Talk:Iowa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Iowa, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Iowa.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
If you assessed this article, please leave a short summary here to explain your assessment and/or how the article could be improved.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within WikiProject Iowa for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Famous Iowans

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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