Talk:West Bend, Wisconsin

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wisconsin Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Danbackhaus (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

What is West Bends Government?

The "Real Estate" section looks like it was written as an ad by an agent. Is it relevant to the article?Polkapolkapoker 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the library controversy unintelligible? Because it doesn't explain:

• What did the library board members do that the council found objectionable? Did they remove books? Did they refuse to remove books? What?
• Who requested that the sexually themed books be removed? The library board? A parents' group? Some local activist group? Who?
• Were the books actually removed, or was there just discussion about it?
• What action was criticized by the ALA? The action by the library board? The action by the council? There is no referent to this sentence.

Citations are there to provide reliable support for assertions. One shouldn't have to read them to figure out what's going on. --Sift&Winnow 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't all that complicated. People asked the library to remove some books. The board hasn't done that, so the city council refused to reappoint some of the board members. Then, the ALA and others criticized that act. --98.100.198.100 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was complicated. It's just that the writing was totally unclear - none of that was explained in the previous addition. --Sift&Winnow 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

98 - it looks like there are at least 2 people editing with your account. You are the good side of the account. There's someone else who's doing vandalism from the address. I urge you to sign up for your own account because the other "contributor" is leading you down a path toward getting the account blocked from editing. We'd love to keep your helpful editing available! Royalbroil 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As/after this develops, maybe this should be included: http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/west_bend_library_board/ --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no; that's a blog, and thus not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on the school boarddistrict; there is no article on either of the current high schools, nor on the old West Bend High School. The only reason I discovered this is that I was working on an article about a Socialist assemblyman who went to WBHS, and was startled to see a redlink. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in editing articles on the West Bend high schools several years ago, back when there was large sentiment to delete articles on high schools. An article on WB West ended up being merged and redirected to one article on the high schools. In the past week, I pointed all of the existing WB school redirects to a new article about the entire school district, West Bend School District. Is an article on the school board necessary? I would think that school board information could be included in the article about the district it manages. I am a high-school-inclusionist, though, and would support anyone who wants to create articles about WB West and WB East. Since they are housed in the same building and share so many facilities, I just left them together for the time being. Cheers --BaronLarf 21:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to Danbackhaus, I will list evidence of his WP:COI:

http://fearandloathinginwestbend.blogspot.com/2010/08/ginny-maziarka-attempts-to-rewrite.html

In particular see the comments. For the record, I thought Non-Censor was someone other than who Danbackhaus claims he is. Given Non-Censor's non frequent editing pattern, I am not posting a COI notice nor did I add an interested editor template like I did for Danbackhaus.

Danbackhaus, please read WP:COI and consider complying. Note, it is no problem to have a COI just so long as you declare it. For example, I have a COI but I declared it on my own page. Feel free to copy what you like from my COI notice onto your Danbackhaus User page.

Also for the record, I have been guiding Danbackhaus in the manner in which experienced Wiki editors should help newbies after Danbackhaus left a comment on my Talk page. So be sure everyone gives him some slack if things get thorny. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliolover added a lot of material to the library controversy section. It's not bad in a vacuum, but it does appear to violate WP:WEIGHT. Please everyone work together to trim back the section to make it Wiki complaint.

Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX to make Wikipedia say what you want it to say. That is just a general comment, not directed at Bibliolover.

Bibliolover should, however, consider complying with WP:COI as his record of edits seem to indicate one may be required. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have announced on my User page my COI regarding libraries. I hereby announce my COI regarding the library controversy issue in West Bend. A recent American Library Association annual conference speaker announced that I am changing the library profession and specifically named my involvement in West Bend as evidence. See SafeLibraries Changing Library Profession According to Speaker at ALA 2010 Annual Conference; SafeLibraries Welcomes Media Requests for ALA Balance.

That said, you may have noticed that I have made limited edits and reverts here, have suggested others chip in on the editing, and have gone out of my way to provide proper guidance to all editors here, including other editors having COIs. Hopefully my guidance will tamp down on problems while increasing the quality of the resulting Wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible WP:COI matter: Wikipedia Update. Will the person who runs "Fear and Loathing in West Bend" please identify which editor they are for COI purposes? Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the two references for the statement "objections to the presence of books depicting sex and homosexuality" (#7, CNN.com and #8, GMToday.com) make plain, the Maziarkas' complaint encompassed both sexually explicit and homosexual materials. Despite these third party, contemporaneous, unbiased sources, LAEC wants to rewrite the story to recast the complaint made by the Maziarkas as one that only encompasses "sexually explicit" materials, despite Maziarka's own statements to the contrary in the GMToday story. Given that LAEC [personal information redacted] appears to be advising Ginny Maziarka, I believe his conflict of interest is so great that he should refrain from editing this article unless he has a unbiased third-party reference that clearly contradicts the CNN and GMToday.com news reports. - Bibliolover (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting Bibliolover's edit that changed this:

The couple then amended their complaint to include objections to the presence of "sexually explicit books" in the young adult section of the library.

to this:

The couple then amended their complaint to include objections to the presence of books depicting sex and homosexuality in the young adult section of the library.

as the former is correct and fully supported by the references. I am doing this because of the references, not because of any COI. In this case, adherence with Wiki policy is my interest. But, in respect of the COI concern, I will spell this out clearly so it should not again be reverted.

The CNN ref says this:

"The strife began in February when West Bend couple Jim and Ginny Maziarka objected to some of the content in the city library's young-adult section. They later petitioned the library board to move any sexually explicit books -- the definition of which would be debated -- from the young-adult section to the adult section and to label them as sexually explicit."

So, the CNN ref is being used to support the claim that the complaint was amended to include objections to "sexually explicit books". The CNN ref itself says the issue started in February and the people "later petitioned", which, to me, provides direct support for an "amended complaint". Further, the complaint was amended "to move any sexually explicit books", and that provides direct support for saying, in quotation marks no less, "sexually explicit books".

On the other hand, the "books depicting sex and homosexuality" verbiage is in the CNN article, right at the top, but it was used generally, not specifically applied to the amended complaint: "A fight over books depicting sex and homosexuality has riled up a small Wisconsin city, cost some library board members their positions and prompted a call for a public book burning." The "books depicting sex and homosexuality" language simply does not apply to the amended complaint as the CNN article is written. Indeed it may implicitly apply to the initial complaint, not the amended one.

The second ref, from GMToday, does not support the existence of an amended complaint, at least from the limited view the web site provides. Therefore, not providing support for an amended complaint, it cannot possibly support what the amended complaint was about. Based on this, I would remove the GMToday story, except I cannot see the entire article, so I'll leave the ref in.

In summary, the GMToday ref is behind a pay wall, and the CNN ref supports the "sexually explicit books" language.

Normally, I might leave this edit for someone to do, but Bibliolover having just violated Wiki rules by outing me, waiting for his approval might just be a roadblock to the proper application of Wikipedia policy. So I'll go revert his edit now, and this instance has nothing to do with COI. Rather, is has to do with WP:RS, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the edit history of this section reveals a pattern of editing / edit-warring that appears to be aimed at hiding or eliminating the fact that the Maziarkas' complaint encompassed books that were "gay-affirming," to use Ginny Maziarka's own words.

My intial editing was aimed at providing a neutral account of the library controversy in West Bend that was factual, accurate, and fairly represented the events that took place in West Bend. That required adding references that clarified those events.

As for the disputed phrasing, I used and supported the language in the initial paragraph of the CNN story as a fair summary of the Maziarkas' complaint (as, I'm sure, did the CNN editors.) Other references supported this simplified summary, including the undisputed quotes attributed to Ginny Maziarka in the GMToday.com story. Also, the language from the initial paragraph of the CNN.con story appeared to address all the concerns of the many editors that have weighed in here on the topic in the most neutral manner available.

The reversion by LAEC seemed to be a furtherance of the edit-warring on this issue, especially given his personal involvement in the West Bend library controversy, so I reverted his changes.

LAEC seems determined to give particular weight to one particular sentence in the CNN.com story, despite other references that make it clear that the Maziarkas' complaint included "gay-affirming" books as well as books with sexual content - a conclusion that is supported by reading the CNN.com story itself as a whole, the written complaint filed by the Maziarkas, and other linked references.

LAEC argues that the phrase "later petitioned" indicates the existence of an "amended complaint," and therefore the content of the petition constitutes the content of the "amended complaint." The CNN.com story, however, never discusses or identifies an "amended complaint," so that the conclusion advanced by LAEC - that the petition is the amended complaint - represents LAEC's original research and not a reported fact. (see WP:OR).

LAEC's critique of the GMToday.com story - one among many sources identifying "gay-affirming" books as at least one of the subjects of the Maziarkas' complaint - seems to be that parts of the story are behind a pay wall. However, he does not dispute the accuracy of the quote attributed to Ginny Maziarka in the article or explain why an archived story maintained on the website owned by the publisher of the West Bend Daily News should be given any less weight than a story on CNN.com.

At this point, I'm fine with leaving the "sexually explicit" reference in, as long as the complaints about "books for youth on homosexuality" are included as well, since that appears, from the available references, to be the most accurate depiction of the Maziarkas' complaint.

As for outing LAEC, LAEC has disclosed both his identity and his personal involvement with the West Bend library controversy on numerous publicly available websites and blogs, many of which are linked directly from his Wikipedia profile page. I have inquired of a Wikipedia administrator, and have been told that given LAEC's own public disclosure of his identity, the harm was not that I disclosed that information, but that it was more appropriate, per Wikipedia policy, to raise that issue and post the information on the WP:COI noticeboard. I will do so as necessary in the future. -- Bibliolover (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliolover, your recent change is adequate and respectful of the reliable sources. Further, it satisfies the legitimate concerns I raised regarding adherence with WP:RS. Good job.

However, much of the rest of what you said is false and violates WP:AGF and possibly WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It was totally not needed.

Your own edit evidences you agreed with what I said about the references and found a workable way around the problem. No COI was involved. Indeed, despite your claim that you reverted my edit, you did not; instead, you added "as well as 'books for youth on homosexuality'".

May I suggest you read WP:RS again and closely as the following shows you still do not understand it because you are suggesting that the collection of references used in other parts of the article and a personal reading of the complaint magically applies to where the CNN ref is used:

LAEC seems determined to give particular weight to one particular sentence in the CNN.com story, despite other references that make it clear that the Maziarkas' complaint included "gay-affirming" books as well as books with sexual content - a conclusion that is supported by reading the CNN.com story itself as a whole, the written complaint filed by the Maziarkas, and other linked references.

Your ad hominem statements are not welcome and do not advance the interests of Wikipedia. To wit: "A review of the edit history of this section reveals a pattern of editing / edit-warring that appears to be aimed at hiding or eliminating the fact that the Maziarkas' complaint encompassed books that were 'gay-affirming,' to use Ginny Maziarka's own words." I understand you are relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'll give you slack. But I'll tell you that if you continue to edit as have done here, you will be further corrected by the Wikipedia community, as has already been done here for outing me. So my advice is go easy and try to form WP:Consensus. Be mindful of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Really, I mean this to help you.

Oh yes, I urge you to seek/obtain consensus on Talk pages before running off to file procedural efforts to stop me or anyone else from editing, as you have suggested above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make this brief: my description of the editing/edit war history was to the history as a whole, and not limited to a particular editor's edits; my reference to reverting LAEC's edit was to the reversion that undid LAEC's 01:43, 24 August 2010 edit, not the most recent edit; and I was not the first to raise the claim of edit-warring on this issue (see LAEC's comment for his 12:28, 19 August 2010 edit of this article.) And yes, I will continue to edit as I have here, adding authoritative references, clarifying events, and correcting outright errors, such as the mistaken claim/implication that the vote to oust the four library board trustees followed their vote to not place restrictions on books. (To prevent LAEC's outrage, please note that the error I discuss is attributable to many editors.) I stand by my observations here, which were cited to the editorial history of this page and demonstrable facts; in this case, "falsehood" and "ad hominem attacks" are in the eye of the beholder. As for good faith, it is hard to extend when it is not often extended or when an editor fails to fully disclose the salient details of his conflict of interest, which in this case includes personal involvement with, and advocacy on behalf of, some of the individuals discussed in the article. --Bibliolover (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anon editor has been adding Craig Domres to the notable people section of the West Bend, Wisconsin article. Craig Domres is an engineer from what I could find out. I invited the anon editor to sign up for an account and then write the article establishing what Craig Domres is notable. I am also concern about the BLP issues and possibly COI issues with this. Any comments would be welcome. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has become persistent enough that I have temporarily protected the article from anonymous edits due to this BLP vandal. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User:Jeff_the_quiet has added Sanford Fire Insurance Maps under the "external links" section. I checked and he has added this for many Wisconsin cities, not just West Bend. I don't think this is relevant enough to include as an external link, but it doesn't clearly violate any recommendations that I could find. I was hoping to get others feedback on if the maps are appropriate for the external links section. It was not explicitly clear in WP:EL. Appreciate any feedback. Seen a Mike (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are useful and do not appear to me to violate WP:EL in any way. It's not like he's advertising Sanford insurance or something. BTW: have you notified Jeff the quiet of this discussion? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the appropriate method of notifying User:Jeff_the_quiet? Just put a note on his talk page? Also, I do not see them as being "useful" for the average person looking for information on West Bend, which is why I questioned them. While I did not find a specific violation in WP:EL, it does say "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum." It also says, "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." I have not seen any justification for including this link. Seen a Mike (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys. When the WHS started putting the old maps online last year I was delighted, and started linking them into the Wiki articles because they are interesting to some, and because without these links most interested users would never find them at the WHS's website. The Wiki articles on many municipalities are pretty scant other than census data, lacking any detailed map whatsoever. Also, the old maps are related dead-on to the articles; e.g., the Wikipedia article on West Bend links to old maps of West Bend - not old maps of Washington County or the whole state of Wisconsin

However, from a careful reading of WP:EL, the links are admittedly in the gray. They come close to item 3 under WP:EL#What_can_normally_be_linked:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail...

The old maps certainly support an understanding of the history of the town, but whether it's "encyclopedic" depends on your definition.

So WP:EL aside, I appeal to common sense. The links provide an easy-to-use index to the old maps which isn't available elsewhere on the Internet. They should draw some people to our articles on Wisconsin towns, making Wikipedia and the Internet a little better, at the cost of one line per article. Jeff the quiet (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have decided the maps provided are a reasonable "external link" under the above argument, and have no objection to them staying. Just wanted to say it explicitly, in case this discussion is renewed by others at a later date. I did not abandon this discussion, but withdraw my original claim of "not relevant." Thanks go out to User:Jeff_the_quiet for his work on improving articles. *Seen a Mike* 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "Library controversy" should be located under the second level heading of "History." I don't consider the issue to be "historical." I think that the library controversy should be included in the article, just organized differently. I don't think it fits under any of the existing second level headings. I don't want to make the Library Controversy as a second level heading of its own, as that seems to over-emphasize the importance to the city. Any suggestions or opinions? *Seen a Mike* 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the town's history, and I can't think of any other header that would apply. As you say, giving it a separate header would make it a bit too much a WP:UNDUE violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really starting to sound like a Chamber of Commerce promotional piece. 32.218.44.12 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate your concerns. WP:TALK#USE *Seen a Mike* 16:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text. The requester added the entire article copied on to the talk page. This is not effective way to request changes. *Seen a Mike* 19:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Notable Persons Carl M. Kuss Reliable Source Facebook Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=carl%20m%20kuss https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=122963987779676&story_fbid=678599728882763

Give me a break. He had most athletic letters in college than anyone in the State of Wisconsin http://www.ci.west-bend.wi.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.mapLocation&mapLocationID=40228Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Area52-1 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) http://portfolio-nicholasdettmann.blogspot.com/2014/07/characteristics-winning-part-of-carl-m.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.riverfallsjournal.com/content/nine-be-inducted-uw-rf-athletic-hall-fameCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Area52-1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Area52-1 23:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Facebook is almost never considered a reliable source. Cannolis (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Notable Persons

Carl M. Kuss

http://www.ci.west-bend.wi.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.mapLocation&mapLocationID=40228Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://washingtoncountyinsider.com/tag/carl-m-kuss-field/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://portfolio-nicholasdettmann.blogspot.com/2014/07/characteristics-winning-part-of-carl-m.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www2.uwrfsports.com/sports/2010/7/24/SI_0724101353.aspx?id=73Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

http://www.eteamz.com/wbba/files/CarlKussBio.pdfCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Area52-1 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Area52-1 23:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The person must have an article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pathways Charter School closed in June 2019. Also, UWWC is now UW-Milwaukee Washington County extension or something along those lines.

Cmarsch (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Cmarsch[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Downtown West Bend has a movie theater which originally opened in 1929. The theater was last renovated in 1992 to house a total of three movie screens.[29] The theater was closed and listed for sale in January 2012, with a purchase occurring in May 2012.[30] The theater has not been re-opened for any purpose."

TO

"Downtown West Bend has a movie theater which originally opened in 1929. The theater was last renovated in 1992 to house a total of three movie screens.[29] The theater was closed and listed for sale in January 2012, with a purchase occurring in May 2012.[30] The building was then purchased in July of 2017 by The Historic West Bend Theatre, Inc. (HWBT) with the purpose of restoring the 1929 Art Deco brick building. Construction began in April 2019. Source The theatre official reopened under the name of "The Bend" in March of 2020 and will be hosting a variety of shows including music, movies, comedy, and more. Source" Wi-980 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DenisKelling.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]