Talk:Milwaukee/Archive 2

Race section

Your section on race sickens me. The direct inference of that section was that the people of color are to blame for the racial issues in your city. I guess the white population has done nothing to contribute to the problem. Your city is NOT like a number of cities with high ethnic populations. Somehow other cities are attempting to resolve their issues, and often celebrate the great diversity that exists within their area, not lay the blame on segments of their population. Your city saddens me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.207.237.118 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the lecture about the Race section in the Milwaukee article. Unfortunately, you did not explain what you meant by your comments, and seemed to be merely chastising the city. In the future, please keep your comments constructive. -Nicktalk 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments were directed at the prior version of the race section. If you read that version, my comments will make more sense to you. Yes, my comments were chastising in nature, but the way in which that section was written allows such a statement in response. It should not be acceptable to allow blatant inferences of blaming segments of your city's population for racial problems. If your city has racial problems, that is everyone's problem. If it takes "mere chastising" to bring that point to your attention, than so be it.

Wake up, the prior version of the race section indicates that your city has real issues, and getting spanked on the hand, i.e. chastised, is the least of your concerns.

This is news to me. I've made numerous edits to that section to make it less Eurocentric and have no idea where it even implies that people of color are to blame for segregation. BTW, if you've actually bothered to look at the cities that are often citied as "hypersegregated" (i.e. Detroit, Chicago, New York, Newark, Cleveland, etc.), you'd see that they ALL have large ethnic populations in general and specifically large Black populations. If anything, pointing this out puts white flighters at fault. I think that you had your mind made up about Milwaukee when you read the article and were looking for an excuse to throw a fit. I don't know what your beef is with Milwaukee, but if you'd actually spent time up here, you'd know that it's a progressive city that DOES in fact celebrate its diversity (The hell do you think goes on at the Lakefront every weekend in the summer). And believe it or not there are many parts of Milwaukee that are integrated on the Northwest side, Riverwest and (to some extent) Brewers Hill and Bay View. I don't know... maybe we need to start being more flaky like Madison and start screaming "WE'RE LIBERAL!!!" every chance we get. Oh... but Madison doesn't have to deal with the inconveniences of actually having any people of color or anyone who makes less than 50,000/year. I guess we just don't have what it takes to be considered "progressive."--Illwauk 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who the anonymous poster(s) is/are, but the section in its present form is fine; and I will add that Illwauk (even if he doesn't live here now) is one of the people who has made this article better (and less Eurocentric) over the months. And there are people making less than $50K a year in Madison; the University makes sure of that, with its drives to privatize services and its creation of an underclass of "permanent LTEs" mostly of color (ask anybody in AFSCME Locals 171 or 2412 about it).--Orange Mike 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised, but Madison is 80% white while that number for the US as a whole is 70%. I don't need to hear about how "liberal" and "open-minded" anywhere that has such a small non-white population is. Not to mention that whenever crime waves break out they always claim it to be "spillover" from Milwaukee and Chicago (which are of course home to large Black/Hispanic populations). Nevermind that they have a planned riot EVERY FREAKIN' YEAR. Only a town full of rich white people could get away with that. --Illwauk 21:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what the past Race and Ethnicity Section stated:

According to the 2000 census, 39.5% of Milwaukeeans reported having African-American ancestry displacing Germans (38%) as the largest ethnic group in Milwaukee. Other significant population groups include Polish (12.7%), Irish (10%), English (5.1%), Italian (4.4%), French (3.9%), and Hispanic origin totaled 6.3%. According to the 2004 Census Estimate, the racial makeup of the city is 46.7% White, 39.5% African American, 0.8% Native American, 3.6% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 7.3% from other races, and 2.1% from two or more races. 13.3% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race. Like other major cities with high numbers of African-Americans and Latinos, race is frequently a contentious issue in Milwaukee. It is frequently cited as hypersegregated and was at one point the most segregated metro area in the U.S. However, the rate of segregation has slowly been declining since 1990."[15].

Take note of the sentence regarding how cities with high black and latino populations have racial problems, the inference of that statement is highly offensive.

What's your point? It's been changed to a better and more accurate section. Please stop attacking the editors of this article b/c you don't appreciate a previous version. Thanks, PaddyM 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

you're right its changed, I CHANGED IT!!!!

just a thought...saying a city has race problems says just as much about the intolerance of whites as anything it may say about other ethnic groups. in fact, the previous version refers to segregation which, in its institutional form, anyway, has been mostly the doing of racist whites. now, if the previous version had said that milwaukee has a high crime-rate as a result of having a larger population of blacks and latinos, THAT would have been racist. Keener Reed

Well I guess the fact that the previous version gives the inference that Milwaukee has racial tension because there are too many minorities in it is not a problem with you. So, your basic argument is that statements which imply racism is OK, so long as they are not express or explicit statements of racism. Hummm...

That section is long gone! It was changed! What is your point, oh anonymous one? --Orange Mike 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that it's your own guilty conscience that caused you to read that section as putting the blame on people of color. Out of the broad range of people who edit this article, YOU seem to be the only one who didn't even think to put it on white-flighters. --Illwauk 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New skyline pic

Can we find a new picture? I know that because of how our skyline is laid out it's hard to find one that not only contains all of our distinctive buildings (First Wisconsin Center, Milwaukee Center, 100 E Wisconsin, the MAM, etc.), and does them justice, but there's gotta be something better than what's there now. It makes it look like we might as well be Des Moines, Iowa or Omaha, Nebraska. What was so wrong with the pic that was there before anyway? --Illwauk 07:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the picture that at least featured the lake. It would be nice to get a better picture, but no one seems to be able to post a better one on the talk-page. Anyone have good ones showing off the skyline while maintaining distinctive Milwaukee images? Cheers, PaddyM 19:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There's this attempt (and Schwnj's adjustment) which was discussed earlier at recreating the Dozen Distinctive Destinations photo, but I was hoping for a little bit more input before taking it upon myself to replace the infobox image. I still plan to try for a better exposure, but Wisconsin Avenue is ripped up right now. 72.131.44.247 20:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that photo should be somewhere on the page (perferably near a section that talks about the abundance of German architecture), but not in the info-box. --Illwauk 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this one from the NNA website (http://www.nna.org/images/milwaukee%20skyline.gif)? It's one of the few that I've seen that shows all of our distinctive buildings and shows that we're on a lake. --Illwauk 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this site claims a copyright to its contents, it is unlikely this image complies with the image use policy (compatible with the conditions of the GNU Free Documentation License). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Milwaukee's city logo might be the logical choice for the infobox image... the abstract municipal logo of city hall, rather than the Burke Brise Soleil which is used for tourism. 72.131.44.247 04:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the previous edit summary about the infobox image. Specifically, I question why the image must be of the skyline taken from the lake? Although the image that was previously posted had Miller Park in the foreground, the skyline in the background was perhaps the best (most comprehensive) image of the skyline I've seen yet. Plus the lake was visible behind downtown. I'm not saying that was the best possible pic, but the skyline-from-water pics are a bit cliched. -Nick^talk 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not a skyline picture. Buildings are too small. It is actually Milwaukee's suburb. Miaers 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. I'm not saying it was a great photo, but it showed many more buildings than the current pic. And, according to the Milwaukee County GIS system, Miller Park sits in the city of Milwaukee. Granted, it is near the border with West Milwaukee and West Allis, but everything shown in that photo is within the City of Milwaukee. -Nick^talk 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A "skyline" picture shows the major buildings of a city's heart. The criticism is that instead you showed peripheral buildings, not the iconic downtown: the First Wisconsin (whatever it's called nowadays), the Calatrava, etc. And for this lakeside city, a shot from the lake, while unoriginal, is always appropriate, just as it is for any major city on a body of water.--Orange Mike 20:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukee flickr photo project

I've just spent (wasted?) the past hour on Flickr looking at Milwaukee photos. There are LOTS of great photos there are released with Creative Commons licenses that could really spice up the Milwaukee Wikipedia article. Anyone want to take a look and help me suggest some nice images? Here's a starting point: Flickr Search Results. There are over 10,000 photos; there must be at least 4 or 5 amazing ones we could use. -Nick^talk 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be cool with any of the following:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcagne/53021871/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcagne/53021872/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dragonflyajt/206867595/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/beigephotos/3258400/

Out of these, I'm feelin' the second one the most. It gives the city a very modern and up-tempo feel.--Illwauk 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like these, but only the third actually gives a view of the few things that are more or less famous in Milwaukee, i.e., the art museum and the FirstStar building. I'll take a peak through the 'thousands', though. PaddyM 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some that I've found: Brady Street:[1], [2]; Skyline / city:[3], [4], [5], [6], [7]; Third ward: [8], [9] -Nick^talk 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The only one of those that I'd put in the info box is #8. #7 might be good if it wasn't taken from so far off the shore and didn't de-emphasize the height of our buildings. But you should add the pics of Brady St and the Third Ward to the Milwaukee neighborhoods section.--Illwauk 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with PaddyM in liking the third pic, the one by dragonflyajt. I agree with Illwauk about the #7 shot being too much about sky and water, not about the city; but must disagree with him about the #2 flickr picture, which may be "very modern and up-tempo" but doesn't say "Milwaukee" to me at all. --Orange Mike 20:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

People, I think we may have a winner right here: [10] --Illwauk 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded a picture from flickr for the sports section. I'm not sure why Miaers insists on using the old logo, but you can clearly see the colors are different in the one used for 2007. So, I replaced it. The new one showcases a Milwaukee icon from a night perspective. I'm obviously welcome to changes and if someone can get a caption on it, that would be great (for some reason, I can't seem to get the caption to work!). Cheers, PaddyM 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Miaers doesn't like my idea, but doesn't want to explain himself. I won't revert it, but I'd like to have the discussion with some other editors of the Milwaukee page before Miaers simply does what he wants. Anyone with comments? PaddyM 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM, you seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing. What's wrong with the logo? Miaers 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anonyous editor that we should have more landscape pictures than logos. Seems reasonable to me. Anyway, if no one else agrees, it doesn't really change my life; I'm curious to see what people say. Cheers, PaddyM 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting other people's work. That logo is the only one in the article. You'd better talk to anonyous editors. What an aweful picture you want to add. By the way, the logo is from Milwaukee Bucks' official website and I'm the first to put a picture in the sports section. Stop reverting. Miaers 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If any sports team logos should be included under the Sports section, at the very least, the most current logo designs should be used for each team. Simply put, the purple/silver/green Bucks logo is not the current logo being used by the team, thus it is obsolete, which is why it was originally removed from the article (and subsequently removed after it kept reappearing). However, since each team's logo can be found within their respective articles, perhaps it would make more sense to illustrate the Sports section with some actual photos of the venues or sporting events instead. Miller Park? The BC? The Cell? Petit National Ice Center? The Milwaukee River Challenge rowing races? Uihlein Field? The Milwaukee Mile (though technically, that's in West Allis)? An old picture of Borchert Field? Not all of those, obviously because this isn't a photo essay, but a couple photos would be nice. Visually it would be more interesting than looking at a string of logos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.132.115.65 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Improper Link in Music

There is a problem with the a link in the thrid paragraph of the Music section. It states "...the first commercially successful single by a Milwaukee hip hop act since Arrested Development strung together a set of hits in the early 1990's." The Arrested Development link leads to the wiki of the TV show 'Arrested Development'. I do not know of the music group Arrested Development and I don't believe there is a wiki for it...yet. I would recommend to deleted the link for now until one for that music group is created.

My name is Ross and I am still new at the whole wiki experience. I grew up outside of Milwaukee and work there in the summer. Right now I am at college outside of NYC. My point is that if there is any help you need with this wiki or any other related page please give me a heads up. I enjoy photography so when I return for winter break I plan on taking some pictures of Milwaukee and its landmarks. Thanks--Rosswi88 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The wiki for Arrested development is here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrested_Development_%28hip_hop_group%29)

But were you listening to hip hop in the early 90's? Because if not, that's not a good reason to remove something from the article (very little of wikipedia would be here if someone "never heard of it). But from what I know about them, Arrested Development came out of Atlanta, but some of its members (including the lead singer/rapper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_%28rapper%29) were from Milwaukee. They won a few WAMI awards because of that. --Illwauk 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the wikilink a few minutes ago. I feel old--Illwauk, from his username I suspect Rosswi88 is a bit young to remember the early 90s. -Nick^talk 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Or maybe it's because I still think people born in 1988 are babies when they're actually old enough to be in college. Either way, I'm with you... feelin' old. --Illwauk 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, just trying to help out. I was NOT saying that if i had never hear of it, then it shouldn't exist. I did not know that much about the subject matter, so i didn't want to fix the link myself. Way to go with building an online community and you guys may have some growing up to do to.

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Milwaukee instead of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Highway"

Someone keeps undoing my revisions to the colloquailisms section. Last I checked, there were MANY highways that ran through Milwaukee (city and county) and none of them have the market cornered on being referred to as "the highway." I live in Riverwest and if I refer to "The Highway" people are gonna assume I'm referring to 43 or MAYBE 190. Point being, Highway 100 being called "The Highway" is not really a colloquailism, especially when it's not being confirmed by a cited source (which some of us more than others have been ridiculously staunch about) --Illwauk 22:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is highway 190? I never heard of it, and I'm from there. — Walloon 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's Capitol Drive. It's one of those things that you probably wouldn't know about unless you lived near it. --Illwauk 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't 190 Capitol Drive? Wow--I just looked and it has it's own article: Highway 190 (Wisconsin). Is there no limit to Wikipedia's knowledge? By the way, I agree with Illwauk's point about Hwy 100. I have no doubt that many people call it "the highway," but from my experience, most of those people live in Wauwatosa, West Allis and Hales Corners. Therefore, it's probably not a "Milwaukee colloquialism." -Nick^talk 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll justchalk that up to reason #2632469 why suburbanites shouldn't edit. -Illwauk 14:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've lived on the southwest side of the metro area for quite some time, and I've never heard anyone call it "The Highway." I have heard some refer to it as "Highway" without a modifier. I don't believe that it is really relevant in this article, however, nor is any of it backed up by sources, so it fails on that ground as well. I say remove it. And the line about soda too. People in Colorado and California say "soda" as opposed to "pop". It's not unique to Milwaukee at all.Polemick 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Southwest side of the "metro area?" So you mean the same general area that Nick (correctly) pointed out as not being Milwaukee. As for the soda comment, it is noteworthy because Milwaukee is the only major city in this part of the country that doesn't call it "pop."--Illwauk 14:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes Illwauk, and that's all I was saying, that I don't think that it really belongs in an encyclopedia article. It's not really that significant either. As for the metro area, I have lived in Milwaukee, Greenfield, West Allis, and now Milwaukee again. All in all, when I was in the military and stationed out of state, I told people that I was from Milwaukee. The city wouldn't be what it is without the suburbs, and likewise, the suburbs would be nowhere without Milwaukee. There are other things in this article that refer to the greater "Metro Area." If it should just be only about things within the city limits, then maybe we ought to look at making another article about the metro that discusses more than the population figures. I still say delete "Highway" though. It's not encyclopedia-worthy.Polemick 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Milwaukee native, born and raised. I lived in the City for 24 years, never in the 'burbs. All of the schools that I attended were in the city and all of my friends lived in the city. I will probably contribute more to this in the future. Just to end any confusion. The Highway 100 (108th Street), is a major strip for cruising in Milwaukee. So much so, that this was the area targetted by the 1990's anti-cruising laws. People would go here to race, show off their cars, and pick up members of the opposite sex. It was definately referred to as "Highway 100" "Highway a-hundred" and just plain "Highway". These sentences are examples of common place usage for people in there teens and twenties during this time (and probably still today): "I'm going up to Highway" or "I met some girls up on Highway a-hundred last night." Colloquialisms will be different for different demographics and eras. Just because you haven't heard those names, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You may have never heard of Turf Skatepark, Oriental Drugs or Dick Bacon, does that mean they don't exist? Also, because of the debate here, it obviously has enough significance to cause a stir. It's probably important to enough people during a certain time in their lives to leave it in this section.-Milwaukee Nick 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I'm so staunch on whether or not I've heard of different phrases is because a few months ago I had a bunch of contributions I made to the colloquaisms section deleted because other people had "never heard of them." Of course, it's pretty obvious that none of the people who deleted them have ever been north of Wisconsin Ave, or west of Humboldt because then they'd have heard them all the time. Point is, if that ridiculous "colloquaisms have to be heard and used by everyone in Milwaukee regardless of age, ethnicity and location to be included" rule is gonna be enforced against my contributions, I'm gonna enforce it against everyone elses. Honestly, I don't even see why we have a damn colloquaisms section in the first place, but that's another story.--Illwauk 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the word "soda" has regional significance in Milwaukee because it is the anomaly in the state.

I have an option: why don't we include "The Highway" in the West Allis article, since that was the primary section of it used for cruising, and Stallisites were the primary users? Meateatingvegan 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On another note, many things that are fairly unique to Milwaukee (culturally worth mentioning)seem to be omitted like Frozen Custard (Leon's inspired Happy Days http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0525,sietsema,65170,15.html), Friday Night Fishfries, and even St. Nick's Day (other cities have this too, but very few, http://www.onmilwaukee.com/buzz/omcetc/articles/stnicks.html). The reason that it might not be encyclopedia-worthy is it seems trivial and superfluous. However, this is not Britannica here. It is a wiki, with unlimited amounts of storage space. As long as it is objective, free of editorializing, factional, and well-written, why not include this minutia? It is information about the city, pile it on and organize it!-Milwaukee Nick 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I live to be 100, I'll never figure out why fish frys are seen as "Milwaukee" when every city with a large catholic populace and access to seafood (Baltimore, Philadelphia, some parts of Boston, etc.) has them as well. On top of that, in my 25 years, I've only known fish frys to be a big deal to the Poles on the South Side who have all pretty much moved to St. Francis and Cudahy by now. So whether or not they're even a Milwaukee institution anymore is debatable.--Illwauk 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You don't live on the South Side of the city, do you. Friday Fish Fry's are still a HUGE deal to many people on this side of town. Almost religious... -- CollegeSportsGuy 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm from the north side. But that just proves my point... if something is done almost exclusively in one part of town, that doesn't make it a "Milwaukee" institution. It makes it an institution of said neighborhood/population. What makes fish fries any more "Milwaukee" than say, the Sunday after-church buffet's that are big in the city's Black communities?--Illwauk 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CollegeSportsGuy. Furthermore, it's fish frys on FRIDAY night that are unique. They do not offer Friday night fish frys in any capacity similar to Milwaukee in Baltimore, Phili or Boston (all of which I have been to on Friday nights within the last year). One might have to convince the owners of Tanner-Paull, Turner Hall, and Serb Hall that it's not a Milwaukee institution anymore (or just try getting a seat at any of these places on Friday, LOL!).Milwaukee Nick 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Having fish on Friday is a Milwaukee thing? The reason why fish is eaten on Friday in all of those cities is because up until about 40 years ago, Catholics weren't allowed to eat red meat on Fridays. And last I checked, Catholicism's been an ideology a lot longer than Milwaukee's been a city. In fact, it wasn't until I visited Baltimore this past spring and saw that they did the fish fry thing too that I was informed of the fish fry's catholic roots.--Illwauk 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

UGH! Illwauk, I have nothing but respect for you, because you readily contribute greatly to a subject of most noble cause--Milwaukee. However, you need to concede this point. It is not merely having the fish, or fried fish, or fried fish on Friday, now here comes the distinction---> it is the MAGNITUDE of which the fish is fried (and consumed :) on Friday. I was just in Baltimore, too. Friday night fish fry has not nearly the popularity that it has in Milwaukee. You are definitely right-on about its historical roots. I'm not even Catholic, but I love eatin' fish on Friday. However, we can bicker all day about this, but I want you to Google "fish fry Friday" and see where the popularity is in the search results. Also, check the Wiki entry on the subject which mentions Wisconsin quite intentionally. We'll probably disagree on stuff, but keep up the good work.Milwaukee Nick 06:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the props. I just took your advice and googled "Friday Night Fish Fry" and of the first 20 results, only one specifically referred to Milwaukee (although a couple more referred to Wisconsin as a whole). But it also came up with results for Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago and even Atlanta (I didn't even know catholics lived that far south... but then, ATL is full of northern transplants. My only problem with making the fish fry=Milwaukee connection is that having grown up on the north side, I've seen way too much of what the South Side Poles do being associated with Milwaukee as a whole which not only disregards that there are many other ethnic groups in Milwaukee (mainly Blacks and Hispanics) with their own traditions, but it also helps reinforce the Laverne & Shirley stereotypes that have plagued this city for decades (I swear, Garry Marshall did more damage to Milwaukee's rep than Jeffrey Dahmer and Bud Selig combined). I think the fish fry has a place in the Wisconsin article, but not necessarily here.--Illwauk 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Three and a half points, mainly only because this section of the talkpage has rambled rather far from its actual name would suggest:

1. "The Highway" generally refers to "the most important nearby highway", regardless of where you live. For me, "The Highway" is WIS 93, which passes about half a mile (as the crow flies, of course, to use a real colloquialism). Saying STH 100 is "The Highway" for Milwaukeeans as a whole is ludicrous, since I'm guessing a lot of ppl in MKE don't give a hoot, or, to use another colloquialism, TWO hoots, about it, and while they may be peripherally aware of its existence, certainly don't regard it, much less refer to it, as "The Highway". That notwithstanding, "The Highway" even if Milwaukeeans as a whole were to regard Hwy. 100 as "The Highway" still does not qualify such a moniker as a "colloquialism"...it could, in such an unlikely situation be, at most, considered "a local appellation". Calling [now "Business"] [US-]53 in Eau Claire "Hastings Way" is not a colloquialism, it's the official designation...in fact, despite its official designation as "Hastings Way", the vast majority of people actually call it simply "53", even today, while real US-53 is referred to as "The Bypass". Even "The Bypass" doesn't qualify as a "colloquialism", but I think the aforementioned assertion regarding Hwy. 100 falls into the exact same situation (which is the culmination of my up-'til-now ramblement)...how something is referred to locally does not fulfill the entire definition of a "colloquialism", and I'm gonna let that rest now, since I'm rambling about a ramblement [my word, I readily admit :-)]. :-p
2. Regarding the "special place" of "soda" wrt Mwaki... While it's true that pop is widely referred to as "soda" in many places throughout the US, the fact of the matter is that, w/in Wisconsin, when a person hears someone they know is from Wisconsin refer to pop as "soda", the first kneejerk assumption is that the person is from the Milwaukee area, since (despite some colloquial-usage maps indicating otherwise) the use of the term "soda" to refer to pop, within Wisconsin, is almost a shibboleth identifying someone as being from the Milwaukee area, and not as a whole, but from the "inner Milwaukee area" (i.e., not from Oconomowoc, for example).
3. Friday night fish fry...ugh. There is no way this concept, nor its very "plain-speak" "name", can be defended as a "Milwaukeeism". As one of the largest "Polish diaspora" cities, esp. given the Poles' admirable adherence to their Catholicism, but considering that Mwaki also has large Italian, Irish and Puertorrican (all of which are overwhelmingly Catholic, without any attempt at stereotyping...I am, after all, Puertorrican [albeit not Catholic] myself)) populations...the idea that the "Friday-night fish-fry" might have significance in Milwaukee is valid, especially in light of the fact that the upper-Midwest is, in large part, overwhelmingly Protestant, and, indeed, in large part, Lutheran and Baptist. That notwithstanding, the idea that Friday-night fish-fry is a Milwaukee concept is bizarre and laughable.
4. The thing about "bubbler", and this is really only a "half-point", hence my above assertion that I had 3.5 points... calling what people refer to as "water fountains" (as most ppl do where I live, much to my chagrin...although there is absolutely no confusion registered when I call it a "bubbler") a "bubbler" is not even remotely a Milwaukee phenomenon...in point of fact, Milwaukee is on the very outside periphery of the region in which these mechanisms are called "bubblers"... If any city has a claim to be the "center" of "bubblerdom", it's probably Appleton, not Mwaki.

Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

American Religion Data Archive

Is there a more specific reference available for the American Religion Data Archive report where the numbers in the Religion section came from? I ask because User:71.220.104.96 edited the section today to include non-religious people in the remaining 13.5%, but I’d like to look at the report to see whether its numbers justify that claim. (Perhaps non-religious people were already excluded from the survey, for instance.) --Rob Kennedy 18:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I was the one who originally put the religion data on the page. The ARDA seems to have redesigned their site since then--I was able to locate the data I used here; It now has an "unclaimed" listing that specifies those who do not adhere to any of the religions studied. That unclaimed category was not there when I first created the religion paragraph. I suppose the proper way to phrase the religion data should now be to state that the data presented are on those who are of some particular religion. Overall, 44.7% of the metro population was in the "unclaimed" category. -Nick^talk 20:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I rewrote the paragraph to include information on who was in the data and who wasn’t. I think it’s also worth mentioning that the report wasn’t just for the city, but for the whole Milwaukee-Racine area (five counties, apparently). --Rob Kennedy 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Only in Milwaukee County?

I'm pretty sure a small piece of Milwaukee extends into Washington County...if this isn't true disregard this. 1ne 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's this odd twisty bit where the boundaries cross at the four-county intersection: Map Milwaukee site --Orange Mike 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh. It also looks like it sticks into Waukesha county (near 124th and Silver Spring). That is, unless the county boundaries also bend. So, I guess, Milwaukee sits in three different counties. -Nick^talk 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the county boundary bends there. There is no portion of Milwaukee city in Waukesha County. --Orange Mike 06:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this article "Milwaukee officials say the only city property in Waukesha County is the Ambrosia Chocolate factory at 12500 W. Carmen Ave." Consulting official maps from Milwaukee County, WisDOT, and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission confirms this as well. So the city's boundary line makes the little kink, but the county's boundary line does not. 172.168.65.10 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also took a look at some county maps, and they don't show the bend, meaning that little area of Milwaukee is in Waukesha county. I think it would be interesting to note Milwaukee's multi-county spread in the geography section of the article. I bet quite a few people don't know about this. -Nick^talk 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

BLUSH - I stand corrected. --Orange Mike 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed mention of architecture

I just removed this contribution [11]. It is original research. Would need to find a reliable source comparing Milwaukee's architecture to an "east coast city" (however that might be defined). Not a dog 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that contribution. The point that user was trying to get across is that Milwaukee's architecture reflects the different ethnic groups who have lived here. And when you think of those ethnic groups you think of Eastern cities (Boston for Irish, Brooklyn for Italians, Philadelphia and Baltimore for Germans, etc.) Maybe the wording could've been more clear, but it's not like that paragraph was lying.129.89.139.185 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not about truth vs. lying. Just that if the article is going to claim that the architecture "resembles an East Coast city" we need to have a reliable source making such an assertion, not just the opinion of an editor. Not a dog 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is what Stephen Colbert was talking about when he said Wikipedia makes the truth into "whatever most people agree it is."--216.45.1.18 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with our non-canine colleague. The statement is broad, sweeping and unsubstantiated, and smacks of OR. --Orange Mike 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree; however, I do believe that there is validity to the claim. I'll look around for some sources. -Nick^talk 19:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Menomonee Valley

There is a discussion regarding the renaming of Menomonee Valley and Jones Island at Talk:Menomonee River Valley, Milwaukee if anyone would like to chime in. 72.131.44.247 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Milwaukeeans

I have never even heard of this term before, and I was born and raised in Milwaukee. I just want to know if other Milwaukee natives have heard of this term.RealFerrari 09:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was B&R in Miwaukee and in my experience, it's something that's used in print much more often than it is in speech. I've also heard it used by outsiders to describe us more often than I have by anyone from Milwaukee.66.202.120.201 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My only usage of this I've heard is by the band Paul Cebar and the Milwaukeeans. Other than that, a few times on the news, but those aren't people from Milwaukee anyway, just hired from somewhere else.--Ben414 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Colloquialisms are gone

It seems that 60% of our edits and discussions are about a topic that is of very minor importance, always unsourced, and relatively unencyclopedic. Since the mere existence of the colloquialisms section seems to invite the addition of more and more listings, I've taken it out altogether. This is, of course, open to discussion, but I'm having a hard time justifying the amount of energy that goes into colloquialisms, when we could be improving the more important parts of the article. -Nick^talk 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me. The idea that colloquailism need to be sourced is ridiculous and asinine, not to mention the racist and classist overtones that policy lends itself to (colloquaisms used by poor people of color are much less likely to be cited on the web by a "credible source" than those used by rich whites).--Illwauk 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the article is already too long (according to Wikipedia's warning) -Nick^talk 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I came in and read the article with fresh eyes, living in Milwaukee but not having read the article previously, nor the discussion. I did not notice the omission of this section at all. Now, having found out about the missing section, I still believe it is not needed. Pusher robot 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think outright removal of "colloquialisms" sections is a disservice to the Project. That said, I concurrently hold that coverage of colloquialisms should be governed (far more on an "article-by-article" basis, rather than a WP-wide guideline), to avoid the inclusion of nonsense and irrelevancies passing themselves off as "colloquialisms". Basically, as much as WP is not designed to do so, colloquialism sections should not become dumping grounds for what uninformed individuals regard as what makes their local speech-styles "special". I guess what I'm trying to say, boiled down, is that there's nothing wrong with colloquialism sections in articles such as this, but they need to be governed by simple rules such as "inclusion of XYZ colloquialism needs to fulfill the definition of what a colloquialism actually is"... Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The inherent problem with colloquailisms in an encyclopedia is that you're trying to put a formal stamp on informal speech. And as I've stated before, thanks to the digital divide, colloquailisms used by people of color and poor people in general are far less likely to be cited online than those used by middle-class whites. For example, I tried adding things such as "The Mil" and "The 414," both of which are very commonly used by Blacks and Latina/os in Milwaukee. But they kept getting deleted by people who "never heard them" (not coincidentally, these people admittedly had very little contact with those communities). Yet "Tyme Machine" was allowed to stay in spite of the fact that the only people I've ever heard use them were either from the suburbs or somewhere up north (I would even argue that Green Bay, not anywhere in Metro Milwaukee , is the epicenter of "Tyme Machine") and that was allowed to stay. Why? Because apparently the acknowledgement of "Tyme Machine" in a fluff article at OnMilwaukee.com made their experiences more real than mine. Personally, I'd rather not have the colloquailisms section at all than open up that can of worms again. --Illwauk 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I live in Eau Claire, and I know what "the 414" is as well as what a "tyme machine" is (tyme, after all, is money... :-p)... There's an intrinsic problem with the addition of an uncitable colloquialism, as it butts heads with citing reliable sources. There's actually a bigger problem, however, with removing a colloquialism on the basis of "I've never heard that"...namely, it's (oddly enough) original research. :-p Tomer^talk 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The word M'waukee

I have tried numerous time to get this brief, one sentence tidbit added. Someone keeps removing it for some reason. I was born and raised in Milwaukee. Everyone I've spoken with from around here refers to this city as M'waukee. Now that spelling isn't official, but I did cite a source here. That article went so far as to say we have an accent here, or more accurately, a dialect that is unique. I'll add again, but with a note referring to this talk page. I feel it is necessary based on the source, and my own experience with repeating the city name over the phone when ordering things. --Ben414 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted it here, hopefully with a bit more encyclopædicity. As for why it's been consistently removed previously, especially w/o the courtesy of a single comment, I'm mystified...especially since my understanding is that it's being removed by someone who actually lives in Mwaki... Cheers, Tomer^talk 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OnMilwaukee.com as a credible source though? Not only is this the same site that acts as if there is nothing west of MLK or north of Wisconsin Ave (seriously... check out their North Ave bar guide sometime), but the accent they're describing in that article is far more closely associated with Cudahy than Milwaukee. I can gauarantee that no one has said "ai'na hey" in Milwaukee in close to 30 years... not coincidentally, that's also around the time when the Poles started fleeing the South Side for South Shore. I'm not saying that we don't pronounce the name of the city "M'waukee" or "Muhlwaukee," but I seriously question the encyclopedic value in it. Does the New York article talk about "New Yawk" or Atlanta talk about "Alahnna?" I don't see why Milwaukee should be different.--Illwauk 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OnMilwaukee.com is a credible source, in this case...although I certainly wouldn't uphold it as a credible source for something, say, like the percentage of Milwaukee orientals who are hmong, for example... That said, perhaps coverage of "Mwaki" is better suited to Wisconsin English. Cheers, Tomer^talk 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugs are Oriental... people are Asian. But my point is that OMC is notoriously apathetic towards what goes on in Milwaukee's Black and Latino communities (hence my point on their North Ave bar guide which excludes all the bars on W North Ave... you know... where Black people live). It just doesn't sit well with me that an accent that is mainly only spoken by Whites of Central European (mainly Polish) decent is being identified as the Milwaukee accent when there are plenty of other ethnic groups with their own unique speech patterns in the city. Although "M'waukee" is pretty much universal, I'd like to see a better article being cited. --Illwauk 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugs are Persian. Jews are Asians, Iraqis are Asians, Indians are Asians. People with epicanthic folds and noticible melanin in their skin are Orientals. "Asians" is a "politically correct" extension of the equally moronic moniker "African-American". I'm not a "Caribbean-American", nor am I a "Caribbean", and outside hyperself-righteous circles, most "Americans" aren't "European-Americans", so I'll continue to resist the foolish notion that the term "Asians" should replace "Orientals". That really has no particular bearing on the article, however. I agree with your views on the issues that are relevant to the article. Unfortunately, nuances of particularized regionalisms is not a very well-studied area of American dialectology, European-, African-, or otherwise. Tomer^talk 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you just want to disrespect how people define themselves simply because it's more convenient for you. But IIRC, you're from Eau Claire where the ethnic diversity in the town is a guy whose last name is Chang, so I guess I understand. --Illwauk 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I want to respect people for being people first, Americans second, if they're Americans, and not a whit based upon their genetic pedigree. I know a lot of Americans of Chinese (Cantonese and other mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, Singapore Chinese), Japanese, Korean, Hmong, Filipino, etc. descent, and not one of them defines themselves as "Asian". Engaging in politically correct [sic] thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks against me, however, does nothing to improve the article, nor does it improve the degree of respect that can be imputed to anything else you have to say. When you're ready to get back to discussing the article, have at it. Tomer^talk 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be at least one more - Ningbo in China: http://www.mmac.org/display/router.asp?docid=830

Sister cities

The article states that Mwaki has 8 sister cities, and then lists 9. Obviously either the statement is incorrect or the list is. Any takers? Tomer^talk 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. There are eight-one was incorrect. -Nick^talk 07:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomer^talk 07:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)