Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superior (proposed state)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge not ruled out. W.marsh 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superior (proposed state)

edit
Superior (proposed state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Certainly an amusing proposal, but this smacks of original research or an outright hoax since the only sources are A) a blog and B) a book that appears to not really exist. Also might have something to do with the Colbert Report... that should make it fun. Anyway, if someone can produce reliable sources confirming this topic great, but otherwise this article needs to go. --W.marsh 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And List of U.S. state secession proposals and Historic regions of the United States. All 3 references will need to be removed if a reliable source doesn't appear... I will most likely take care of it. --W.marsh 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced per A) and B) above --Steve 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) So some sources have been found for up to the 70s when this movement seems to have petered out. Oh, and 4 minutes of news coverage from 1971 is hardly notability enough for an article. I'll change to a Redirect to Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and flesh out the section that is already there. --Steve 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and send it to BJAODN - per nom I'm changing my vote to neutral.--andrew|ellipsed...Talk 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Keep[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, nothing to say, this is lame. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to merge and redirect, as per sources given. Does not need its own article at this moment. A section at Upper Peninula of Michigan will be good. --Terence Ong (C | R) 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. If Colbert did propose such a state (something I could see him do) then a mention of it ought to be placed on his article. But this looks like a... well, a joke. Merge Alright, the movement might be real, but not serious enough to justify its own article. This debate should be turned into a mention in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The map appears to be a complete invention. The references provided in the article at present are extremely weak. But there was a genuine, semi-serious effort a few decades ago to form a state of Superior led by the prominent local politician Dominic Jacobetti. Better references are certainly needed. The effort is briefly mentioned here in the biographical notes for the collection of his papers at NMU. AFAICT, most present-day calls for secession are intended as either humor or an expression of dissatisfaction with downstate government. I don't think anyone takes it seriously anymore, but there does seem to be some kernel of truth to the secession proposal. In 1978, Jacobetti introduced a bill in the state legislature for separation, but it never came to a vote. [1] And here is a pretty good account of the proposal to separate, although perhaps too much of a personal essay to be a reliable source -- though it does provide a general outline of events that could probably be verified from other sources. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Strong Keep Living in Northern Michigan, I heard this idea widely and can attest to it not being complete BJAODN. Vanderbilt University has an archive for a NBC newscast in 1975 that corroborates that this is real. link to vanderbilt After reviewing this link, I suggest that others retract their votes. FWIW, my google method was searching on "Superior" and "51st state" [2] MPS 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but one 31 year old newscast transcription is not sufficient evidence to prove this a serious movement. If there were truly active plans in Congress and the Michigan legislature to slpit the state of Michigan then an article will be justified. Right now, these just seems to be a lingering idea enterained by some residents and local politicans from time to time. This might be worth a mention on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article but not a seperate article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original AFD was started by somone's thought that this was BJAODN. It's clearly not a hoax. The numerous sources that have been since unearthed show that this was significant if futile movement in the 1970s and earlier. IMNSHO, Wikipedia ought to document the extent to which there is or isn't (was or wasn't) a movement to form the State of Superior. I still think it can and should stand alone given the level of documentation that we have unearthed. Are we going to merge State of Lincoln, Upstate New York's Statehood Movement, Cascadia, and Jesusland map simply because they also aren't ever going to happen? It doesn't have to be serious or even likely in order to be notable. MPS 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does need to have been a serious movement, or at least it must have raised a lot of controversy. Did this movement really cause a lot of controversy. Was it on the front page of the NY Times? Were there heated debates among the intelgesita and legislature? Yes, I also was under the impression that was a BJAODN; it isn't. But, for the time being I stand by my vote that this article ought to be merged into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the National Review? Besides, all these votes for merging to the UP neglect the fact that this is also a Wisconsin Movement. See long blockquote added at bottom. MPS 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever lived in a part of the United States where secession and autonomy were not major issues in local politics. In northern Wisconsin, where I spent my childhood, there has been agitation for the creation of a separate state of Superior, encompassing the northern parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. The justification was both cultural and economic: "Yoopers" have more in common with people on the Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior than either group has with the rest of its state, both regions suffer from unemployment and underdevelopment, and both speak a dialect unintelligible to outsiders. .


Thanks for the information... more sources are always better and the article still needs some work, but this probably shouldn't be deleted now, in my opinion. --W.marsh 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you so sure that this is proposal is taken serios by the Federal and Michigan state legislature. While I beleive that people in the upper peninsual have some discontent over their tax dollars going to the lower peninsual and some residents might entertain the thought of splitting the state from time to time, I do not see any evidence of Congress or the Michigan legislature seriously considering such a proposal. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be an active, current movement that is being taken seriously by the legislature? The fact that it is taken seriously by its advocates over the past 110+ years demonstrates that it has a strong measure of verifiable notability as an independent subject. Alansohn 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really taken seriously by federal and state legislature? Was there an actual vote? Heated discussion, perhaps even fillebusters? The mere fact that an issue shifts from the back to the front of some people's minds every blue moon isn't enough to justify its own article. This article ought to merged in the the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see blockquote below. Looks like Wisconsin was significantly involved as well. MPS 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular Strong Keep I had heard of this in the past, and did some nosing around Google News and Google Books for references to such a proposed state, both of which turn up many references, few of which have enough detail to be added to the article. The article has been expanded with a number of fully sourced references documenting the history of this proposal back at least to the 1890's, with nary a Colbert mention found. See this link for Google Books references, which show a brief summary and a small scan of the relevant text in each of the books. A Google News Archive search brings up about ten references to the proposal in the 1975-1977 timeframe from major newspapers in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and northern Wisconsin. Other searches were done using "State of Superior" AND Michigan as search terms, others involving "Upper Peninsula" and "Secession" were also fruitful. This is a real phenomenon that justifies retention in Wikipedia. Alansohn 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be "a real phenomenon" that "justifies retention" on WP; it does not justify its own article but rather a mention in the exsisting Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see blockquote below MPS 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactely, "It's not exactly a serious 'movement'". If there is lingering discontent over the distribution of government resources among the residents of the upper peninsula than such can be mention in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Section (a place to discuss our votes)

Rather than start discussion of votes, let's start a discussion section here...

The question BrendelSignature seems to be taking to heart is whether this is a "real" (moving) movement or is a "fake" one. My answer is that it is neither. It is a real cultural meme/rumor/phenomenon that has been floating around Northern Michigan and the UP for years. This is kinda like Christopher Walken for President... but it really happened. We shouldn't argue that just because it happened 20 years ago it is not relevant. It is relevant and notable... and now it is documented. IMHO we could change the name of it so people know that it is not a really active movement. MPS 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a review of the timeline of the books and newspaper articles published on the subject, this seems to be a meme that's floating out there, popping up with some seriousness every twenty years or so, generating interest in the U.P., treated as quaint but undoable pie-in-the-sky by downstaters, and has never generated enough steam to be considered for real. When it is back in the public's conscience it does get play in the media, as exhibited by the Google News sources, and then it fades away in a state of dormancy, only top up two or three decades later. I think its status as an almost viable movement for periods of time over more than a century demonstrates that it should be a standalone article. Alansohn 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is barely notable enough for a separate article. Compare it with Jefferson (proposed U.S. state), which clearly is deserving of its own article. If we allow the second I think there's a good case for the first. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be anything in Michigan Legislature, as the Michigan government would obviously be vehemently opposed to the idea of losing all of the taxpayers in the UP, it's a very interesting article and should most definitely stay. 141.209.236.224 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE. THE BOUNDARIES OF WISCONSIN


USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing 

        free information on the Internet, data may be used by
        non-commercial entities, as long as this message
        remains on all copied material. These electronic
        pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit
        or for presentation by other persons or organizations.

        Persons or organizations desiring to use this material
        for purposes other than stated above must obtain the
        written consent of the file contributor.

        This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb
        Archives by: Tina S. Vickery <TVick65536@aol.com>


From a 1900 Book: STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE by Reuben Gold Thwaites Copyright, 1900

The people of the northwest wished to be released from Wisconsin, in order that they might either cast their fortunes with their near neighbors in the new Territory of Minnesota, or join a movement just then projected for the creation of an entirely new State, to be called "Superior." This .proposed state was to embrace all the country north of Mont Trempealeau and east of the Mississippi, including the entire northern peninsula, if the latter could be obtained; thus commanding the southern land western shores of Lake Superior, with the mouth of Green Bay and the foot of Lake Michigan to the southeast.
.
The St. Croix representative in the legislature was especially wedded to the Superior project. He pleaded earnestly and eloquently for his people, whose progress, he said, would be "greatly hampered by being connected politically with a country from which they are separated by nature, cut off from communication by immense spaces of wilderness between." A memorial from the settlers themselves stated the case with even more vigor, asserting that they were "widely separated from the settled parts of Wisconsin, not only by hundreds of miles of mostly waste and barren lands, which must remain uncultivated for ages, but equally so by a diversity of interests and character in the population." All of this reads curiously enough in these days, when the intervening wilderness resounds with the hum of industry and " blossoms as the rose." But that was long before the days of railroads; the dense forests of central and western Wisconsin then constituted a formidable wilderness, peopled only by savages and wild beasts.
.
Unable to influence the Wisconsin legislature, which stubbornly contended for the possession of the original tact, the St. Croix people next urged their claims upon Congress. The proposed State of Superior found little favor at Washington, but there was a general feeling that Wisconsin would be much too large unless trimmed. The result was that when she was finally admitted as a State, the St. Croix River was, in large part, made her northwest boundary; Minnesota in this Manner acquired a vast stretch of country, including the thriving city of St. Paul.
.
Wisconsin was thus shorn of valuable territory on the south, to please Illinois; on the northeast, to favor Michigan; and on the northwest, that some of her settlers might join their fortunes with Minnesota. The State, however, is still quite as large as most of her sisters in the Old Northwest, and possesses an unusual variety of soils, and a great wealth of forests, mines, and fisheries. There is a strong probability that, bad Congress, in 1848, given to Wisconsin her "ancient limits," as defined by the Ordinance of 1787, the movement to create the proposed state of "Superior" would have gathered strength in the passing years, and possibly would have achieved success, thus depriving us of our great northern forests and mines, and our outlet upon the northern lake.

MPS 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, Check out this 1975 map (bigger map here) proposed by C. Etzel Pearcy, geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles... and story corroborating Pearcy's proposalMPS 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one [4] from the May 5, 1895, Chicago Tribune. older ≠ wiser 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superior_(proposed_state)&oldid=1138807191"