This is an archive of past discussions about Illinois. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Religion table in this article has a note indicating that its source is http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm . However, the values in the article table do not exactly match the numbers in that source. For one thing, it appears to me that someone revised the values so the religious preferences would add up to 100%. In the source, 4% of the survey respondents "refused," so the percentage total of religious preferences is only 96%. In this article, however, it appears that the percentages of some of the larger groups were arbitrarily adjusted upward to make the total equal 100%: Catholics from 29 to 30, Baptists from 11 to 12, Methodists from 6 to 7, and "no religion" from 15 to 16. Other numbers don't match at all (for example, the source indicates that the total of non-Christian religions is 6%, not 4%). Since the source is identified, I am going to make the article match the source. --orlady18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to dump that table and replace it with a short paragraph similar to Minnesota, which is a featured article. I'm not sure it is necessary to list every single group especially those with less than 5%. Maybe lump the ones with less than 5% into an appropriate other category like other Christian, other protestant or just plain other. Anybody that wants to know about the 2% Non-Denominational or the other 1% religions can just view the source page. We're just summarizing here, maybe a separate article like Religion in Illinois could elaborate with cited sources on the smaller ones or growth rates in different parts of the state. --Dual Freq20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
English as official language
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
In the United States, there is not official language, but English is the de facto language. I know that some states have adopted some official languages. My question is: As Illinois adopted an official language?--Ed¿Cómo estás?Reviews?14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You could just click the Official language link in the template, Languages_in_the_United_States#Official_language_status. No sources there though. Alternately, you could type Illinois official language into Google, the first link, says "ILCS Chapter 5, Section 460/20 – Official Language (1969) - The official language of the State of Illinois is English".[1] And that appears to match with the actual ILCS, "(5 ILCS 460/20) (from Ch. 1, par. 2901‑20) - Sec. 20. Official language. The official language of the State of Illinois is English."[2] --Dual Freq15:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember, as a child growing up in Illinois, being taught that ours was the only state in the Union to have adopted American as the official language of the state, rather than English. Since I was only taught that by one teacher (my 7th grade social studies teacher) I had come to believe that it was just once more piece of BS that I had been fed by a wayward educator. But reading this, I decided to look, and here it is: Illinois adopted American as its official language in 1923.[3]Unschool16:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, "my friend", I'm not saying that American is a language, I'm just pointing out that Illinois passed a statute back in the 1920s declaring "American" the official language. And if, Orlady, I thought that it was still the official "language", I would have changed it in the infobox. I did not do so, because a tiny bit more research showed that it was changed to English in 1969. Jeez, folks, this is a talk page, and I just thought it was an interesting—even unique, documented piece of trivia. Relax, the world continues to both rotate and revolve. Unschool17:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
History changes
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems to me that some of the recent changes in the History section, by Rjensen, have diminished the information value of the article and have deleted an important source. Specifically, I liked the following passage better than what has replaced it:
The northern border of the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois had been defined before their statehoods as the latitudinal line passing through the southern tip of Lake Michigan. Indiana's border had been shifted north by ten miles to provide usable frontage on the lake. The original bill for the creation of the state of Illinois set the northern boundary on the same line as Indiana but Nathaniel Pope, the delegate from Illinois, introduced an amendment shifting the border 41 miles north to 42° 30' north, which added 8,500 square miles to the state, the port of Chicago and, more significant at the time, Galena and the lead mining region of northwest Illinois. This amendment was accepted in Congress without dissent, but in 1840-1842 the residents of the northern counties of Illinois attempted to secede and join Wisconsin.<ref>[[D.W. Meinig|Meinig, D.W.]] (1993). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 2: Continental America, 1800-1867. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-05658-3; pg. 436</ref>
The capital remained at Kaskaskia, but in 1819 it was decided to move the capital up the Kaskaskia River to Vandalia.
I tend to agree that I would like this information left in; more history is good. However, I would suggest placing the info about the attempted secession of the northern states in its own paragraph, and perhaps expanding it. Unschool17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Native American numbers
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No idea where to put this...
About 2,000 Native American hunters and a small number of French villagers inhabited the area at the time of the American Revolution.
I don't buy this. 2000 seems awfully small... is there a citation for this?
Encyclopedia of North American Indians By Frederick E. Hoxie p 267 says the Illinois Indians numbered 25,000 at their peak but by 1750 had been reduced 90% (to 2500) and many left Illinois because they disliked the british who took over in 1760s. That makes 2000 a reasonable number. Rjensen02:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This says that less than 100 Illiniwek warriers remained by 1800 and they left in 1803 to be removed from MO to KS by the Indian removal act. --Dual Freq11:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
THE S
If I hear another person say "Ill-a-noise" I'm going to effing scream. This is all too common where I used to live in TX.
Even school teachers do it. (had to move Unschool's comment up because it accidentally ended up in here)
State Fruit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the artical Illinois' state fruit,the apple, and state flower,the native violet,the state tree,the white oak,and a state nickname,the corn state,will not show,also the part of the artical saying "appearently meaning 's/he speaks normaly' should be changed to she/he speaks normaly shouldn't it?.I think this is important information about Illinois and should be shown and when i try to add it it is always edited out.Can someone please add this information?Thank you!
Anon 24.110.37.10400:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As of today, there is still no official state fruit for Illinois. The other state items listed above are already included in the article in the list of symbols. The Corn State is still Iowa, which was printed on their license plates for a time. Looking at statistics from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, it looks like Iowa produced more corn than Illinois every year since 1980 except for 1993, possibly due to weather (Great Flood of 1993?). Going back to 1900, of 107 years, Iowa exceeded Illinois in corn production in 85 of those years. If Iowa is the Corn State, as their license plate claims and statistics seem to support, how can Illinois be the Corn State too? Bottom line is if you want to add something, produce a reliable source and no one will remove it. --Dual Freq01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Significance of Lincoln Douglas debates
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Two points—
This did not "launch Lincoln's political career"; he had been elected to Congress more than a decade earlier.
This was not what would "draw national attention to the issue of slavery in the territories", as that had already been the single biggest issue facing Congress for nearly 40 years, as evidenced by the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Compromise of 1850. Unschool22:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Automated Peer Review
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am going to post here the Peer Review so we can check it off as we do them. I would like to start working on getting this back to GA. Here they are:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 41 miles, use 41 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 41 miles.[?]
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.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
are considered
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There have been a lot of IP edits to the article lately, particularly from User:207.193.87.114 and many of these have been reverted (including by me). After a message on my talk and review of this user's edits I now believe that this is a good faith editor trying to correct incorrect information in the pre-Columbian history section of the article. See here User talk:207.193.87.114 for more info. I'd suggest checking IP edits to this article very carefully before reverting (I didn't!). Cheers and good luck with the GA submission. Paxse02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If you check the recent history the changes attempted by the IP editor also have citations. She/He also reverted their own changes when the cites failed to appear correctly. This is clearly a new user who is learning our sometimes complex and illogical wiki markup system and a good faith editor who is trying to correct what they believe is erroneous information. If you are aiming for GA and then FA status it would be worth while checking the cited facts in the article in any case - and it would be good to have another productive and interested editor helping to polish the article. Cheers, Paxse03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Smoking
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Illinois has just banned smoking in public places - effective 1/1/2008.[4] Given that whole contries as well as other states(?) have enacted such legislation, perhaps we need a category for this type of information. It sure would give traveling folks a heads-up when trip planning. Rklawton 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You make sense that for sure, but you should that maybe other states will enact such legislation .... :) Albo4show29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.46.71 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit Protect?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Peoria a proverbial social and cultural bellwether - not
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re. lead section -- Peoria has always stood for social and cultural averageness, as in: But will it play in Peoria? Will the average American accept whatever the proposition is? Of course, there is nothing wrong with (and there is everything good with) standing for average America. However, "average" conflicts with "bellwether," an entity that "serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings." (If averageness is thought to sound too negative, read normalcy.) -- Iterator12nTalk02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Illinois's versus Illinois'
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Both Illinois's (trailing S) and Illinois' (no trailing S) are used in this article. We should pick one, use it consistently here, and try to ensure that the same consistency is used on other articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Added "spoken languages"
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I started the section about Law enforcement in Illinois, There are full articles on law enforcement in other states, so a few gacts about illinois should not be a problem. I would greatly appreciate any help on expanding this section beyond just the list of agencies page.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Debate over the pronunciation of Illinois
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Disagreement:
From my research, it seems as though Illinois can be pronounced both: ILL-UH-NOY and ILL-UH-NOIZ. Due to this, I edited the main page to include ILL-UH-NOYZ as a proper pronunciation of the word Illinois. However, it seems as though there is disagreement over this, and my edit has been since reversed.
Evidence:
Proof that this pronunciation is in fact acceptable and real can be seen by referring to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a reputed and well-respected dictionary of the English language.
Seriously? Who pronounces it like that? Is there any other reputable source that provides a similar pronunciation? Qqqqqq (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether it can be and whether it commonly is pronounced that way are two different things. I believe there were some dialects in the 20th century that put a Z on the end of Illinois, as in New Jersey (think "Joizy"), but nobody (apart from Merriam-Webster, apparently) has alleged that it's a proper or particularly current pronunciation. I would expect to see multiple sources, and attention to WP:UNDUE. As for edit-warring to put it in, you may consider yourself warned. Acroterion(talk)11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional sources for consideration:
2 out of 5 of Dictionary.com's dictionary results, with a pronunciation of the word "Illinois" listed, have "Ill-uh-noiz" as an alternate pronunciation.
I'm not saying that it MUST be changed to this, I'm simply suggesting that every recognized, and somewhat verified pronunciation, should be listed--even if that means adding "and less commonly:" before it.
Onixz100 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It is pronounced ill-uh-noiz only by people who are not from illinois, and do not know that it is prounounced in the original French language pronunciation. Many people from illinois view this pronunciation (ill-uh-noiz) as derogatory, just like an Italian person would be offended if you refered to them as "Eye-Talian".--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear on this, DO NOT add the pronunciation Illi-noise. If you do, I will take it off and notify the Wikipedia editors. The dictionary also says "ain't" is a word; you can't use this as evidence that it is a proper pronunciation. The pronunciation IS derogatory to those living in the state -- no one who lives there pronounces it in this way and it should not be encouraged in the encyclopedia. This is NOT like nearby Missouri, in which many of the residents pronounce the state MissourEE and MissourUH -- no one puts the s at the end in Illinois (cpsteiner).—Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC).
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the Religion subsection of Demographics, the word Jews is linked to American Jews. That page, however, discusses ethnicity and related social phenomena as well as religion. Wouldn't Judaism, which primarily discusses the religion and includes a short section on broader social issues, be a better target for the link, given its context here? Cnilep (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Such a discussion would need to be done for all 50 states simultaneously, since Jew is piped to American Jews and Judaism about evenly. My opinion is that Judaism is a ridiculously broad target, covering the whole world and thousands of years, and American Jews is a much more reasonable target, since the term is being used demographically in these state articles. Abductive (reasoning)20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Origin of State's Name
Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Greetings.
Illinois is a 'created' word borrowed to Algonquin meaning "warriors"/"braves" .
The Illini Confederation was in constant fierce struggle against North, East, West and South tribes.
Anyone can invalidate this ? Else the section should be updated.
By the way, most First Nations tribes, in their own language, referred to themselves simply as 'the men' or 'the people' .
About the pronunciation.
The word was first coined by french ethnologists; for information,
in french rarely you vocalize the 's' at the end of a word even more rarely when it is a plural.
Some example where the 's' is skipped in french: Creuse/Creusois - Yvelines/Yvelinois - ( state / inhabitant )
Anyway more tuneful when spoken 'illinoi'. (:
Regards.
_'Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation. ERM'_ | (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
On a similar note, shouldn't the demonym be "illini" not "illinoisians"? Reference the article from the University of Illinois:
"The name "Fighting Illini" pre-dates the Chief Illiniwek symbol and was bestowed upon the team in honor of Illinoisans who fought in World War I; the use of the name "Illini" dates to the 19th century."
This is in agreement with the statement above: "in french rarely you vocalize the 's' at the end of a word even more rarely when it is a plural."
Someone should research this...
What are you talking about? The etymology of "Illinois" is already noted in the article, as is its pronunciation. What's more, the the demonym is "Illinoisan", not "Illinoisian", and the "s" is not pronounced in it, either. -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
David Costa here. My linguistic work on the etymology of 'Illinois' and 'Inoka' is being grossly misrepresented. I'm revising the etymology section to bring it in line with the consensus of specialists in the Algonquian language family. Djcosta (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are in fact Costa, you should absolutely not be editing that. It is a WP:Conflict of interest. If you wish to dispute how the research is being used, prove who you are and discuss your issues here. I'm not exactly what the procedure is for proving who you are, but there is one, and someone else will probably weigh in with the answer. If you are not Costa, that was a pretty pathetic thing to claim. -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just registered with Wikipedia for the first time, and don't have all the procedures down. I'm not sure how you want me to prove who I am. However, I can cite published and peer-reviewed linguistic articles about the etymologies of these names, which Mister Fay has not done.Djcosta (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't know how it is done, but there is a process. If you wait long enough, someone will let you know. I don't know or care about the etymology of "Illinois", but your edits removed a substantial block of text that was actually fairly sophisticated and quoted its source, replacing it with something rather more simplistic. In the end, it is not what the writer believes, but what the writer wrote, that matters. Instead of edit warring as you did, you should have explained your concerns here. I invited you to do, twice now, but you have still failed to do that. Please explain exactly how the prior version gets the source wrong and how what you propose gets it right. Also please explain why you thought it best to replace something that was sourced with something that is almost completely unsourced. -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, you admit you are new to Wikipedia, so why didn't you stop editing when you were reverted and asked to explain your edits? Why did not one of your edits contain an edit summary explaining what you were doing and why it was necessary? Since you are new, I will refer you to WP:Three-revert rule, which you've already violated and could get blocked for; WP:Consensus, a key pillar of what we do here; WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which explains what you should have done when your edit was challenged; and WP:Verify, which should seem natural if you really are an academic. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced? I cite a published article. In contrast, the attack on my etymology of 'Inoka' was sourced by the author's website. Djcosta (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The prior version included no fewer than eight sources (including three by Costa), where yours only provides one. Instead of pointing to literature that contradicts the assertion conflicting with Costa's research, you have merely removed it. That is intellectually dishonest, and shows exactly why, if you are in fact Costa, you should not be directly editing the section. I would therefore ask you to revert your own edits (which would also have the effect of ameliorating your 3RR violation (and making far less likely you'd get blocked). Then, you can explain here exactly what your problem is and exactly what reliable sources verify your position, preferably including quotations from the source material. -Rrius (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest where it says a published professional should not edit articles in which he/she has been cited. The COI guideline (note, not policy) is mostly about avoiding advancing one's personal interests instead of working to improve Wikipedia. I have not read all the edits here in detail so cannot give an opinion on the details of this disagreement. But if someone's published work is being misused I see no reason why they should not fix it. Deleting other reliable sources that differ would be more problematic. Pfly (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking more closely I have a few more comments. If Costa's work is controversial, then it would be appropriate to mention him by name and comment about it--and provide citiations saying or at least suggesting it is controversial. But the article's citiations before Djcosta's recent edits did not exactly do this. In fact the text strikes me as unencyclopedic. After describing Costa's theory, it said, However, a search of the early missionary/explorer records before 1800 for "Inoka" or "*Inoka" does not produce any hits because, of course, the expression first appeared in print in 2000. This was referenced to Search Results: nothing found. (n.d.) Retrieved October 21, 2002--someone literally searched some online database and found nothing, and used that as a reference. That's hardly a reliable source. Plus, the wording "does not produce any hits" sounds like Internet slang. Further, the claim "because, of course, the expression first appeared in print in 2000" is not backed up by the reference cited. The phrase "of course" suggests, to me, that whoever wrote this has a personal disagreement with Costa's theory. Anyway, this bit of text was followed by another reference about an Internet search returning results, referenced to a search page that, yes, returned results. This is not a reliable source either. It strikes me as original research, or at least a interpretation synthesis based on a database search result, not a simple reliable source. It looks to me like someone putting forth an opinion without sources, relying instead on the interpretation of database search results. If this is a real issue there must be better sources out there. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Read COI more closely. It says you have to be damned careful in citing yourself, which is exactly what this person says he is doing. In so doing, he has removed text that contradicts his position. He also removed several sources, including three to what is supposed to be his own work (and which quoted the same). It may well be that this person is Costa and that the concerns are valid, but blundering in and making these edits was not the right way to handle it, especially after being challenged to back himself up. I would note that the editor has still failed to provide a real explanation of what was wrong and how he, if he really is Costa, was misconstrued. Finally, It is no good for you to attack the sources as though I am defending them. I said I don't know or care about the etymology of "Illinois". My only concern is that the article be the best it can. It doesn't strike me as the best way forward to allow someone to come in and remove large blocks of text, including eight sources (at least some of which clearly are reliable), then attempt to justify him- or herself by saying he correcting a "misinterpretation" of his work when he really removed references to the work of the person he is claiming to be along with direct quotes therefrom as well as anything challenging that person's conclusions. If you don't see the conflict of interest, I suggest you don't know what one is. I also suggest that if you think I was wrong to challenge the supposed Costa, you have strange ideas about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What was written on this talk page is not the sum total of the discussion, so your response was based on inadequate information. -Rrius (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I've begun to look into the topic--the etymology of the word Illinois--and will try to improve the section about it here. I'm a sucker for etymological toponymicalness. Pfly (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Etymology of the name Illinois
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
This is basically a continuation of the previous section, but I thought I'd start a new one for the topic of actually editing the page. As it stands, the Name section strikes me as too long and "technical" for a page about the entire state of Illinois--both the page as it currently stands and before the recent bunch of edits (see this diff, for example). Both the current and the older version strike me fairly unencyclopedic in wording, phrasing, flow, etc. To addresses this need for copyediting as well as the length my inclination is to cut most of it and simply say something like:
"The etymology is traditional said to mean such-and-such, (terse bit about the word roots and French influenced changes, spelling etc).(refs to two good sources, say George R. Stewart and Frederick Webb Hodge) A more recent theory is that the word comes from such-and-such and means so-and-so, (another terse bit with further detail).(refs to two good sources)"
If more detail is warranted--like saving some of the text already here (and/or from that diff above)--I'd suggest making a page about the etymology, similar to how it was done at Oregon#Name and Oregon (toponym). The Name section could also describe pronunciation and the like, similar to the Oregon page. As for two sources on the more recent theory, there's a paper by Costa online that can be linked to, and this book online at Google Books, which summarizes Costa's take and seems like a very good source: Callary, Edward (2008). Place Names of Illinois. University of Illinois Press. p. 169. ISBN9780252033568.
As far as I can tell there are no other serious theories about the etymology other than these two (unlike the case for Oregon, where there are quite a few theories and it is ultimately unknown). Please correct me if I'm wrong though. If there's no major problem with this proposal I'll try to write it up sometime this week. Pfly (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed rewritten Name section
Ok, here's my proposal for a rewritten Name section:
The name "Illinois" is traditionally said to mean "man" or "men" in the Miami-Illinois language, with the original iliniwek transformed via French into Illinois.[1][2] Sometimes the name Illiniwek is said to mean "tribe of superior men".[3] A more recent theory is that "Illinois" originated as the Miami-Illinois term irenwe·wa or ni(n)terinwe·, meaning "he speaks the regular way" or "I speak the ordinary way". This was then taken into the Ojibwe language, perhaps in the Ottawa dialect, and modified into ilinwe·, pluralized as ilinwe·k, then taken into French, where the plural suffix -wek was changed to -ois. The current form, Illinois, began to appear in the early 1670s. The Illinois's name for themselves, according to this theory, was Inoka, of unknown meaning and unrelated to the other terms.[4][5]
^Costa, David J. (2007). "Illinois: A Place Name"(PDF). Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas Newsletter. XXV: 9–12. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
Any thoughts? If anyone wants the current text to be saved, perhaps we can create a page like Illinois (toponym), which could be expanded with more detail. The Name section here could start with Main article: Illinois (toponym) using the {{main}} template. Pfly (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think your re-write would be a major improvement. I tried to lookup Costa's paper this morning but couldn't find a working link. Thanks for finding one. After the recent editing by "djcosta", the section was left quite a mess. I also think it's good to present several different theories, and the evolution of them, like you did. Regards, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, it's been a few days. I just made this change, leaving only the first sentence that had been in the section. Here's the diff in case anyone wants to see what exactly was taken out. Pfly (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be late in getting into this discussion, but I was just alerted to the vandalism by email and the efforts to correct it. Your rewrite is very good, with one exception. That, of course, is about Inoka. Inoka never appeared in any dictionary or manuscript or Jesuit Relations or anywhere else until Costa made it up in 2000. I know we would rather not get bogged down with this detail, but it is not going to go away. It cannot simple be ignored or let slide. How about this for the discussion of Inoka:
In 2000 a linguistic theorist formulated a "reconstructed or hypothetical phonemicized form," *Inoka.[1] and argued that it was this expression that the Illinois people used to refer to themselves. However, a search of the early missionary/explorer records before 1800 for "Inoka" or "*Inoka" does not produce any hits because, of course, the expression first appeared in print in 2000.[2] A search for "Illinois," on the other hand, documents that the name was used by the Illinois people to refer to themselves and by others to refer to the Illinois in hundreds of pages in dozens of volumes published before 1800.[3]
I might say I am a little uneasy with the suggestion that "Illinois" is merely tradition, or fairly recent urban legend, as the vandals would have it. Again, I realize we are striving for brevity here. But I really think any discussion that purports to be about the etymology of term "Illinois" should include something like:
The first European face-to-face meeting with the Illinois people on their own land came in 1674 when Jacques Marquette followed a beaten prairie path to a village and asked the people who they were. "They replied that they were Ilinois."[4] He offered this oft-quoted observation about that name
WHEN one speaks the word “Ilinois,” it is as if one said in their language, “the men,“ — As if the other Savages were looked upon by them merely as animals.[5]
But all in all, good job on the rewrite. Thanks for your efforts. Good job on the redo of "speaks the ordinary language" point. The expression "Illinois" was not originated by the Ottawa and borrowed into M-I. M-I is older than Ottawa.
On the Inoka thing, searching an online database and using the results as a reference seems strange to me. I have trouble seeing how these references back up the statements being made here. Wouldn't it be better to reference a published book or paper that says these things? Wikipedia:No original research might be worth reading for ideas about references. And on the Marquette quote, it is already described and quoted in three of the references I used: Hodge, Stewart, and Costa. Is it really necessary to explicitly quote it? Plus, the references here are to primary sources in French. They don't really back up claims like "oft-quoted" and "first European face-to-face meeting". I'm not saying the claims are not true, just that the references don't say so. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources might also be worth reading. I'm sorry if I'm being difficult. Pfly (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Rereading just now it occurs to me that if the final sentence about "Inoka" is a problem, it could just be left out altogether. After all, the passage is about the origin of the place name "Illinois", not what the Miami-Illinois people called themselves. Pfly (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Language
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
According to an Illinois law, English is not the official language. American is.
I'm not sure if this is still the law, but in 1923, this did become law in Illinois (not in the 1950s, as I said in my edit summary). See here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there have been (at least basic) census counts every ten years since 1790. (It's mandated by the Constitution.) Keep in mind that American Indians wouldn't have been counted at the time, so that is only the non-Indian population of Illinois. AlexiusHoratius15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course, the constitutional mandate only includes those areas that will be electing members of the United States House of Representatives, but I'm guessing that they did in fact, enumerate those in the official territories as well, if for no other reason than to be able to ascertain when sufficient numbers were achieved to allow statehood. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
True; I suppose another question is how did they know how many people were in Illinois, as the borders of the present state had not yet been set. (I'm guessing everyone in the Northwest Territory would have been lumped together in 1800). But this is probably a matter for the Reference desk more than here. AlexiusHoratius19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The opening section contains the following sentence:
In the 1810s settlers began arriving from Kentucky; Illinois achieved statehood in 1818
This makes it seem as if Illinois was a Kentucky colony. I'm not actually doubting this statement, I just am not familiar with a heavy (albeit, logical) wave from Kentucky (though I remember about the Lincolns coming, via Indiana). Can someone lend a citation for this? HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Springfield
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There are more deficiencies with this article than I have hairs on my head (not that that's saying much), but you've pointed out a particularly glaring one. I've patched it up, but it could be better. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Northeast border
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article contains the following two statements:
The northeastern border of Illinois is Lake Michigan.
Illinois also borders Michigan, but only via a water boundary in Lake Michigan.
However, these cannot both be true, unless Michigan's territory within Lake Michigan reaches all the way across the lake to the Chicago beaches (as Kentucky's territory reaches across the Ohio). I'm 99% certain that this is not the case, so the Lake Michigan shoreline is not actually the "border" of Illinois, and I will correct it accordingly. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Population centers in Southern Illinois
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I found this material to be interesting and earnest, but I think it needs some sources and then perhaps a bit of a less-informal tone. Reverting for now, look forward to seeing the new entry. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Who has invented pronunciation ending with "-noi"? In English it would be natural to have "-noiz". In French, which is claimed to be the origin, it ends with "-nua" (robot speaks). Very strange... -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Many geographic names in Illinois, and throughout the Midwest, reflect the historical pronunciation of the word by the first residents, rather than how it would be pronounced in languages which none of the founders and few later residents spoke. Des Plaines, Illinois is pronounced "Dez Plains," San Jose, Illinois is pronounced "San Joes," Marseilles, Illinois is pronounced "Marsales," Orion, Illinois is pronounced "ORE-ee-on," etc. These folks were busy plowing, building, and breeding and had no time or inclination to find out how a Frenchman or an educated Easterner thousands of miles away would pronounce a word. Perhaps the real surprise about the pronunciation of "Illinois" is that the "s" is silent. Wachholder (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the question is about that silent "s". It does not come in any natural way, so somebody had to do a nontrivial mental effort. ;-) So, who and for what purpose? (The previous discussions even indicated that pronunciation with "s" and like "-nwa" -- closer to the original -- are considered totally wrong...) -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC).
That's not really the way linguistics work. There doesn't need to be any purpose at all, and there is not necessarily any conscious effort. The starting place was the French version as used by the state's original European inhabitants, then it shifted over time as the name was used by English-speakers. Given that "noi" is pronounced "noy" in some English words, the shift isn't shocking. It would make sense for English-speakers to know the "s" isn't supposed to be pronounced, but pronounce the vowels in a way more consistent with how we use them in English. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As I understand, everyday spoken language can't be easily affected by the writing (it usually goes the other way – people can write words "incorrectly" when "correct" writing is inconsistent with pronunciation). The situation you describe could have happened only if the name was available only in a written form to only few people who read it incorrectly and disseminated such accidental pronunciation among the others. ("Zenith" gives a related example.) Is it plausible? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Your fascination with this subject makes me want to recommend a career in linguistics for you, friend. As an Illinois native, I can tell you that there is no logical order to the way these French-based names (and others) are pronounced. As a child, I was told that the "s" at the end was silent, because that was the way French handled the "s" at the end of the word. Then, in high school, studying French, I learned that the "oi" should be pronounced "wah", and when I asked about that, I was told that was too complicated, that the name needed to be Americanized. There is absolutely no consistency. Why else are both "s"s in "Des Plaines" pronounced ("Dess Planes") but the ending "s" is not pronounced less than 100 miles away in Bourbonnais? And it's not even consistent--a sizable percentage of the population does pronounce the "s" (albeit as a "z"); they are mainly found in the southern part of the state. As a northern Illinois native, I grew up mocking the ignorant people in southern Illinois who "mispronounced" the name of our state, but really, we're not any better up north--we're just the majority.
But I don't know that our inconsistency is all that unique. I speak a couple of other languages, and I've had the opportunity to question native speakers of such languages as to why the name of a place is pronounced like "this", when it should be pronounced like "that", they just shrug their shoulders and say they don't know why. Just not a big deal, I guess. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that proper names are obscure in all languages, :-) but since this particular case is a recent one (around 1800), I hopped that a successful investigation might be possible...
Your comment about a sizable percentage of the population pronouncing the "s" is very interesting. The previous discussions (1, 2) showed that (some) people are fanatically opposing such pronunciation and even see it as derogatory... Although there were references to dictionaries mentioning the "alternative" pronunciation, no "real world" confirmations were given. Is it possible to find a reliable source with the "-noiz"? (Interestingly enough, the article currently gives only the "major" pronunciation without any references whatsoever.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
While many people do pronounce it with a "z" sound at the end, I'm quite sure that any pronunciation maven would tell you that to do so is an abomination; that's why it won't generally be found in authoritative guides (and, despite my acknowledgement of the minority viewpoint, I agree that it sounds terrible pronounced like that). HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, terribleness depends on personal preferences — in many cases just due to imprinting (the "baby duck syndrome" :-) ), having no logical grounds. I personally feel that irregular pronunciations are terrible, but don't worry too much about such things... In the end, WP is an encyclopedia, not a guide, and should be neutral.
The more or less reliable sources (online dictionaries only) with the regular pronunciation:
Mike, I'm okay with that, as long as you do what you just said--not only include the alternative pronounciations, but also the strong reactions to it by the majority of Illinois denizens. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Daylight Savings?
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
very debatable that "rest of state has rural or small town character;" this ignores Peoria, Metro East St Louis, quad cities, and many other significatn urban areas far from Chicago
I think I understand the good editor's thinking here, but a more careful reading shows that this is not what the previous version said at all. It previously read,
with 65% of its residents concentrated in the Chicago metropolitan area, most of the state has either a rural or a small-town character.
This is very different than the statement in the edit summary, which claimed that the edit spoke of "the rest of the state. I assume, of course, that the edit summary's inaccurate wording was unintentional, and I shall now revert to the perfectly accurate previous wording. I would also be happy to discuss further. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There is little difference between "much of the state" and "the rest of the state." Either way, the suggestion is that most of Illinois is not urban in "character." Illinois has the 12th highest population density among US states, and, more than that, consider this map of population density of the US by county. Most Illinois counties have medium to high population density As I mentioned in the edit summary, there are many densely populated urban areas outside of Chicago, and most of the population of Illinois outside Chicago is cities like in Decatur, Danville, Peoria, East Peoria, East St. Louis, Granite City, Washington Park, Swansea, Centralia, Springfield, Rockford, McChesney Park, Rock Island, Moline, Streator, Rock Falls, Sterling, and other urban areas far west or south of I-294. "Most of the state has either a rural or a small-town character" is a rather subjective description of the state that is unsupported by any documentary evidence. Only 1,679,801 people out of 12,830,632, or 13% of the population of the state was considered "rural" versus "urban" in 2010. Even subtracting 8 or 9 million people in the Chicagoland area, this means the majority of the population is living in an urban environment, and likely experiencing and/or expressing an "urban character." I agree that much of the land area of the state is agricultural, and some counties are not densely populated, but the term "character" is not widely used in demography and is rarely or ever quantified. Or is it? I welcome you to find a good reference that shows that the description "most of the state has either a rural or a small-town character" is "perfectly accurate" and return the sentence in question to the article. Or perhaps there is some more suitable demographic metric you are seeking. Thanks for your thoughts and best regards, Wachholder (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your well-considered reply. As I digest (my vulgarism for mull) your thoughts, I wonder if terminology is not separating us. Let me ask you one quick terminology-related question. Would you consider Creston, Illinois (which I choose for reasons of personal experience) to be a "small town"? HuskyHuskie (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The term "downstate" is used mainly by people in the Chicago area. People in Illinois outside the Chicago area do not refer to themselves as "downstaters", nor do they describe themselves as living in "downstate" Illinois. If asked, a resident might say that he lives "in Galesburg", or "in Knox County", or more generally, "in western Illinois'.
Significantly, the Chicago newspapers routinely capitalize "Downstaters" in the same manner as racial and ethnic designations. The term "Downstater" manages to be annoying without quite reaching the level of an insult, which is probably why Chicagoans use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. If you mean, do we downstaters refer to ourselves first and foremost as "downstaters"? Of course not. I grew up in a town in Northern Illinois with less than 10,000 people, and at age 24 moved to Central Illinois. In the town where I grew up, our demonym of choice was always been "townian", and in my adopted town we are "townites", the difference being which suffix works better with the respective town name. But in both places, whenever discussing the divide (and it is a great divide, no doubt) between those of us from outside the collar counties and those from within, everyone I know recognizes that the term for where we live is "Downstate". I don't know of anyone from downstate who calls themselves a "downstater", but our small towns are proudly located "downstate". And it's something I point out to people from around the country who ignorantly assume that, as an Illinoisian, I am somehow connected to Chicago. I am proud to identify myself as being from "Downstate". HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Average vs. Face
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The source says nothing about Illinois being the "face of the nation", or
The fact that this edit completely misses the point of the phrase, namely, that Illinois is a microcosm of the state.
Of course, I'm sure there was no intent to deceive or be inaccurate, but I wanted to explain it in case someone thought I was arguing a petty point. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of Ronald Reagan
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Recently, a user added a picture of Ronald Reagan under Section 10 (Politics) and another user reverted because Reagan was not related to politics of the state (citing WP:DUE). Is anyone interested in discussing the inclusion of Reagan's photo under Subsection 10.3 (US Presidents from Illinois)? UnbelievableError (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe Reagan belongs in California and American history. As a footnote of Illinois-born US presidents, I have no objection; but I agree with the user who said Reagan was marginal to Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatLakesdemocracy (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any precedents; however, some U.S. states do have State Defense Forces in addition to the National Guard. The question is should articles about U.S. states provide information about thier militaries; and if so, should this article establish a new precedent? 143.43.29.136 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how to read this response. Did you just agree that no new precedent should be set here or did you agree, as suggested by 143.43 IP that the precedent should be set here? - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Currently, the article contains this sentence:
Chicago is a cosmopolitan city, densely populated, industrialized, the transportation hub of the nation, and settled by a wide variety of ethnic groups with a population of 9.8 million people.
It is a very populous state. This usage, using "very", sounds "very" much like a young person wrote it. Not incorrect, but inferior to the previous verbiage (which was also more neutral, if you can believe it).
Chicago, the world's fourth-largest GDP producing city. Might be true, but should be sourced. Suspiciously, it looks like it may be a "very" old piece of trivia, given its use of "GDP", which was phased out in favor of "GNP" by most authorities over two decades ago.
Among the 50 states, Illinois has been very strong on the national political scene throughout its history. Looks like WP:OR to me.
The first non-fully white President of the United States (Obama) came from Illinois, I'm just going to leave that one out there, and if anyone wants me to explain my objection, just ask.
The anon replaced Chicagoland, as this area is known locally, with the phrase, Chicagoland, as this area is commonly known. This is WP:OR. I don't doubt that it is commonly known locally as "Chicagoland" (after all, I'm the one who originally added the phrase in question to the article, but that hardly means it's a common phrase in St. Louis, Seattle, or St. Petersburg.
The anon changed the article from reading The property tax is the largest single tax in Illinois, and is the major source of tax revenue for local government taxing districts to reading The property tax is a major source of tax revenue for local government taxing districts. I'm leaving the anon's edit in place, for this reason: I know the anon's version constitutes a true statement. Unfortunately, if the old version was verifiable, the old version would be better. The trouble is that the sources are books, not online, so I can't easily verify them.
There's a lot here, but rather than go by it line by line (I'm getting tired of this shit, I'll just point out one poorly written sentence out of many that is prompting my revert: Today, Chicago and a majority of Cook County votes have long been strongly Democratic. Enough said.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I have been reading about unreported debts and national/federal pension debts and Illinois is one of the worst offenders. I thought it valuable info to add that info, especially since it seemed relevant and timely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StickerMug (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Instead of calling IL out as a "sinkhole state" which comes off as hyperbolic, I've just included the "Taxpayer Burden" stat after the per capita income stat in the Economy section. Let me know if anyone disagrees with this addition and I'll be happy to revert. StickerMug (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Corruption section
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I strongly object to the bulk of this edit. While the removal of party labels does improve the readability (and lessens the POV) of the section, the swapping of James Thompson and Paul Simon is not acceptable, and could possibly be seen as a partisan (read: POV) edit.
Paul Simon was a fine man, certainly a human being with whom I would rather have lunch than "Big Jim" Thompson (full disclosure: I actually did have lunch with Thompson once, before he was governor). But was Paul Simon a "reformer"? He was arguably the most honest and ethical Illinois politician of the 20th century, but his reform efforts were early on in his career as a journalist. Yes, he gained his fame as a reform-minded newspaperman, but did he do anything while holding political office to advance "reform"? If so, I don't remember it. In fact, as I recall, Simon was hand-picked by Richard J. in the 1972 Democratic gubernatorial primary? For those from outside Illinois, the Daley machine was not known for it's promotion of reform candidates.
Thompson, on the other hand, while ultimately he became the poster boy for political stand-pat-ness[10] during his 3 1/2* terms, was a major force for anti-corruption as a US Attorney. Thompson put both Republicans and Democrats in jail--quite a few of them. His credibility as a reformer is undeniably as strong, and arguably much stronger than that of Senator Simon. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
*Sorry, but I don't buy that "four-term governor" line: that 1976 election was for a half-term, in my book.
Language fork
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I added lots of content to the Illinois#Languages section, and then forked it off as a separate article, Languages of Illinois. Languages of Texas is the only other state-level language article that I could find. The new article has sections on the official status of English, Illinois's dialects of American English, other languages spoken today, and a (for now) very brief summary of languages spoken in Illinois's past (indigenous languages and French). I copied the lead section of the new article and into the Languages section in this article. I also kept the "Languages other than English" chart, to be consistent with other U.S. state articles. Per the to-do list item on this talk page ("minimize the lists"), I deleted the chart; now it is only found in the new article. Fishal (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
19th century Mormon section
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Mormons had founded a utopian city called Nauvoo"
They founded a city, perhaps with the intensions to be utopian, but nothing seem to suggest that they did.
"Soon afterward, the Mormons' new leadership led the group out of Illinois in a mass exodus to present-day Utah;"
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Illinois has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On February 21 president Obamba sold Maine for 4.8 Million dollars, I have updated this map to include Maine to no longer be there. Kindest regards -liam.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 20 external links on Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Illinois has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latino is incorrect use of the word. Latin American suits better. America or The Americas is the name of the continent, America is divided culturally in two, Latin America and Anglo America, or if you want to divide it geographically the use North America and South America.
Latino is offensive, it rips off the right of Latin Americans to be called like that, Latin Americans.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hello. just asking could somebody write something about the Luxembourgish settlers in Illinois.
Apparentley Illinois has the highest percentage of residents of Luxembourgish ancestry of any state according to the 2000 census.
thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.204.43 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
When Illinois beacame a state
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illinois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Fellow Wikipedians... I'd like to slightly expand the section on demographics with a number of sources. Would it be OK to say "Illinois has led the nation in population loss for several years. The most common reasons for this are job loss, the highest property taxes in the nation, weather, unionism, crime, education, unemployment, and the state's budget stalemate. The state's residents say it sucks to live in Illinois, in which it was ranked number 1 in residents who desire to flee the state. Half of the population wants to leave. It is also reported to be the second most hated state in the U.S. after California. It has had a rate of population loss ranging from 1 person every 4.6 to 10 minutes. A study by United Van Lines has reported that it has been in yellow, meaning high outbound, since 1978. A couple who moved to North Carolina from Illinois created a website to help Illinoisans move out of their state. Michael Lucci, the vice president of the Illinois Policy Institute, said that working people and people who want jobs are fleeing the state. Due to its proximity in the Rust Belt, the state's unfriendly business climate makes it one of the top leaving destinations in the U.S. Illinois has lost residents to almost every other state in the nation." Here are some references to support what I'd like to add:
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Im certain most Quad Citians would say they are Central Illinoisans. If you aren't a part of the Chicago metro area, its generally considered offensive to be called anything close to Chicago.
The division of Illinois into three "geographic areas", Northern, Central, and Southern is completely arbitrary and there is no general agreement on the boundaries between those "geographic areas". Southern Illinois is somewhat geologically and culturally distinct, but there are differing opinions as to where the line between Central and Southern Illinois lies. The line between Northern and Central Illinois is completely subjective unless "Northern Illinois" is defined as being the Chicago metropolitan area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.4.64 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Some proposed changes
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.
Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text in quotes to the "primary and secondary schools" section of the page:
"Illinois ranked 15th in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 78.2 out of 100 points and a grade of C-plus. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.
Illinois posted a B-minus in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 24th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Illinois received a mark of B-minus and finished 15th for School Finance. It ranked 16th with a grade of C on the K-12 Achievement Index."
Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.
No edit specified. If you want to have the page protected, please see WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done I don't see the use as incorrect or offensive, it just describes "A person, especially and usually a male, from Latin America. (Compare Latina.) Latinos have quickly become the largest ethnic minority in the United States" - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit request declined
