006-7 lists her as currently living in Dollar Bay, Michigan, and Eric Heiden in Birmingham, Alabama.

The Ultimate Celebrity Address & Phone Book has two listings for "Eric and Beth Heiden," one at "XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Madison, WI 53705," and one in Sacramento, California.

What exactly was the Heidens' connection with Madison and during what years? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric and Beth Heiden: A Bond of Blood on Skates, Gay Talese, New York Times Feb. 10, 1980, pg. WO3 says Eric was "an obscure 18-year-old premedical student at the University of Wisconsin" when he attracted notice with his skating in Europe, and says that "when touring members of a Soviet wrestling team visited Wisconsin, they identified the city of Madison not as the capital of the state but as the birthplace of Eric Heiden."

It appears, however, that Beth attended UVM, not the University of Wisconsin. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Anywho lists: Heiden, Jack D & Nancy T (Eric and Beth's parents) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Madison, WI 53705

Most likely Beth was born in Madison and "Great Women in Sports" is just plain wrong... but I still haven't found a good source. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not definitive, but her Wisconsin Historical Society entry says Madison. The same site's entry on Eric says "As a child Eric skated with the Madison Speed Skating Club team but did not begin training seriously until 1972, when Dianne Holum, an Olympic gold medalist and University of Wisconsin student, took him under her wing." --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. No time right now. I'll add that reference, and also add the Great Women in Sports reference with the note that it's probably erroneous. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack Heiden's UWH page indicates he lived in Madison and Denver around the time of both kids' birth -- but I've never seen them called Denverites. I think the book just mixed her up with Chris Witty, or something to do with the Pettit Center, which is practically across the street from West Allis. P.S. I redacted the address for privacy reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 11:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations for Famous Madisonians
I've tagged entries as needing citations, but I don't see any rush in supplying them. As long as their tagged, the reader is alerted.

In cases where the Wikipedia article for a name mentions a Madison connection and gives a citation, that citation should be copied into this article. The linked article in itself does not qualify as a citation, since Wikipedia is (officially!) not considered a reliable source.

For the record, "citation needed" means "citation needed," not "doubtful." Doubtful entries should be removed (and perhaps discussed here in Talk), not tagged. Probably 95% or more of these entries will turn out to be valid.

It should be a goal to cite them all, and eventually entries without citations should be removed. I've supplied references for three of these and will continue to nibble on this as time permits, but of course under the verifiability policy the burden of this work lies with those who add entries and those who want them to remain. They should have been cited when added. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I think this is nuts. It's citation clutter. We're not citing controversial claims, are we? I'm personally satisfied with handling these questions within the biographical articles themselves and resolving any doubt there. Conversely, I think there are much more valuable things to spend our time on as editors than treating where somebody lived as a potentially challengeable fact. Unless we're talking about a 9th century religious figure exclusively claimed by five different Balkan cultures, or something. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See Summary_style, for instance. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources.--Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the verifiability policy. It does not say that only "controversial" claims need citations. (And this is nothing new, it's been true for a very long time). They can't be "handled within the biographical articles" because Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources for other Wikipedia articles. In those cases where the biographical article does cite a source for the person's association with Madison, it shouldn't take very long to copy that source into this article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, the discussion you mention concerns "common knowledge" items. It is certainly not "common knowledge" that Benjamin Heckendorn has a connection with Madison. One of the proposals is to omit citations for facts if they are in several of the textbooks listed as general sources. Well, I doubt that anyone has checked to see whether Benjamin Heckendorn is mentioned inMadison: a Model City, by John Nolen. I've read Rads and I'm pretty sure it doesn't mention Heckendorn... just a second... nope, the index skips from "Hearn, Ralph" to "Heiliger, Donald." So, the discussion about "common knowledge" doesn't apply here. In any case, the "common knowledge" issue has come up many times before and hasn't gone much of anywhere. And a good thing, too, as I've seen several cases, e.g. about the recipe for a proper Philadelphia cheesesteak, where people claiming to be knowledgeable Philadelphians have flatly contradicted each other on what is said to be a matter of common knowledge among Philadelphians. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that tagging each individual person is ridiculous. It sets a very bad precident. Imagine if all pages read like this (edited from History of Brazil):

From the 16th to the 18th centuries, Brazil was a colony of Portugal, exploited mainly for brazilwood at first, and later for sugarcane and, in the 18th century, for gold. During this period many natives were exterminated, pushed out of the way or assimilated, and large numbers of African slaves were brought in. On 7 September 1822, the country declared its independence from Portugal and became a constitutional monarchy, the Empire of Brazil through a small-scale Brazilian War of Independence, lasting from 1821-1825. A military coup in 1889 established a republican government. The country has been nominally a democratic republic ever since, except for three periods of overt dictatorship (1930–1934, 1937–1945, and 1964–1985).

That's terrible! This is why the bright administrators of wikipedia have provided us with the following box: I highly encourage everyone to read this. Furthermore, if you're trying to "preempt" vandals, read this. Moreover, is it really of such huge consequence if Chris Noth was not actually born in Madison? I agree we should strive to be as accurate and factual as possible, but the fact that only this little trivia section has been tagged indicates that there is little concern by the OP for actually improving the article, and they are more concerned with making a point. We could all be spending our time doing better things, either in the wiki world or the real world. If you really think your right and we're wrong OP, please bring this to the attention of an administrator.

Other users, Please share your thoughts on this matter so we may put it to rest!! Bcirker 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the verifiability policy. If you don't like the tags, just find citations and replace the tags with citations. I've dug up about half a dozen, it's not hard. Or, we can move the unsourced entries to this Talk page and move them back one at a time as citations are found.


 * I don't like being accused of WP:POINT when I've been adding citations for these myself.


 * As to: "Moreover, is it really of such huge consequence if Chris Noth was not actually born in Madison?" No, but it's not inconsequential, either. If he isn't, his name should be removed from the page. If there's no reference, then per WP:V his shouldn't have been added to the page in the first place. Now that it has been, the choices are a) to remove it, or b) to indicate it as needing a citation. I chose the latter. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, it takes less time to add the citation than to argue about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear I agree that a bunch of [citation needed] tags is visually unappealing. I tend to think one [unreferenced] box is really sufficient for this sort of case. I'm not goign to argue with it since you're doing the chut work. But in general I try to be more parismonious in passing out such things, for the more egregious or contentious problems, to call better attention to them. One could easily add 100 more [citation needed] tags throughout this entire article. (Now, if MediaWiki had better, more invisible citation options (javascript hover, say) or a "static version" that doesn't show such tags, I might be more amenable to having such things in a "working version".) Basically, it's the difference between treating a tag as a carrot, or as a stick. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point. OK.


 * I certainly agree with you about MediaWIki, by the way. My personal opinion is that Wikipedia needs to have a higher density of citations than traditional encyclopedias or journal articles, and needs to have some innovative apparatus to support that without visual clutter. On the other hand, in the past it was so difficult and laborious to cite anything that I personally rejoiced when the php . Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, let's try just leaving the unreferenced section tag and see what happens. (I'm also leaving individual tags in the paragraphs where it's not so obvious at a glance what is and isn't cited). Let me say, however, that I do not plan to do all the work of finding sources; as the verifiability policy says, the burden is on the editors that wish the material to be kept. And I do hope that new entries will be sourced... and that people will not use the existence of unsourced entries as justification for adding more. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks User:Dpbsmith for doing that. I really didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you and I know you're a hard working wikipedian who is really has the best interest of wikipedia in mind. I will add a few citations myself so I can say I was at least part of the solution. Bcirker 01:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Madison skyline pictures
It may be my own personal opinion. But I think the skyline pictures of Madison should be taken at a closer distance so a large proportion of the pictures are buildings not waters instead. Wscsn 20:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Take a few and upload them. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular musicians
''Garbage is the city's most recognized contemporary contribution to popular music. The multi-million album selling pop-rock band has been based out of Madison since formation in 1994 by producer-musician Butch Vig of Viroqua. Vig is well known for producing albums for such highly-regarded bands as The Smashing Pumpkins and Nirvana.

''Madison has a lively independent rock scene, and local independent record labels include Sector Five Records, Crustacean Records, Beeftone Records, and Hardknocks Records.

Madison is also home to the funky drummer Clyde Stubblefield, and musicians Roscoe Mitchell, Ben Sidran, Reptile Palace Orchestra and Harmonious Wail.

I am a Madison native and long-time resident. Never heard of any of these "popular" folks! 5033R5995 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Madison and Wisconsin demographics
I don not understand the table Madison and Wisconsin demographics. 91% of Wisconsin and 00.02% of Madison is white? Maybe someone can clarify what exactly the table is presenting. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed; it was vandalism. –Scott182 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

History before 1836
Is there a place here for history before 1836? Probably mention of the Native American inhabitants, early European settlers, and whoever Doty bought the land from. Aprofe1 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I've proposed that Madison (town), Wisconsin be merged into the larger Madison article. The article has essentially no room for expansion. I think a mention that Madison contains a smaller municipality would be enough. --Gimme danger 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By that logic, why not merge all the suburbs? The Town article is garbage, but there is room for an interesting history to be written about its history and its squabbles with the City - if reliable sources can be found. --Beaker342 01:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section in the Madison article would be more appropriate for that. It might be interesting, but whether that's enough encyclopedic material for a full article is doubtful. --Gimme danger 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the articles for minor municipalities were bot created anyway. If we are going to argue about whether the Town article has enough info to be encyclopedic, we are really talking about the thousands of other articles identicle to it in every way. I've found these listings, which rival and in some cases surpass the data published by the Census Bureau, to be enormously helpful in my own research. Have you considered the ramifications of what you are suggesting? --Beaker342 03:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The town and city articles should be kept seperate. Both have seperate governments and the town of Madison has its own website. It would be very confusing to the average reader. I areed with User:Beaker342 especially with the last sentence:there are some serious ramifications with the proposed merger. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong objection. They are politically independent entities. Their only simularity is the word "Madison". There are literally hundreds of cities and townships in Wisconsin with the same name that are completely separate. Royal broil  17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong object also: I agree with the above statement; the two articles are about two different topics with similar names. &mdash;Salmar (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong object' - The City does not contain the Town; that's the whole point, and what makes the Town of interest at this late date in Dane County history. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong object - these are easily confused things, yet distinct. These are the strongest set of criteria for keeping them separate. Also, Beaker342's comments are very appropriate here. Merenta (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong object - Harumph! -Freekee (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports Section
The sports section greatly needs to be condensed. --138.49.20.167 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
I've lived in Madison for a few years and following local news and the rail and transportation issues and I don't think that the below statement is worth keeping: "According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Madison and the city of Milwaukee will be cooperating to bring more business into the region. One of many hopes of this project includes the long awaited arrival of regional rail transportation. As the two cities grow ever closer, the region has occasionally been called "Madwaukee." The larger region which includes Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul has been referred to as the "Circle City."[16]" I've never hear either the term "Madwaukee" or "Circle City" in my years here and I can just about guarantee that the majority of Madisonians haven't either. This is not worth keeping in the entry, even if it is "according to the Wisconsin State Journal." G8briel (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the allegation is properly sourced. I'd write to the WSJ writer and ask, because I'm in Milwaukee and I've never heard it either. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive external links
Wikipedia is not a repository for links; there does not need to be a link for every single newspaper, television station or radio station in the city. --BaronLarf 19:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes there does. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't need to be a link for every news source, but other websites that are great references for Madison should be given a shot. Take City Dictionary's "Madison Dictionary," which is indeed a good reference for Madison. It's a student-run website based in Madison, Wisconsin and it has over 350 dictionary entries that define the city. It has been removed for violating the external links guidelines, but I submit that it is entirely valid. The Madison Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucky09 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good edits btw. I was expecting to disagree w you on more than the external links, but I've looked over each of your edits here, and found all of them beneficial, other than the removal of those links of course. I restored the links, and would mention that I have alteady made use of them personally at least once, and I don't even love in the area anymore. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the existence of external links, but the sheer number of them devoted only to media in the main article page seems excessive. I have created other pages for each media type and moved the links there. Neither New York City, Los Angeles nor London have links to every single TV and radio station.  I cannot find any featured article devoted to a city with this many media links.  I think that WP:NOT is pretty clear on this point.  Cheers. --BaronLarf 11:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

All of the links were moved to the various "List of Madison YYYYY". If we look at other featured articles about cities, we don't see huge lists of links. They are more appropriate in the subarticles. slambo 11:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I find links on like a day of the month, or a day by itself, or a year totally unnecessary in many articles I come across. If I am reading that a person was born on such and such a date, why would I require a hyperlink to that day, that month or that year?  Why would I need a hyperlink on the word woman?  In Madison it would be useful to put a hyperlink for Madison Metro because a tourist might reasonably not know there is a website for it, but it would not be useful to hyperlink each bus line!Kyle Andrew Brown 20:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The date links are for formatting the display according to logged-in users' preferences. It's my understanding that dates aren't formatted if they aren't linked. slambo 20:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely -- see Date formatting --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Excessive links (take two)
I agree that there doesn't need to be a link for every news source, but other websites that are great references for Madison should be given a shot. Take City Dictionary's "Madison Dictionary," which is indeed a good reference for Madison. It's a student-run website based in Madison, Wisconsin and it has over 350 dictionary entries that define the city. It has been removed for violating the external links guidelines, but I submit that it is entirely valid. The Madison Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucky09 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory or city guide. Please read these guidelines for further information. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that real problem with the Madison Dictionary is that it is full of nonsense. If you take a look at the postings they are pretty scattered, don't actually define anything (like a dictionary would), and could hardly be used to back up points or provide real information relating to Madison.
 * That said, I think that it would be helpful if people would get over the external links bias. External links are often useful and can connect people with primary sources.  I have a hard time thinking that this is a bad thing.  Unfortunately people seem to be sending around less than discriminant bots to wipe them out and label them "link farms".  My favorite example of this is the UW-Madison Library's digital collections division being repeated banned for hyper-referencing items in their collection.  Obviously people need to check out external links better before they go around poo pooing them.  Also, if you take a close look in the these guidelines you will see the word "mere" used in reference to a collection of links.72.33.44.226 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Weather section & table
The highest temperature recorded in Madison is not 104°F (40°C) as shown in the table but 107°F (~42°C) on 14 July 1936. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.146.93 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find a reference for the 107 number, but i did find this - a page on the Weather Network's site which claims that: "The highest recorded temperature was 108°F in 1988." (according to the accompanying graph, this occured in August of 1988). Is the weather network's website a good enough source? DiggyG (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion
You mention Madison has a Buddhist temple. This is news to me. As far as I know all the "temples" in Madison are in people's home. The only formal temples I know of are a Tibetan and a small Cambodian in Oregon, but certainly not in Madison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.29.158 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

85 miles of unreality!
In poiitics after the neat Dreyfus quote is added: "a phrase that has since been applied to other cities." I would go for deleting that because in its wordiness it detracts from the excellent quote and this article is about Madison and if it's applied elsewhere to other cities let that stand on its own.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would concur, since I not only don't know of it being since applied to other cities, but it was said specifically about Madison, so if it's been said about other cities, it would be appropriate there to mention that it was originally said of Madison. To add it here not only detracts from the excellence of the quote (which isn't necessarily good grounds for removing it), but it has nothing to do with Madison (which is good grounds for removing it).  Btw.  tildes...tildes... :-)~ Tomer TALK  05:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is culturally very similar to Madison, is sometimes called "25 square miles surrounded by reality". Couldn't say which one came first, though, or if it's an actual borrowing or simply a use of the same words to express the same sentiment.... --- Isaac (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard many people make vague claims about some guy or some political group who invented this phrase specifically for Ann Arbor and I've heard nearly the same thing about Madison. I'm not sure we can pin down who actually thought this one up and for which city. Pdcook (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reference was "60 square miles surrounded by reality." I heard the reference back in 2001 when the Madison School Board banned the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember. Besides, it certainly sounds better that way. This is by no means evidence, but certainly something to be investigated a bit more.
 * 60 miles surrounded by reality - This is where my memory was refreshed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucky09 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

University Of Wisonsin
Madison is the home of the University of Wisconsin. All other campuses are satellites, therfore it is incorrect to list as "University of Wisconsin - Madison". 76.210.69.7 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we have done this to avoid ambiguity. While "University of Wisconsin" may officially refer only to the Madison campus, it could also refer to the university system as a whole. --Danger (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) and University of Wisconsin–Madison. The idea that "[a]ll other campuses are satellites" is an archaic delusion most prevalent within the boundaries of Dane County, and particularly the confines of that campus; and among a few legislators. The rest of the state, and the planet, feels differently. (We are also taught how to spell our state's name and the word "therefore", at least at UW-Milwaukee.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I often hear people (from outside of WI) refer to UW-Madison as the "University of Wisconsin". Please avoid ad hominem attacks, Mike. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Madison, Wisconsin
I thought this section was for businesses that call Madison home, as in their headquartered in the area. The section also contains, however, companies that have a branch or office in Madison, but are headquartered elsewhere. Thermo Fisher Scientific and Covance for example. Should such companies be removed? P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless they are among the top local employers, yes: delete. If they employ 500 people at a factory or even a call center, that's notable enough for mention. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed a few that stood out as not particularly relevant. The section is still a bit of a hodge-podge . P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe use some kind of a list format.. Uma Manian (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
WHO THE HELL TOOK THE MAIN PICTURE OF DOWNTOWN DOWN?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.24.248 (talk • contribs)
 * It appears you, or someone working from your IP address anyways, did. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)



If someone needs a photo from Madison, let me know. I have a pic of the capitol that shows more detail, but might need to be rotated (I still suck at taking pictures). Dori | Talk 19:54, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * At this point we have two, and that's certainly not definitive of Madison. What we might want to do next is look at giving the Capitol its own article. --Dhartung 09:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually make that three as I just uploaded [[Image:Capitol from Monona Terrace.jpg|thumb|200px|]]. Is there an image in specific that you are looking for? Dori | Talk 20:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Those are great photos! I have no complaints at all. --Dhartung | Talk 01:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have nominated this picture as a featured picture candidate. Visually stunning in my opinion. Royalbroil 04:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's nice, but I predict a speedbump or two. It's misaligned, and it doesn't show the whole subject. The first is fixable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics section is a bit dated
I think this:


 * The city is currently experiencing protests against Senate Bill 11 that would take away some collective bargaining requirements in dealing with public worker unions. The bill was introduced February 14, 2011, at the request of Governor Scott Walker. It spent two days under review of the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee. The vote was scheduled for February 17, but was delayed due to a lack of quorum in the Senate. All fourteen of the state's Democratic senators were reported to have left the state to delay the likely passing of Bill 11. They refused to return until the bill had been amended. They returned on March 12. Massive protests in and around the capitol building involved between 10,000 and 85,000 people and stretched for several weeks. Thousands of high school students attended these protests, led by 800 students from Madison East High the day after Valentines Day.

is a bit out of date. I'd fix it myself, but this is wikipedia, and we all know what happens to any edits by people without an account. 24.43.153.14 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What happens?
 * In any case, I went ahead and fixed this, and also trimmed it significantly to what is relevant to Madison (further details can be found at 2011 Wisconsin protests which is wikilinked). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)