Talk:Iowa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Geography

The linked image showing county divisions and county numbers appears to be way out of date. Officially, the state uses a different numbering system where the counties are numbered 1-99 in alpha order. e.g. Dallas County is #25, Polk County is #77. Anyone know why this map and numbering convention is used?

Alex3324 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Official language

Last I heard the official language bill was not passed, ergo Iowa has no official language. Unless I've missed some big news since like 5 years ago when it was the popular US thing to be doing, which I don't think I did, I'm reverting it back to "None" as the official language. If I'm wrong, accept my apologies and put a blurb here. I'd like to see some kind of reference. Cburnett 03:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would appear I'm wrong: IA Code, Change 1, Section 18. Cburnett 03:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

iowa is a potato country

So... why didn't you revert your revert? I changed it back. --Ben Brockert 04:34, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was actually waiting for someone to say something to affirm or deny it, but whatever. I would have eventually. Cburnett 04:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah. The bill seems fairly cut and dried. Nice job finding a reference, though. --Ben Brockert 04:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Religion

User:BSveen, please provide cites for the old numbers and the new numbers. Also, please explain your objection to the way I reformatted your addition. --Ben Brockert 17:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objections to anything you did, except for your reverting of the new religious data. The source for the new data is this:

Kosmin, B. & S. Lachman. One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society; 
Harmony Books: New York; pg. 88-93. Religious Composition of State Populations. 
Self-identification of religious loyalty, phone survey w/ 113,000 people; by City U. of New York.

The detailed numbers can be found on Adherents.com on the Iowa page. (I added the source to the external links section). This Kosmin data is the most comprehensive and best all-around data I have found anywhere. What I did was copy down all the percentages of all the religious idenitifications; added the various Protestant denominations together, added the 'Other Christian' denominations (Mormon, Eastern Orthodox, and any non-RC non-Prot. Christian denomination) together, and added the 'other religions' (non-Christian religions) to get what you now see in the article. I feel this is a much more straightforward and better way to present the religion information, as opposed to the old way (my old version), which I felt was lacking---that's why I replaced my old data, I felt it was not straightforward enough.

The old data is from this site.

Now, if I may ask a question: Why did you call me a racist? -BSveen 19:04, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears things up nicely. The original numbers are more recent, and as such are more valid. The advantage of an online encyclopedia is that one needs not be satisfied with old information; it is our obligation to provide the most recent applicable data. As such, I've edited the page to show the most recent statistics and the cite.

To reply to your question: It is quite telling that you just changed your user page. racism: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion (Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University). Your user page[1]: "I am commitedly anti-Islamist"; islamist: a believer or follower of Islam (same source). Before that, bolding yours, "I am anti-Muslim"[2]. Aren't edit histories a wonderful thing?--Ben Brockert 03:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am anti-Muslim (i.e., anti-Islamist, there is not a clear distinction between the two in the real world, despite what propagandists and their victims may claim...I am friends with some Muslims, but make no mistake, I am against Islam, in the same way that a man may be anti-fascist and still be friends with an individual with far-rightest political beliefs.). This does not make me a racist (if you read carefully, you would see that in that same page history, I said that I do support secular Muslims). Being anti-Islamist is akin to being anti-KKK...both are horrible organizations run by bigots and fanatics.

And no, honestly the recent data really isn't better, that is precisely why I replaced the old data with the new data...(furthermore, I don't see why you have some sort of personal vendetta against all my religion edits -- or maybe against me personally, as you used baseless insults against someone you have never met.). One example of why the new data is not the best to use: For Utah, I think the new survey said that 52% of people were Mormon, which is a much-too-low number no matter what way you stack it up, I mean more people in Utah than that are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints! The old data is much more accurate and realistic, it gives 70% as the answer. Plus, there is no confusing "Other" category in the old data (what does "other" mean? surely it doesnt mean non-Christian religions...non-Christian religions were less than 0.5% 10 years ago according to the old survey and now they are 6%? This is impossible, there has not been a massive influx in to the state of non-Christian persons in the past decade). There are plenty of reasons why the new data should not be used; I've been thinking about it off-and-on ever since I keyed in the original data weeks ago, a few days ago I decided I needed better data, and started to research. If data is known to be faulty, it should be thrown out, just as a scientist would throw out results he knows are obviously wrong in an expirement.

-- B Sveen, a non-racist, despite what Mr. Brockert falsely claims. Decemeber 14 2004

I once again changed the statistics back. Here are some reasons why:

• There is no shortage of space, so no need to collapse the stats.
• There are people who call themselves catholic who are not roman catholic
• "Christian" can't be assumed to be protestant.

You interpretation of the data is your POV by definition. Whether you think the survey results are "realistic" or not, they are the survey results, and you can't alter them to your personal bias.

I don't have a vendetta against you or your edits, I have a vendetta against non-neutral POV and innacuracy in an encyclopedia. You pointed out that you have done similar edits to other acticles, so I will be reviewing them as time allows. --Ben Brockert < 03:21, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

History

I moved the history to History of Iowa because it made Iowa rather long and I thought it deserved it's own article. I think a shortened history of Iowa should be added in its place but I'm not sure what it should include.

Also, the History of Iowa page can now be expanded as it's not limited to a subsection of Iowa.

Cburnett 05:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good job. I too thought it needed to be done, but I wasn't bold enough. It was taking up a disproportionate amount of the page. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 20:46, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Animals of Iowa.

I helped by putting some Animals in the article. --Relaxation 22:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What criteria did you use to create the list? Got a reference or anything? It would also be nice to link them to the articles on each animal. Cburnett 22:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560308_2/Iowa.html

Hope this helps.

--Relaxation 22:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are no Black Bears in Iowa! There may have been a few sightings in the past, but these are generally stray pets. The idea that there is anything even remotely close to a modern wild population of Black Bears in Iowa is absolutely ridiculous.

--Johnnymv 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Senators

Just wondering if the colors in the list of senators is supposed to indicate party? If so, there are several errors. Identity0 08:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

April 21 edits

Can someone who follows this article look at the changes today. There appears to be a lot of garbage that needs reverting. Vegaswikian 05:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed most, if not all, of them. --Iowahwyman 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

width/length of states

It seemed odd to me that the East-West distance was listed as the length of Iowa and the North-South as the width. So, I checked Minnesota and Massachusetts articles. They both followed the convention of referring to the 'horizontal' (East-West) as width, and the 'vertical' (North-South) as length. Dunno whether there is coverage of this issue in any Wikipedia style book or the like. Seems that a convention should be followed uniformly for all the states. Publius3 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Iowa. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the Dubuque Thunderbirds is missing in the Hockey section. Not sure what league they are in, but I know that if the others are included, they should be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.65.245 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New Governor

I would like to remind the Wikipedia Community that after the Inaguration and Oath of Office on Friday, January 12th, 2007, this article and possibly many others will need to be changed in order to reflect Chet Culver as Governor and Patty Judge as Lt. Governor of Iowa. I will try to remember and change that. But if someone reads this after Friday but before they are updated, go for it! 71.214.225.2 04:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Kshannon 03:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Libraries

I noticed that under the category of Libraries, that the Cedar Falls Public Library is listed. I am curious as to why it is listed. -Diabolos 06:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Library section - there was no content other than a list of public libraries - as there was no (apparent) notability to the libraries, and as none of the 7-8 random state articles I looked at had a Library section, it seemed appropriate to simply remove it as an unhelpful section. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic heritage vs. Race

Starting with the landmark court case of Alvarez vs. Owen in 1931, Hispanic heritage is considered separate from race. Hispanic individuals can be White, Black, American Indian, Asian, or of any other race. It is important that in articles such as this, we not misuse census data to racialize Hispanic heritage. --Node (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So what needs to be fixed then? Ctjf83Talk 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PRJ

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.^[?]

*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) There is an infobox.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Table of famous iowans

I've temporarily removed the table of famous iowans. For some reason it was displaying after external links and eating into the iowa template and sisterlinks. Try as I might I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. If any table-savvy editors want to give it a go find my revision in the history. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Vandalism

Vandalism is becoming more presistent and common on Iowa, most edits are now actually vandalism. Have requested temporary semi-protection, pending. This will prevent non-registered users from editing for a little while. For updates, see wp:Requests_for_page_protection Billwhittaker (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is now under temporary semi-protection. If rampant vandalism continues after it expires, you can re-register with wp:Requests_for_page_protection. Billwhittaker (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've re-semi-protected it for one week. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Presidential elections results

In the Presidential elections results table there is a slight mistake. According to the table in 1988 45,07% voted for the republican candidate and in the same year over 55% voted for the democratic candidate. Together they make over 100%. The table has no source. Kasper kala (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 1988 results aren't on the Iowa Secretary of State's website. I'll temporarily remove them, pending a source. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Found a source here. Unfortunately it only has results to one decimal point. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

fix

Someone with an account, please fix the climate table. I can see html code. I would have fixed it myself, but the page is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.13.101 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the table for now, although it looks like the source doesn't cover Davenport, which appears in the table with the other cities that are included in the source, if someone wants to take a look at this. AlexiusHoratius 07:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Davenport is referenced now :) CTJF83Talk 08:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm awfully confused?

Where does it say that Iowa is the best state ever in the official poll by schneukenpolls.com? I'll add it, but I haven't really edited before so tell me if it's in hte wrong format~--Bandita Chinchilla (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Terry Farrell (actress)

She meets all three critera as listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Famous_Residents, therefore, I put her back in the list of Famous Iowans. 192.44.136.113 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

She isn't really notable enough for the Iowa page. List her at List of people from Iowa CTJF83Talk 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

gay marriage

Is now allowed - Iowa's Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7981893.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.89.221 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was already added to the article, thank you. CTJF83Talk 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

'Tis a good day to be an Iowan. 192.44.136.113 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to Iowa Article

To change the subject, the Iowa article is looking much better overall, with better editing and a lot more graphics and sourced citations. A few months ago Iowa was a pretty generic article, but now it is actually something to be proud of, and a worthy introduction to the state. Those of you with copyediting skills should give the article a good going over, and with some cleanup I think Iowa has a chance of being promoted to "good" status. Thanks to everyone who has helped! Now if we can only clean up the embarrassing History of Iowa article... Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Gotch

(moved from User talk:68.108.28.66#Frank Gotch.)
Ctjf83, as the person who originated adding names to the Notable Persons section for Iowa, I am curious as to the criteria you are using as to who is notable and who is not. Frank Gotch was a world-famous wrestler and international champion in a sport that is significant to Iowa. In the first half of the 20th century, wrestling was as popular as boxing is today. If you are the decider, explain to me why B celebrity actors like Lara Flynn Boyle and Ashton Kutcher remain on the list and someone who was the greatest in his sport is not. Have you read of Gotch's legacy? If you did, you would know how great his popularity was and how great his contributions were to the sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.66 (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific criteria, and I know nothing about him. If you want to readd him, I'll leave it. We should only be including the top very notable Iowans. It is very hard to come up with specific criteria, I think we should remove 75% of the people on the current list. Looking at the list right now, we obviously need to keep the president, vice president and 2 first ladies. I would say noble prize winners are notable. Looking at the others for sure keep Johnny Carson, John Wayne, Andy Williams, Kurt Warner, Elijah Wood, and Grant Wood. Those I'd say are for sure keeps. Others like Bix Beiderbecke, Buffalo Bill Cody, Lara Flynn Boyle, Ashton Kutcher, and Ann Landers. I could go either way on. Most of the rest I'm not familiar with and should probably go on the List of people from Iowa page, as they probably are not as notable. Please tell me what you think of this. CTJF83Talk 06:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ctjf asked me to add my thoughts here. I agree with his "for sure keeps". I would also keep Olympic gold medalists - e.g. Shawn Johnson - on the list. Other than those, I think the list should be kept relatively short, though I'm not sure how we'd determine who else to be added (I'm not going to comment at all for non-Olympic sports, they are not my forte). There is one last consideration - I don't think the list should be strictly limited to people born in Iowa, though that should be the primary basis for judgment. For example, I would add George Washington Carver to the list - as he received his higher education in Iowa and started his academic career in Iowa - and as he was both the first black student and first black faculty member at Iowa State University. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this really something that you want to spend a lot of energy fighting? The ugly reality is that notability is subjective, and will always be. I don't know a think about non-Iowan Snoop Dogg (14.8 million google hits), other than he is a rapper with millions of fans. To me, Nile Kinnick (21k google hits) is very notable as an Iowan because he symbolizes so much to U-Iowa sports fans. I suspect that Iowa State fans would not include him as notable. I never heard of Bix Beiderbecke (226k google hits) until now. I can't stand Andy Williams (8.7m google hits), but he has more google hits than Herbert Hoover (1.4m). Samuel Kirkwood (only 379k google hits) was arguably Iowa's most important governor. The requirement that they be born in Iowa makes no sense, and is inconsitently used, Kirkwood is not an Iowa native, but it would be a poor list without him.

Hmmm... perhaps you could create some complex formula for objectively determining notability that takes into account the fact that historical figures are more important but less well known, and that time spent in Iowa is crucial. Perhaps (google hits+[number of years since their birth*500]*[percent of their adult life spent in Iowa/100]). Just so long as I am not the one doing the math! Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps we shouldn't have a list at all in the article - merely a short paragraph stating (w/o names or nearly so) that we have had several important personages from Iowa? We already have a more comprehensive list at List of people from Iowa, after all. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, get rid of the list, and make a paragraph, like I did for Davenport. CTJF83Talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual marriage

Does it really deserve its own section? We don't know if this will last, lets bring the article more in line with Massachusetts/California on the topic. - Schrandit (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own section, but currently it is in a section with slavery and school segregation and such. CTJF83Talk 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets be honest with ourselves, that section was created a few hours ago, I suspect the intentions of its creator were to push a POV and it is very contentious to classify homosexual marriage as a civil right. Why not include it as a paragraph in the government section like the other states do?

The IA supreme court clearly said it was a civil right, as it violated the constitution. CTJF83Talk 03:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And indeed in the Iowan sense of the word this is true, in the broader national, and international sense this is highly debatable. Oh well, I could go either way, I still think it'd be more appropriate under the government section like other states have it but I'll wait to see what other folks think. - Schrandit (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an Iowa article though, not a US or international, so since the Iowa Supreme Court basically said it's a civil right, it is appropriate in that section. CTJF83Talk 05:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The US Supremes have also declared marriage to be "one of the basic civil rights of man". --Ramsey2006 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But not homosexual marriage. In either case, it is not really the language of the marriage bit that bothers me but rather the "Leader in Civil Rights" section. I see it as an attempt to manipulate the significance of the marriage ruling to meet national political desires that is almost entirely unsourced and was inserted by an anon. Why not follow the lead of all the other states who have addressed this issue and move the current marriage language from the "Leader in Civil Rights" section into the Law and Government section and either do away with the rest of the unsourced material in that section or find sources for it and move it into Law and Government?

I disagree completely with your premise ("it isn't discrimination to deny _this_ minority a basic right because it's _different_ with gay people" is exactly the argument the Iowa Court just rejected, BTW), but agree with your conclusion. The presentation of the section ("Leader in civil rights: Iowa has been at the forefront of civil rights throughout its history...") really should be changed, if only for reasons of style. It's fine to identify this as a dispute over civil rights, but as written it reads more like a fifth-grade report than an encyclopedia entry. Just stating the facts and calling the section something like "position on the rights of minorities" would be better. Elmo iscariot (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also agree on placement--this is much more appropriate as a subheading in Law and Government than in History. Elmo iscariot (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My feelings regarding homosexual marriage are irrelevant and with that in mind, if no one objects, I'll enact the proposed change to the article. - Schrandit (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have to object...not strongly, but object nonetheless. Iowa is indeed a leader in civil rights, having enacted appropriate remedies for various problems long before many of these were enacted nationally. Regardless of one's personal or religious views, the Iowa Supreme Court did focus on this as a civil right. That the rest of the nation hasn't caught up yet is irrelevant, too....although, if past record is any indication, they are not far behind. Vermont and DC tend to show this, as do many polls. --averagejoe (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the politics of the decision or its implication for other jurisdictions. The section seems out of place compared to articles on other states and locations. The first citation does not verify the statement being made, the second citation doesn't work. Why not move the marriage bit to the Government section, where every other article has it, and lose the rest until it can be sourced? - Schrandit (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to declare that Iowa is or isn't "at the forefront of civil rights"; all we can do is report on sources that say so. The statement is sourced (to a joint statement by two Iowa lawmakers), so all that's left is to attribute it properly. I recommend making it something like "some Iowa lawmakers say that their state 'has always been a leader in the area of civil rights'", renaming the subsection to refer factually to the rights of minorities, and moving it to Law and Government. This would seem to keep all the information available for readers, without attributing the value judgment to Wikipedia itself. Elmo iscariot (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it really seem proper to have a subsection labeled "some Iowa lawmakers say that their state 'has always been a leader in the area of civil rights'"? This section is a poorly sourced, poorly conceived stretched that is serving a POV that is attempting to make more out of the court's decision. Is there any real reason why Iowa's page shouldn't conform to Massachusetts' and Vermont's? - Schrandit (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are the specific claims that you feel are poorly sourced? Why not just provide sources? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything. The free slave, separate but equal schools, racial discrimination protection, and women lawyers. CTJF83Talk 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It shouldn't be that hard to source most of the slave, separate but equal, etc. stuff directly to the Varnum v. Brien opinion, pages 17-18. Not a great permanent source, but it should be sufficient for now. Also note that any citations to Varnum will need to be updated (including page numbers) once the opinion is assigned a volume and page number in the regional reporter. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Until that can be done I'm going to put it in line with other state's pages. I'm not convinced the section is inline with our due weight policies and I know unsourced material shouldn't be left up on a page for this long. - Schrandit (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced some of the deleted info (slave, separate but equal, etc. stuff ) and sourced it directly to the Iowa Judicial Branch's official site. One quick Google search took me right there. It may have taken longer to delete the info than to source it...but I could be wrong. ;-) Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd still argue that this belongs as a subsection of the Law and Government section but thank you for trimming and sourcing that content as well as making the tone more neutral, I think it looks much more acceptable now. - Schrandit (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears your wish has been granted. User talk:Philosopher did some nice work this morning after I did my tweak. Thanks all! --averagejoe (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)And now, should it be mentioned in the intro? While Massachusetts does, Connecticut, California and Vermont do not. Owing that this was not the first occurrence of this in the nation and that it was a court ruling I figure it probably doesn't need its own sentence in the into. Thoughts? - Schrandit (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

When thinking about this issue, a few thoughts come to mind:

1. This issue affects other states, and can also be considered an international issue (marriage isn't limited to just the United States), so it could be helpful to know in the intro.
2. This is a dog-bites-man issue, in that it is (for the U.S.) fairly ground-breaking stuff, so it is notable. Lots of people are doing quite a significant bit of research into this very issue. Pretty relevant stuff, it seems.
3. There's not much doubt this is a Civil Rights issue. The debate seems to be "should it be legal to discriminate against this class of people with regard to this issue?" The same could be said for slavery, gender equality, etc. The reasons for answering in the affirmative with regard to same-sex marriage seem predominately to be of a religious nature, and religion is also a civil rights issue.

So, I'll weigh in that Yes, the body section works for me, and Yes, the brief mention in the intro is warranted.

I'll try to take some time in the next few days to add the relevant comments to the intros for CT, CA, VT, and check to see what D.C.'s has. That should solve the issue raised in your second sentence. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to resolve this question here before changing the leads for other states.

1. Sorry, I'm not really sure how this effects other states. Could you elaborate?

2. This is (somewhat, its the 4th/5th American state) ground breaking stuff now and it is in the news cycle but will it be in a week? Is it Wikipedia's to document recent history? New York and Pennsylvania do not mention the recent spree shootings that tragically befell their state.

3. As some one on the other side of the issue (and I'm not saying that to complain, you lot have been fairly reasonable) there is an ocean of dispute as the framing of this question and myself and others of the same viewpoint would object vigorously to the framing of the question in that manner. I'm not saying you don't see it that way but we are far from consensus that that how the debate seems to be or that that is the nature of the debate.

Best wishes. - Schrandit (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll take 'em in order:

1. Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It deals with reciprocity between the states in issues such as extradition in crimes as well as licenses. In short, if you have a valid drivers license issued by the State of Iowa, you can drive in every other state. Marriage licenses are at issue.
2. Shootings (and other crimes) happen. Unless they're on the scale of a 9/11 (or have some other unique/special significance), they're not that notable. A major change in the way a state constitution is interpreted, especially in light of item 1 above, is arguably notable.
3. If your perspective is of a religious nature, it is by definition based on belief regardless of fact. At one time, a god in a chariot drove drove across the sky, making the sun. That there really is no shining golden chariot is not relevant to the the faithful, nor did their faith cause said chariot to actually exist. Judo-Christian faith forbids the eating of pork (see Leviticus), but there's an awful lot of bacon produced here in Iowa and we don't have a civil law against it. The gay marriage issue is a bird of that feather. The problem is not one's personal views, it's when one tries to enforce that view on others who are not of the same faith/belief. Based only on faith and not on fact, some folks want to deny Equal Protection to others. Vigorously object all you want, but this is an encyclopedia, not a theological tome promulgating a specific mythos (then again, perhaps we should pull all references to hog production because if its sinful nature).

I'm glad to acknowledge and respect your beliefs, but don't expect me to believe what you do without reasoned argument. I don't have a problem with you believing in your invisible friend, but I won't be bullied by him/her/it/them/etc!  ;-) Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. See the Defense of Marriage Act. Homosexual marriages in Iowa will not effect other states.

2. Even 9/11 fails to gain mention on either the pages of New York, Pennsylvania, or Washington DC. I cannot think of a comparable current even, or really, of any current event, that has warranted coverage on the introduction of a page of another state.

3. My objections to state sanctioned homosexual marriage are not of a religious nature and I feel it does display some level of prejudice (prejudgment) for you to assume that they are. - Schrandit (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. DOMA (see also: oxymoron) still faces SCOTUS challenges. D.C. just voted to defend the constitution and marriage equality. Whether the house of cards continues to fall remains to be seen, but momentum is towards equal rights, not discrimination.
2. Take a look at Minnesota's intro. They are known as being progressive. Iowa is known as a bellwether of civil rights.
3. The very first word of my #3 above is "IF". I apologize if you took offense that I may have implied your opposition to our constitution and the rights we enjoy was based solely on faith-based mindset. In my experience, I haven't met anyone who had a fact-based reason to restrict others' rights. I do apologize for prejudging your motivation - you may indeed be the only non-nutter in your camp. What rational basis do you have for your views? As I said in #3 above, I'm happy to entertain rational ideas.

Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. You may chose to believe that Defense of Marriage Act is an oxymoron but nonetheless the challenge against it has yet to be successful and it is rather presumptuous to assume it will be. DOMA has faced SCOTUS challenges in the past and it is still around. Right now, homosexual marriages in Iowa will not effect any other states and should not be considered as a reason for inclusion in the intro.

2. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Iowa is a bellwether for Civil Rights. Some parts of Minnesota are known to be laughably liberal (they say the only reason the Iron Range went for John Kerry is because Gus Hall wasn't running that year, the tradition of Nordic socialism and all that) but I see little reason to believe that when most Americans think of Iowa they think of Civil Rights. I also see little reason to classify Iowa as a bellwether, were the court cases we mentioned important precedent for other cases? Not particularly. Have all Iowa civil rights spread nation wide? Not really (Bestiality was legal in Iowa until 2000, not that I would compare the two issues but where Iowa treads then national does not seem to follow). I do not think Iowa's perception as a national "leader" in civil rights qualifies this court case a place in the introduction.

3. Thank you for your sensitivity on the issue. This probably isn't the proper forum to discuss the matter but if you are curious I do have e-mail enabled. The short of it is that the argument against homosexual marriage is more than just religious and to write it off as such would be shortsighted. - Schrandit (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate for the intro. It is important to Iowa, so it is properly included in the article but it isn't a "defining" feature of the state and shouldn't be in the intro. I'll also second User:Schrandit's "1." and "2.". --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)1.Iowa's ruling will affect other states. D.C., for example, will recognize all Iowa marriages. NY appears to be in play now, too.
2.Why do restrictionistas bring up bestiality...they seem far to interested and knowledgeable on the subject for me to be comfortable with. Besides, all things are legal until laws are enacted restricting certain actions. Iowa does have a track record of acknowledging rights before the rest of the nation - read the civil rights section of the Iowa page for examples.
3.I really don't believe I'm being shortsighted, although I do admit to not knowing everything. As I stated before, I have yet to hear an argument for suppressing the rights of others regarding marriage that wasn't fundamentally faith-based. Never. Really. And I've listened to many folks discuss this issue for many years now, and I re-read the same-sex marriage article after reading your response above.
Disclosure: I'm heterosexual, so this right doesn't directly affect me...then again, as I'm also male, neither do rights for women. Still, we let 'em vote, despite 'traditional' arguments made to try to stop 'em (seems they can even talk in church now, despite Biblical prohibitions).
Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. That was the decision of the D.C. Government, Iowa had no bearing on it.

2. Again, I dispute that Iowa posses such a record or that it is appropriate material for the introduction.

3. Again sir, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place. If you really want to know I have the e-mail function turned on. As it stands there are 2 against inclusion in the introductory paragraph and 1 for. Unless anyone else objects I indent on reverting the edit that put that content there. - Schrandit (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was doing some online studying for this subject and came across this section. I was amazed to find that you are debating whether it is important enough to keep. It would be a real shame if this section were to be removed. The landmark ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court has been in the news and had effects across the country and people want to know all of the issues at hand. Do not delete this section, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.5.37 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if there has been some misunderstanding, no one is talking about deleting any section, just whether or not homosexual marriage should be mentioned in the article's intro. - Schrandit (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the reference can be omitted from the intro without worries. The information is covered adequately in the Law & Government section, and putting it up top is possibly giving it undue weight. Iowa choosing to equally protect the rights of gay Americans is no more important that its prior choices to protect the rights of black and female Americans, and putting only the one up top is most likely just recentism.

Incidentally, I agree completely that this isn't the time or the place for a debate on the rightness or wrongness of laws discriminating against gay Americans. If somebody proposes removing the reference from the Civil Rights section, then we may need to have a discussion about what constitutes civil rights and discrimination. Since that isn't the case now, it's just a distraction from the purpose of the talk page. I appreciate your volunteering your email as a more appropriate venue for discussion. Elmo iscariot (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"a debate on the rightness or wrongness of laws discriminating against gay Americans.". My friend, I applaud your framing skills. - Schrandit (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real consensus to remove this, so let's just it alone for now. It's always easier to take things out than to remember where they go. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident 3 out of 4 editors constitutes a consensus. - Schrandit (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm certain that 3 out of 5 is, at best, a narrow majority, not a consensus. I've been reading up on this and it turns out that we don't actually vote. The fact that there are people with reasonable arguments against excluding Iowa's historical role is reason enough to keep it. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'd call it a loose consensus. I will concede it isn't water proof, if you really think it is necessary we could bring in an RfC. - Schrandit (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that the framing of the man who's considering whether he thinks a particular marriage will benefit his society and the framing of the man whose marriage is held in the balance of that debate are necessarily going to be different, and leave it at that. I like the article without the reference in the lede, and think any discomfort I have over removing it is most likely due to my own sense of recentism and emotional investment in the subject. The article as it is right now (no mention in lede, properly placed "Civil Rights" section that includes all the facts but omits the difficult "leader in civil rights" language) looks excellent to me, presenting all the info in its proper place, without going so far as to create a synthesis. Very happy with it; this goes as far as I think is reasonable without stepping on WP guidelines. Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that it belongs in the lede. I can't imagine how anybody who has lived through the past month can believe that the Iowa decision has not had a significant impact on other states. There is certainly no consensus to remove it. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way: if we were to make a list of the five most important and influential events in Iowa's history, with things like the Homestead Act, statehood, construction of the railroads, '93 floods, changes in the farm economy, etc., would the gay marriage thing be on that list? (It would basically have to be in order to be included in the introduction.) It may have been the most important event in the last few months, but was it one of the most important events in the last few centuries? I think WP:Recentism kind of comes into play here. My own opinion is that it should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, but not in the introduction. AlexiusHoratius 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ramsey - if we were a news provider I would agree with you. But we're not. Anyone who's lived through the past month can tell you that the Iowa decision was significant - so significant that it is mentioned in the article. But it has not been defining for the state. As for consensus - that there is consensus has been settled for nearly a month now. (You can ignore TruthIIPower's attempt to stir things up - he's been indef-blocked as a sock of User:Spotfixer.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate Iowa Constitution Article

I think it'd be a good idea to create an article for the Iowa Constitution. I followed the U.S. state constitutions infobox link to Iowa only to find that it just went to the government section of the main article on Iowa. Particularly with the recent same-sex marriage case, more people are going to be interested in knowing about the constitution specifically. Plus, it seems like all the other states have separate articles for their constitutions. Anyone want to take this up? Noble-savage (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm busy w/ class for the next 2-3 weeks - but once I get done with that I can create a short article on the Iowa Constitution and ensure that Wikisource has the relevant documents. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rural Flight

Why is there a mention here of the free land offers? Isn't it the case that only Kansas is giving away free land? Someone correct me if am wrong, and if I am right perhaps we should delete the mention of free land offers --User:kenallen 27 October 2006

Iowa has gained population since 1990. It is not accurate to suggest Iowa is losing population.

While there is no doubt that the population of the state increasingly lives in cities, I would suggest that the chart illustrating rural flight is invalid. This is because it compares the age distribution of Pocahontas County females to the general population of Johnson County. Of course, the population of Johnson County is skewed towards the 18-24 range because of the student population connected with the University of Iowa (over 30,000). A more reasonable comparison would compare the age distribution of the general population in a typical rural county to that of a more typical urban county, such as Polk or Scott. In addition, it would do so over time.

As a consequence, I propose deletion of that chart. Justus R (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As chart creator, I have no strong feelings about deleting it, it was easy to make, so I'd loose no sleep over its loss. I will see what a Scott or Polk comparison chart looks like. (Doing it over time would be hard, and would make a very confusing chart in a thumbnail.) I'll get back to you. Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If Polk County is switched in:

Population age comparison between rural Pocahontas County and urban Polk County, illustrating the flight of young adults (red) to urban centers in Iowa.

If this is better, feel free to change, of if you don't like this at all, go ahead and delete. Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a more valid comparison, I believe. Justus R (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it if you haven't already. Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous Iowans

SEE THE NEW THREAD, Proposed Guidelines for Notable Iowans BELOW. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see the Iowa#Famous Iowans section getting fleshed out, but we should probably discuss some criteria for who gets included, and how. I've been removing non-natives who didn't do anything notable to their career/life while in Iowa (Ronald Reagan, for one); on the other hand Hayden Fry gets in because he's hugely famous for what he did in the state. The Wright Brothers were questionable, but as I recall the Eastern Iowa Airport has some famous memorabilia about their stay here.

I've also been trying to put them in roughly date order, oldest to newest, but some don't have firm dates yet. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that most of the names are in alpha order, not in date order, save for the last few. I'd be inclined to bring them all into alpha order by last name. -- BuckRose 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I put them in alpha order. Chronological just doesn't make sense for such a list; the list centers on the famous attribute of a person so it's, additionally, much harder to specify when they were famous to put them in order. Going simply by birth date is extra meaningless. Furthermore, alphabetical requires no debate and no qualifications to sort. Chronological requires both the decision of what specific action should be used for sorting and then determining what that date is. IMO. Cburnett 23:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

S'fine by me, I just wanted to get SOME sort of order to the list...I'm not convinced the table is an improvement yet, though. -- nae'blis _(talk) 03:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's tabular data, and HTML has only one decent way to display tabular data. I've been open to an alternative for a long time now and haven't found or heard of one.... Cburnett 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's tabular, it was a list of people with short descriptions afterward. You've shoehorned it into a table now, but it was more free-form before. Also, as you may have seen with the "Important cities and towns" section, tables in Wikipedia can run into other parts of the page in disastrous ways. I'm not sure what was so wrong with it before, and what are you considering a long time now? The list had 7 or 8 people on it a couple of months ago [3]... -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Long time means since I've been using HTML. Cburnett 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Should Alan_E._Nourse be included in the famous Iowans section? Gweeks 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on adding Simon_Estes. Born & raised in Centerville, IA. Attended Univ of Iowa. FYI, he's a distinguished opera singer who teaches at the Juilliard School of Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.215.66 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say to go for it. If he has a Wikipedia article, that's good enough for me. By the way, it's not necessary to include the underscore character: Simon Estes works just fine, and looks better. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). –RHolton>≡– 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So do we have criteria? I noticed a lot of people missing from the list that were on it before Christmas. I'm new to editing here, so I would like some guidance as to what is approaprtiate. Obviously I need to be factual and relativley unbiased for an article like this one. I'm more curious about things like my uncle, Bill Lapham. He played pro football the last time the Eagles won a national championship. Born in Iowa, retired in Iowa. Played pro ball in Minnesota and Philly. Should he be in or out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdochst (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the list and we have some big holes. Norman Borlaug, Henry Wallace, Lou Henry Hoover, just to name a few. Any idea what's up? murdochst —Preceding comment was added at 16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

responded to user's talk page Ctjf83 ^talk 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why the response was sent to my talk page rather than here. Here's what I was told

Please do not put Bill Lapham in, because he does not have a wikipedia page. Also, we are most likely going to delete this section all together, or put very strict standards on who is going to be allowed to be listed Ctjf83

So as I understand this, if I make a wikipedia page for Bill Lapham, I can add him to the list of famous Iowans.

Also, there was mention that the list may be removed. As a social studies teacher in Iowa, who teaches an Iowa History course, I find that the list is very helpful. I can't remember everyone from our state who has done recognizable things. The list helps me show my students the role Iowans play or played in the world. So what if it is over 100 people long. I think that a Nobel Laureate, a U.S. Vice-President, and a First Lady should definetly be listed before Ashton Kutcher. murdochst

There was a longer list on here a few months back, but the problem was that it was getting too long -- especially in table form -- with no criteria for who should be on this page. For instance, Sage Rosenfels had been on the list, and while he is from Maquoketa and played at Iowa State, he's just a backup quarterback in the NFL now -- and if he was listed, a rationale for listing every professional athlete from Iowa (as opposed to listing just those who are in their sport's Hall of Fame or won a major award) would be there. There's already a separate article for listing famous Iowans: List of people from Iowa. As for the main Iowa article, I'd much rather see the table be replaced with prose, like the Kansas article does. That way we can sort people by the fields that made them notable. (And we don't need to get into too much detail like listing birthplaces and birthdates since that information should be in the biographies themselves.) --Iowahwyman (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think to look up: List of people from Iowa. I feel we should have an obvious link to that page here. I like the idea of using the Kansas model. I also like the idea of having criteria for listing on this page, with other notables being on the other page. So, does anybody have ideas for criteria? I'm all for the national political figures, famous scientists, and major historical figures. The question to me is "How do we seperate the atheletes and movie stars?" Do we use the Hall of Fame for atheletes and Oscar/Emmy/Tony Nominations for actors? murdochst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.90.108 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I have no idea how we should choose who is included and who isn't Ctjf83 ^talk 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John R. Mott Nobelpeace Prize winner was born in New York but in the same year was moved with his family to Postville where he grew up and therefore should be included in the list of Nobel Prize winners from the State. Postville has billboards on the gateways into town proudly pronouncing this fact and decendents of the Mott family still live in the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazran (talk • contribs) 05:56, 04 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done added Mott. CTJF83Talk 06:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add Edna Griffin to the list of famous Iowans a while back, but couldn't without more extensive editing, since she was not born in Iowa. It would be nice to word the list so that influential Iowans who were not born in the state could be added. I see that her name now appears in the article, but still not in the list. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the James T. Kirk from the Star Trek universe, and revised the birthplace to Riverside, Iowa. See the Riverside article for more info on the connection. Nothing I've seen here specifies 'real' as a criteria, and Kirk is arguably notable. --averagejoe (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Going on record to say I'm against the addition of this, for the same reasons that the addition of the United Federation of Planets on List of sovereign states probably wouldn't last long. AlexiusHoratius 19:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See the Proposed Guidelines for Notable Iowans thread below. "Notable Iowans section of the Iowa article should be limited to non-fictional people born in Iowa or who achieved their notability while living in Iowa" (Emphasis added). I agree with Alex, for the same reason that "River City" from The Music Man should not be listed as an Iowa town. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography button box

I deleted the new geography button box put on by an anonymous editor. It is rather ugly, takes up a lot of space, and redundant with the info already in the article. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines for Notable Iowans

Everyone wants to place their favorite Iowans on the main Iowa article, but this causes the Notable Iowans section to become unwieldy and unreadable. The List of people from Iowa is a better place for most Iowans. This Notable Iowans section of the Iowa article should be limited to non-fictional people born in Iowa or who achieved their notability while living in Iowa, and meet one of the following criteria:

1. Presidents, vice-presidents, first ladies, and Nobel Prize winners, and other world leaders.
2. Living people who are of broad interest to the general public. A quick way to measure interest is number of article views. If their English Wikipedia article averages more than 500 views a day, as measured on http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Iowa, they are probably notable enough.
3. Deceased (or long-retired) people who continue to be of broad interest to the general public. If their English Wikipedia article averages more than 200 views a day, as measured on http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Iowa, they are probably notable enough. If they have been dead for more than 50 years, probably 100 views a day is enough.

I have pruned back the section and converted it to prose from a list. This is likely to be unpopular, but it seems like everyone wants the list to be shortened, but no one want the onus of deleting names. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I'm tired of every Joe Shmoe being added to the list. CTJF83Talk 16:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Might as well try it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Captain Kirk- It is worthwhile to make it clear why Captain Kirk is not included as a Notable Iowan. Yes, he is a neat guy, but he is fictional. James T. Kirk is not listed as a notable Iowan for the same reason that:

• G.I. Joe is not included in Category:Military personnel of the Vietnam War
• Hogwarts is not included in Category:Private schools in the United Kingdom
• Cap'n Crunch is not included in Category:United States Navy officers

If you want to make a separate article on Fictional people from Iowa, that would be great, but continuing to list Kirk as a notable Iowan is starting to look like vandalism. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pp. 394-395 of the Iowa Official Register has a list of candidates for this section. They won't all merit inclusion here, but should give some good ideas for people adjusting the list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IA GA Drive

I have started a drive to get Iowa up to WP:Good Article status. If anyone would like to help, I have started a subpage at User:Ctjf83/Iowa, with ideas/suggestions. Feel free to add/modify any of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated!! :) CTJF83Talk 03:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete US Highways?

I propose deleting the US Highways subsection. It is a tedious enumeration no one will ever read and serves no point. (I have not read all of it, my lids keep closing....) We can leave the shorter Interstate Highways section. Bill Whittaker (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the information shouldn't just be removed. Perhaps create Transportation in Iowa as an article for the extra info? (See, e.g., Transportation in Minnesota). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, feel free to create the new article. I don't think we need to list basic infrastructure that all developed (and most developing) nations have. Should we also note that most of our houses have flush toilets? Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In case other folks are curious, this is the text in question:

U.S. highways

Iowa has a number of major United States highways. U.S. Route 18 runs along the northern edge of the state from South Dakota to Wisconsin. U.S. Route 20 runs from Sioux City through Fort Dodge and Waterloo before crossing into Illinois in Dubuque. U.S. Route 30 runs from the Nebraska border just north of Council Bluffs through Cedar Rapids and crossing into Illinois in Clinton, staying north of Interstate 80. U.S. Route 6 winds its way along a similar path to Interstate 80, from Council Bluffs through the Quad Cities into Illinois. U.S. Route 34 runs along the southern part of the state from Nebraska through Burlington to Illinois. U.S. Route 59 runs a path similar to Interstate 29, from south to north along the western edge of the state. U.S. Route 61 runs from the southeastern edge of Iowa in Keokuk through Burlington, the Quad Cities, and into Wisconsin in Dubuque. U.S. Route 63 runs south from Missouri north through Waterloo and into Minnesota along the eastern central part of the state. U.S. Route 65 and U.S. Route 69 run from Missouri to Des Moines and into Minnesota on paths similar to Interstate 35. U.S. Route 71 and U.S. Route 75 run a south to north path along the western edge of the state. U.S. Route 169 is a south to north highway in the west central part of the state. U.S. Route 218 runs almost entirely within the state of Iowa, from the southern edge in Keokuk through Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, and Waterloo on its way to Minnesota.

Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Heaven forbid if out-of-staters found out that Iowa has a major U.S. highway network beyond the interstate system and might discover a small town or two that doesn't lead to Des Moines. And yes, Bill, people do read the transportation section. You didn't propose anything. You took it upon yourself to take out a section that bored you. Getting a better map that shows all major highways would be an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.132.69 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Anon: If you find that my edit was too draconian, then, by all means, reinstate it. It's unlikely that anyone would use a text list of highways in Wikipedia to get anywhere, much less discover a small town. I stand by my assertion that tedious lists of infrastructure add nothing to the article. If they do, why not add lists of other infrastructure, such as locations of pipelines, low-head dams, water treatment plants, etc. I'd be happy to see you upload a map with more highways. Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Request edit}} I wish to add information to the Iowa article from Frontier Forts of Iowa (University of Iowa Press, 2009), a book I helped create; I know it is a bit weird to ask others to make these edits (since I edit the Iowa page often), but I don’t want to run afoul of COI. For more info, see: User:Billwhittaker/Forts.

This is the info I’d like you to change:

Early exploration and trade, 1673-1808

Iowa in 1718. Modern state area highlighted.

The first known European explorers to document Iowa were Jacques Marquette and Louis Jolliet who traveled the Mississippi River in 1673 documenting several Indian villages on the Iowa side. The area of Iowa was claimed for France and remained a French territory until 1763. When the French, realizing defeat in the French and Indian War, they transferred ownership to its ally, Spain. Spain practiced very loose control over the Iowa region, granting trading licenses to French and British traders, who established trading posts along the Mississippi and Des Moines Rivers. Iowa was part of a territory known as La Louisiane or Louisiana, and European traders were interested in lead and furs obtained by Indians. The Sauk and Meskwaki effectively controlled trade on the Mississippi in the late 18th and early 19th century. Among the early traders on the Mississippi were Julien Dubuque, Robert La Salle, and Paul Marin. Along the Missouri River at least five French and English trading houses were built prior to 1808. In 1800, Napoleon Bonaparte took control of Louisiana from Spain in a treaty. After the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, Iowa was placed under United States control. Much of Iowa was mapped by Zebulon Pike in 1805, but it was not until the construction of Fort Madison in 1808 that the U.S. established tenuous military control over the region.

War of 1812 and unstable U.S. control

Plan of Fort Madison, 1810.

Fort Madison was built to control trade and establish U.S. dominance over the Upper Mississippi, but it was poorly designed and disliked by the Sauk and Ho-Chunk, many of whom allied with the British, who had not abandoned claims to the territory. Fort Madison was defeated by British-supported Indians in 1813 during the War of 1812, and Fort Shelby in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, also fell to the British. Black Hawk took part in the siege of Fort Madison. After the war, the U.S. reestablished control of the region through the construction of Fort Armstrong, Fort Snelling in Minnesota, and Fort Atkinson (Nebraska) in Nebraska.

Thank you! Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83Talk 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis in Iowa

Yes, JD lived in Iowa for a few years, he ran a mill along the Yellow River in Allamakee County; it has been mentioned in several histories eg: http://www.sharylscabin.com/Allamakee/history4/yellowriver_41.htm I didn't put a citation in the article, since none of the other notable Iowans had citations. Archaeologists from UW-Lacross found the mill location a few years ago.... Bill Whittaker (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil War Contribution

The article currently claims that Iowa proportionally contributed more personnel to the Union than any other state. I have heard from several sources (in person, so I can't cite anything concrete) that this statistic might be inflated. Iowa was the westernmost state that supported the Union (having been admitted in 1846). Settlers that had been in the west (Nebraska, Colorado, and Dakota Territories) traveled back to fight. The first Union state they encountered was Iowa, so they signed on to units associated with that state. I have no civil war academic credentials, so if somebody who knows about this could dig up evidence for or against, that would be swell.72.225.131.167 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"prior to their inevitable defeat in the French and Indian War"

This is laid out in the French and India War article and in that article's links/sources. I don't see what the objection to that phrases' inclusion is. - Schrandit (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone opposed? - Schrandit (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Source "inevitable" and there won't be a problem :) CTJF83 chat 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"impending defeat" might work a bit better; "inevitable" sort of makes it sound like France was doomed from the start. AlexiusHoratius 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Impending defeat" does sound a lot better. Is there any need for a citation when we link to a huge article that really lays it out? - Schrandit (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically per WP:V (2nd paragraph) I challenged inevitable...but if you change it to impending defeat, I'll be fine with it. CTJF83 chat 03:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough sir. - Schrandit (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable Iowans

How popular are the 55 "Notable Iowans"? Here is the number of visits to each person's page in March, from Grok, ordered descending:

1. Ashton Kutcher 203327
2. John Wayne 174833
3. Herbert Hoover 134216
4. Elijah Wood 95850
5. George Washington Carver 77384
6. Jefferson Davis 69292
7. Brandon Routh 55274
8. Johnny Carson 51832
9. Slipknot* 48190
10. Shawn Johnson 46120
11. Cloris Leachman 42119
12. Glenn Miller 41652
13. Kurt Warner 31778
14. Andy Williams 25664
15. Kate Mulgrew 22272
16. Tom Arnold 21474
17. Norman Borlaug 19491
18. Donna Reed 19025
19. Bill Bryson 18394
20. William Frawley 17312
21. Tionne Watkins 15430
22. Henry A. Wallace 15102
23. Grant Wood 11369
24. Mamie Eisenhower 10957
25. Harry Hopkins 10792
26. John L. Lewis 10364
27. Bix Beiderbecke 10147
28. Aldo Leopold 10040
29. Carrie Chapman Catt 9741
30. Dan Gable 9198
31. Lolo Jones 9080
32. Bob Feller 8012
33. Robert Noyce 5674
34. Lou Henry Hoover 4436
35. John Vincent Atanasoff 4421
36. Cap Anson 4253
37. Meredith Willson 4033
38. Susan Glaspell 3765
39. Frank Gotch 3079
40. Harry Reasoner 2841
41. Buffalo Bill Cody 2828
42. Zach Johnson 2663
43. George Gallup 2592
44. James Van Allen 2503
45. Ann Landers 2446
46. Stanley B. Prusiner 2041
47. Nile Kinnick 1794
48. Simon Estes 1368
49. Alan J. Heeger 1262
50. Dazzy Vance 1235
51. Red Faber 965
52. Abigail Van Buren 921
53. Clair Cameron Patterson 673
54. Bess Streeter Aldrich 414
55. Maynard Reece 204

MEAN SCORE: 25493.49 (Andy Williams and higher)

Note: Slipknot should not have been included, since it is not a person, just like the Iowa State Fair and Iowa caucus are not persons.

I propose we delete all entertainers, writers, and athletes who have a score of less than 5,000, and take a hard look at all others less than 2500. If someone can't garner 2500 visits, they really need to win a Nobel to be included, I think. Perhaps I am being too draconian again... Thoughts? Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is a reasonable proposal, with an easily measured inclusion criteria. Either way, the section needs to be written in paragraph form and all entries need sourcing. CTJF83 chat 18:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Two other suggested entries who spent a lot of time in Iowa:

• John Brown (abolitionist) 73638 (ranked between 5 and 6)
• Black Hawk (chief) 7361 (ranked between 32 and 33)

Sounds good to me. CTJF83 chat 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove navbox?

I propose we get rid of the nav box at the bottom of the article just under "Realted Information". I find it hard to believe there are many folks who use these things to get around WP; IMHO it is pretty ugly as well... Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the state direction box? CTJF83 chat 16:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This thing:

Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya, that's what I thought, delete it, unnecessary. CTJF83 chat 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never liked those things (mostly for their size and the fact that they can be described as maps that are too simplified - the geographic relationship of Iowa and Wisconsin is no different than that of Arizona and Colorado, according to these), but I sort of relented when they got relegated to the bottom of the article. I will say that I've used the county versions on occasion, but I'm not really sure what the purpose of the state versions are, unless someone for some reason wanted to "travel" across the country using state articles in a certain cardinal direction. (There are already maps on the article that do a fine job of showing neighboring states.) I guess either removal or keeping them where they are is fine with me, I don't really care which. (Again, what I really didn't like was when they were originally plopped in the middle of every geography section, as geography sections on state articles are already usually packed with images.) AlexiusHoratius 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's gone. If someone really loves this box and want to argue for it, they can start discussion again. Thanks, Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone State?

While I appreciate Hawkeye-Cyclone rivarly, search of google for "Cyclone state" came up with no reliable refs to the term being used for the state as a whole, just a passing reference to a billboard put up by a Cyclone fan. A few blog/facebook entries from Cyclone fans, but nothing from newspapers, books, etc. to indicate this is a widespread nickname. May have been put up because of the Saturday UI-ISU game. Can anyone find a better ref? Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be to keep it to the official one (Hawkeye state) and dump the others, as I've never heard it called the Cyclone state and certainly not the "Tall Corn" state. A lot of states have a lot of nicknames that someone could probably dig up some sort of "reference" for, but that doesn't mean we have to pack them all into the infobox. AlexiusHoratius 17:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - take a look at the disaster that is the Michigan infobox. AlexiusHoratius 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of "Cyclone State" before, and the news article was the best I found to support it. I have no issues removing everything but the official one. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In my 15 years as an Iowegian, I've never heard it called the "Hawkeye State", either. I think "Tall Corn State" and "Hawkeye State" are outdated 19th century expressions, vestiges from the era when everyone and everything had a nickname. (Also, until right now, I've never used "Iowegians" or heard us called that before, I'm glad that was removed from the article.) The only nicknames I've actually heard for Iowa are unprintable, coined by our friends in neighboring states. However, Wikipedia had deemed that we fill in the "Nickname" blank, and "Hawkeye State" and "Tall Corn State" are at least verifiable in the musty tomes of our forefathers. Could be worse, as Horatius pointed out, at least no one calls us "The Lady of Lake"... Bill Whittaker (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Blue Plate Special" is a printable demonym ;) (I'm barely old enough to remember that one...). Yeah, although it seems like every state has at least one nickname, only a handful (Lone Star State, Bay State...) are actually used very often. I doubt that anyone in casual conversation has ever refered to the Centennial State or the Beehive State by those terms. Like you said, though, I suppose we should stick something into the infobox field. AlexiusHoratius 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hawkeye only. CTJF83 chat 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Trim "Cities" section?

The Cities section (changed, inexplicably, from "Attractions") has become a spammy dumping ground for info about cities that probably belong in each city's article. Anyone care to pare it back? Perhaps call it "Attractions" again, since it has a "Statewide" section? Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Demographics already has a "major cities" section (which could use some prose in addition to the table, but that's another matter) - my suggestion would be to re-name the section as "Culture" or "Arts and culture" or something (that's basically what it is) and then make Culture of Iowa an actual article (which could be expanded as well) and move overly specific stuff there. AlexiusHoratius 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with either above, but definitely change it from "cities" and trim. CTJF83 chat 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK,

Changed title back to "Attractions" I removed references to all “attractions” that lack an article page (but made 2 redlinks to things that should have articles). I removed some things that are not actually attractions, such as the Ames Straw Poll (no one can visit a straw poll). Got rid of a lot of puffery and low-level attractions such as the Englert Theater (nothing personal, I love the Englert, but it is not worthy of being on the Iowa page.) Removed a lot of wordage explaining why things are interesting; if someone want to know why, they can just look on those pages. I agree with Al H., need an expanded Culture of Iowa page. I'm not opposed to renaming "Attractions" to "Culture" Bill Whittaker (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a concern about the use of the word "boasts" in this section. Is it not a "peacock" term? I almost made changes but as I am fairly new at Wiki editing I am looking for a more experienced editor to make the call. RifeIdeas Talk 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well... maybe. It is probably demonstrable that these towns "boast" about their attractions; so saying they do is not peacocking, but I see your point, so I could go either way. Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the term itself, as it's used here in the more literary meaning (e.g. that Iowa had resources of which it was justifiably proud, and felt would be of considerable value to those choosing to relocate there). I wouldn't use it three times on the same page, though. IMHO, using it once is a novelty; more, tedious. SomeAvailableName (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No borders?

I came on this page hoping to know what U.S. states pile up vertically below Minnesota and Iowa. I haven't been able to find a map of the U.S.A. with the names of the different states. So I hopped from article to article... until I came on this one and realized that, contrary to what was on previous articles and allowed me to know where all western states from Washington+Oregon+California to the Dakotas-Texas line were, there's no indication of the neighboring states of Iowa. I think borders are relevant and even necessary in an article about a state or country. Amenel (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am happy that you have an interest in Iowa, the best of all 50! If you are interested in the arrangement of the states of the Union, it is probably better to look at the United States article. There is a large map there that shows the basic outline of our states. All the best to you, Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but there's a chart under the external links (Iowa#External links). Is that what you're looking for? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Iowa Corn Song?

I couldn't help noticing that this article made no mention of the famous "Iowa Corn Song" ("Io-way, Io-way, that's where the tall corn grows!"), a stirring musical work inextricably associated with the honest, hardworking people of this prototypical Midwestern state. Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, this is a disappointment. I believe this article should not only mention the "Iowa Corn Song", but should link to a dedicated "Iowa Corn Song" article. Had I the time to consider writing such an article, I'd certainly do same---if only to honor the stoic image of these modern-day pioneers as they take a stand for freedom, decency, and other traditional Midwestern values, as well as, naturally, corn of unimpeachable quality. SomeAvailableName (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of the song. An article of it's own would require it to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. A mention on this page would require similar criteria, but less strict. CTJF83 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the song, but don't recall off-hand if it's a state-wide song or just a regional one. It is mentioned in several Iowa histories and early Iowa education resources, but again, I don't recall which ones. So, it probably deserves a (sourced) mention, but I don't have any sources for it.... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it either; this song never made it to Pocahontas, Iowa, I 'spose. There is some discussion of it at [4], but it does not appear to be the "offical" song. (At school we used to sing "Deep in the Heart of Iowa", a song which was later stolen by Texas...) Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Official state song is here: http://www.50states.com/songs/iowa.htm. But I'm familiar with the Iowa Corn Song as well. --Aflafla1 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:IowaMetros.pdf Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IowaMetros.pdf, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fountain of Four Seasons.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fountain of Four Seasons.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 28 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)