Wikipedia

Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 6

< Talk:Minneapolis
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Oldsanfelipe in topic Undue attention to topics that go beyond a "general overview."
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Waterfall - factual inconsistency

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the second para of the History section, the article describes Saint Anthony Falls as 'the only waterfall on the Mississippi'. This appears not to be true; the town of Little Falls, MN was built on a falls further upstream. The Saint Anthony Falls page is more equivocal about their status, describing it as 'the only natural major waterfall on the Upper Mississippi River' - that doesn't preclude lesser waterfalls, unnatural (?) waterfalls or major waterfalls on the Lower Mississippi, so that writer certainly hedged their bets!

I don't know what the best correction would be - I'm not from the area, or an expert on the river, I was doing some research on the city and noticed the discrepancy. While the falls at Little Falls may not be as large as Saint Anthony Falls, they were large enough to power saw-mills. Perhaps alter the MPLS article to read 'the only major waterfall on the Upper Mississippi'. Thoughts? Megabuck61 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference 6 is invalid

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reference 6 is invalid. 24.245.45.78 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, now on 07. 2008 estimates not released yet for cities. davumaya 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New link for "mni" "polis"

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  Resolved

I don't have time to fix it myself right now, but the source given for the etymology of Dakota mni Greek polis is broken. A new source can be found at [1]. If someone can add this, that would be great, or I'll come back sometime when I can find the time to spare. —Angr 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the time (it didn't take as long as I expected it to) and have replaced the source. —Angr 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Minneapolis Pops Orchestra

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just created a (for now) severely stubby new article titled Minneapolis Pops Orchestra. Tasks:

  • Expand the article.
  • Decide which additional category tags it should bear (and add them).
  • Decide which other articles should link to it (and add the links).

Happy editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dakota/Lakota

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 

A few weeks ago, someone switched all mentions of "Dakota" to "Lakota", and I'm not sure if that was correct. Although the Lakota, along with the rest of the Sioux, originated in Minnesota, meaning they could have been the source of the name, they had been out of the area for several decades (see the map to the right, which is a fairly accurate dipiction of the situation by the early 19th century). In other words, it is somewhat counterintuitive that things in eastern Minnesota would be named for a group that was by that time about 400 miles to the west by the early 1800s. AlexiusHoratius 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is a bit humorous to see. Lakota are indeed a different tribe -- the western Sioux. I'll first off state that my friend of Omaha-Ponca descent (another western Siouan people) often cracks jokes on the cultural differences between LaKHota and Dakota people, having moved to Mpls from Nebraska. However in seriousness, I can give the zealous editor some benefit of a doubt as non-natives can easily be confused about the differences and similarities. For example the article Sioux states Lakota and Dakota are essentially the same name. However, the distinction is that they are of different dialects. The tribes that settled near Minneapolis were mostly Mdewakanton and clearly Isanti/Santee Sioux, who would call themselves Dakota. And while Lakota descendants may have traversed the Minnesota River, there is no evidence in the historic and spoken record of settlement. Furthermore as you stated Alexius, both sub-groups have assumed the separate names to denote themselves geographically -- so in modern times it is even more erroneous to consider them one in the same. davumaya 11:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, works for me; I went ahead and switched them all back to "Dakota". (I think I got them all.) Looking back on it, some of the instances were simply wrong, such as "the Mdewakanton band of the Lakota", which I suppose brings the validity of the entire original switch into question. AlexiusHoratius 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Demographics lovefest

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have significantly reduced the demo section (again). Firstly, its grown beyond summary style, and secondly, it appeared oddly peppered by rather racially motivated statements that seem to continually contradict the original intent of the summary. That editor in question has in fact been blocked for similar edits on another page. While seemingly, most people should "get it" that a huge paragraph detailing immigration from across the globe to our fair city represents the fact Mpls is diverse and requires no quantification, I can see where people desire hard cold data on the topic. Also we need a better summary of demographic changes and poverty. With this model we should be able to summarize the demo section into three paragraphs A) Immigration and makeup from 1800s to now B) Demographics as they are today, under rep pops such as GLBT C) Recent significant changes, poverty, challenges for tomorrow As always a note to editors that additional data such as minute breakdowns in Census numbers really belong in the Demographics of Minneapolis page. davumaya 13:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Plus World City

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

User:209.162.47.29 has added "As of 2008, the GWaC ranks Minneapolis as a "gamma " world city" to the end of the lead paragraph twice in the last three days ([2], [3]). While true (see Global_city#GaWC_studies), I believe the statement isn't important enough to be included in the lead. Perhaps it could be worked in to the "Economics" section with additional context (why is Minneapolis a gamma-plus city)? MildlyMadContribs 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not letting this in until someone clearly explains what a GAWC rating is. davumaya 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
If you go to global city you can learn more. Right now there is no standard accepted rating. In fact the one cited by the anon IP (who has spelled it wrong it appears) comes from the GaWC out of Loughborough University in England.

One of the first attempts to define, categorize, and rank global cities was made in 1998 by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) based at the geography department of Loughborough University.

Importantly, the article states that while there is consensus for the *top* global cities, there is really no accepted standard of rankings below that, making a "Gamma" whatever rating rather superfluous and unknown at this time. What does this mean in global context? Not even the Loughborough University GaWC really knows. It's sort of an arbitrary lower category. davumaya 08:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The same IP has added this again (and I reverted it). I left one last request for discussion on the talk page [4]. Mildly MadTC 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Twin Citian" from "Demonym" field in infobox

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I undid the edit that added "Twin Citian" (in reference to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area) to the Demonym field in the infobox. Since a Demonym is necessarily derived from the place name, it should not be included in this article, but might be worthy of addition in Twin Cities. Mildly MadTC 21:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the removal - as "Twin Citian" doesn't mean the same thing as "a person from Minneapolis", whereas "Minneapolitan" does. (All Minneapolitans are Twin Citians, but not all Twin Citians are Minneapolitans - It's the same case as "Minnesotan".) I also don't think I've ever actually heard the term "Twin Citian". AlexiusHoratius 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I support for the reasons above, and have also never heard anyone use that term. Jrt989 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiawatha Yellow Line?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article refers to the Hiawatha Line as the "yellow line LRT". I have not heard that term used at all to describe it. I can't find any references to that term in either Hennepin County or Metro Transit documents. Nor is it mentioned in the Wiki article on the line.

Where did this term come from? I think it should be removed.T-bonham (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, as I've never heard it called that either. A google search yields no relevant results. Thanks! Mildly MadTC 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Guthrie as "the prototype alternative"

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Arts section of the article previously referred to the Guthrie as "the prototype alternative to Broadway". Although I have read that the founders were disatisfied with conditions on Broadway, and that the Guthrie opening is sometimes referred to as an "oak tree" as opposed to an "acorn" (i.e., full-grown, well-funded, using nationally known actors), I have never read or heard of the Guthrie being positioned as "the prototype alternative to Broadway" - and neither of the references cited support this. This claim tends to diminish work of theaters such as Arena Stage and the Alley Theatre, which existed prior to the Guthrie.

Please discuss here if you have support for this claim.

Bfx12a9 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The source given ("Theater History" at the Guthrie's website) says "The Guthrie became a prototype for an important new kind of theater in contrast to the commercial environment of Broadway." I don't care much what changes you make, and the Guthrie could easily be mistaken about itself, but I dislike the complaint. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the article to say "a prototype" in place of "the prototype". There are plenty of other sources, but this one might include the earlier theatres you mention (I don't know why else the author would hedge), "After some discussion with Sir Tyrone Guthrie and visits to seven cities, they set their sights on Minneapolis and all but pioneered the regional theater movement at the Guthrie Theater. " -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you hit on the perfect solution: there's a big difference between "a" and "the". Bfx12a9 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh good, glad you're happy. Thanks for the correction! -SusanLesch (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No Spoon picture?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

When I visit the Minneapolis page I am bewildered at the lack of GOOD skyline photos. For a city it's size it has an amazing skyline and I would figure that the article would want to shine light on that fact. Every time a decent photo is posted in the infobox it isn't long before it is re-replaced by the Lake Calhoun photo that to be honest, isn't very good. If you look up articles of cities of similar size (city and metro) almost all have a great skyline photo. And the majority of the other photos peppered in throughout the article have been there since I can remember. Maybe time to change it up and give the photos a much-needed facelift? [post by 24.196.160.175 at 14:09, 2 April 2010, moved from Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 1 - SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)]

I daresay each person has an opinion, and that posting this note opens this discussion again. I've tried about one hundred different skylines (most of them are in commons:Category:Skylines of Minneapolis, Minnesota) and always come back to this one, because it contains a skyline and it shows a lake. We are very lucky to have it, by photographer Alfred Essa--for example art.com sells a similar photo. I am afraid that I don't believe anybody who says the spoon sculpture matters (and besides it is copyrighted, according to for example, "Although the original flickr image is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 style license, the image can only be used under the fair-use provisions on Wikipedia, because it is a photograph of a copyrighted work (and could thus be considered derivative), where the original work is situated in a jurisdiction that does not recognise freedom of panorama." on this sculpture in Chicago). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there no numbers given for per capita and household income for the city? Or did I just miss them? Those would be useful. They're included for Wiki articles on other municipalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.64.90 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical population
CensusPop.Note%±
18605,809—
187013,800137.6%
188046,887239.8%
1890164,738251.4%
1900202,71823.1%
1910301,40848.7%
1920380,58226.3%
1930464,35622.0%
1940492,3706.0%
1950521,7186.0%
1960482,872−7.4%
1970434,400−10.0%
1980370,951−14.6%
1990368,383−0.7%
2000382,6183.9%
2009 (est.)385,542
  • or
Population History
Year Population Number of Population in Minneapolis
1860 5,809 -
1870 13,800 -
1880 46,887 38th
1890 164,738 18th
1900 202,718 19th
1910 301,408 18th
1920 380,582 18th
1930 464,356 15th
1940 492,370 16th
1950 521,718 17th
1960 482,872 25th
1970 434,400 32th
1980 370,951 34th
1990 368,383 42th
2000 382,618 45th
2009 385,542 48th

Ross Degenstein (talk) 96.3.201.230 (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Skyline

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I found a new view of Minneapolis on a walk around Lake of the Isles. It is far superior to any other view of the "City of Lakes". If someone else wants to make a photo of it, that's fine (I am not tied to my version). But it's not fine to substitute run-of-the-mill skylines here. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just took a new one from basically the same spot as the photo that had been here, but with a bit of fall color and the unexpected effect of having the lake calm enough to reflect the buildings pretty well. I don't really mind which one is used. (I agree with your earlier posts that the montage that keeps popping up is a no-go, though.) AlexiusHoratius 19:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

picture

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why does the picture of the skyline have to keep being changend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.218.225 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The one at the moment I'm looking at now looks terrible. It seems like MPLS has maybe four large buildings. Might as well make it Bloomington's. Lakes don't always need to be in the top --there is room in the article. --Bobak (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Another editor (the 2 threads before this) sounded like they really wanted a lake. I could go either way - with a lake the buildings are small, but without one it might as well be Dallas. The lakes are (sort of) the namesake, but then again having a large city be near a body of water isn't all that unique, if you think about it. Someone made a montage once, but I've never liked montages and the one that was here had a huge (and somewhat redundant) photo of the Capella Tower for some reason. The two main lakes to the south (Isles and Calhoun) both sort of have advantages and disadvantages as well. With Calhoun more of the buildings are visible but also look smaller than one from Lake of the Isles, as you're going to be 2 miles or so further south. I suppose the best compromise would be a photo looking south with the river in front, but I've never personally been able to get south-facing photos to turn out very well, and the ones on commons either look hazy or the skyline is sort of an afterthought. The city's website has a good one at the top, but it would be impossible to get a free version ourselves with leaves on the trees without waiting six months. I guess personally I could go with either a lake or one with just the skyline- I just don't like montages. AlexiusHoratius 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Minneapolis is literally called "City of Lakes", and actually has more than 20 lakes within or on the boarder of the city itself, the picture with the lake is much more appropriate. Rapier (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation sound file

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sound file for the pronunciation cuts off too soon, it only says "Minneapola". --76.113.192.208 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It worked okay for me (although I don't know too much about how sound files work). Try it again maybe. AlexiusHoratius 03:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most dates referring to 2010 are in future tense and should be changed to past tense, specifically in the transportation section.

The planned second light rail line, the Central Corridor, will share stations with the Hiawatha line in downtown Minneapolis, and then at the Downtown East/Metrodome station, travel east through the University of Minnesota, and then along University Ave. into downtown St. Paul. Construction will begin in 2010 and expected completion is in 2014.

and

Starting in 2011 the city's limit of 343 taxis will be lifted.

Has construction started on the rail line? I'll change the taxi line, but should it be kept? Silv the Something (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Geography Section: Incorrect temperature, also Reference 30 invalid

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section on "Geography and Climate," it says 'the coldest temperature ever recorded was −41 °F (−41 °C), in January 1888. It is impossible to be both -41 ˚F and -41 ˚C. Which one was it?
Furthermore, Reference 30 appears to be a dead link.

Thanks for the input! I updated the source with a currently working website that appears to be similar to the old source. As for the temperature, recall that -40˚F = -40˚C, so the numbers for -41˚ ought to be close. In fact, if you convert -41˚F to Celsius, it is equal to -40.55˚C, which rounds to -41˚C, so the article is correct. Mildly MadTC 04:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

New page for infobox discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The infobox back-and-forth has started again. I made a gallery of some possible choices along with comments at User:AlexiusHoratius/Minneapolis in the hope of settling on something. People can feel free to add more photos and comments if they wish there, or obviously here as well. Like I said there, don't take anything personal. AlexiusHoratius 05:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I got this idea the other day from this photo in a book at Barnes & Noble - I think it was taken on Lake of the Isles. It showed plenty of the lake and trees but also much more of the buildings than I think is possible from the shore (I've tried) so I was thinking maybe in May after the leaves are out I could rent one of those boats at Lake Calhoun, paddle around L of the I until I found something promising, and get a photo that way. AlexiusHoratius 06:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a "water-centric" picture should do, as the City of Lakes it should have some water in it! No, but I'm completely open. Just something that isn't to obscure, but shows the "green" side of the city. Something from Lake Calhoun would be nice. Coming west from Minnetonka you can also get some good shots from certain spots on the freeway. Hard to tell though. You probably have a better chance on one of the lakes. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I always was of the mind that Isles was better due to proximity, but this photo is really good, and is from Calhoun, I'm pretty sure. May need a camera that zooms well, though. Something to consider. We have a bit of time before the chance take some more, as the trees are still leafless. One other matter that should at least be mentioned is that the logo (which in my opinion doesn't help much) streches the infobox even more than normal, which makes a taller photo or a montage a bit more of a problem. Maybe one of these days I'll go to Lake Calhoun and see if my camera can handle it. One other option would be the Broadway bridge or Plymouth Avenue bridge, but that's looking south and is a bit trickier with the light. AlexiusHoratius 09:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I also don't like the logo. Maybe it should just be removed? Or find a lower place in the infobox for it. 08OceanBeachS.D. 09:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
One issue with the logo is that it's non-free and only used here, so removing it (which would mean the file would probably get deleted) is a bit more of an issue than simply removing a normal photo. But I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't use both a tall photo and the logo - it should either be just a photo or a narrow photo the logo. The more I think about it, the more I like the current image. It isn't perfect, being a bit tall and the power lines, but I'm cool with it until something better comes along. The St. Anthony Main area (where the current photo is from) certainly is another location option. Again facing south, but if it were morning or around sunset it might be doable. AlexiusHoratius 09:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I also like the image now, but I chose it haha. I didn't even notice the power lines. Well I guess we could just make the logo smaller? A sunset photo from the area would be nice. 08OceanBeachS.D. 09:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, 08OceanBeach SD, but don't you have a GA nomination underway at San Diego? I thought that would have priority over a photo here. Also may I ask what is your interest in those two cities? (I grew up in Minneapolis and now live in San Diego.) -SusanLesch (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a lot of articles that I work on yes. Well since you ask, a large part of my family comes from Minneapolis and I travel there often. Hopefully that is enough for you to justify my edits on Twin Cities related articles. 08OceanBeachS.D. 06:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for asking. It's just that I take a nomination like that seriously and there is so much work to do! Well done, keep up the good work. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Saint Anthony Falls 1915 picture

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

A discrepancy I noticed: The panoramic picture of early 20th-century St. Anthony Falls claims it was taken in 1915. In the center "frame", you can clearly see the footings for the Third Avenue Bridge being put in. However, the article about said bridge states that construction began on it in 1917. I can do some research on it later tonight, but I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has a better idea of the real dates. Mildly MadTC 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Mildly Mad. This pic from 1917 has a different view of construction. The Library of Congress says they got a copyright deposit in 1915. So it is pretty tough to say since nobody around now was there at the time. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This article (not necessarily a WP:RS IMO) states construction began in 1916 and finished 1918. Also, the Library of Congress entry for the panorama states the photo is "c. 1915". More mysteries; I wonder if there's a plaque or something around the bridge or in the St. Anthony Falls park? Mildly MadTC 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I can look this week for a plaque on the bridge. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you I changed the date on this photo to say "circa" 1915 and also changed the article about the bridge. I couldn't find a plaque on the bridge. Down below it in St. Anthony Water Power Park there is a plaque about the bridge. Here's what I gather from that plaque and this article at MnDOT. Sometime before December 1915 (when AM Richter wrote an article for Engineering News) Cappelen overcame City Council objections to a design that was started maybe as long before as 1912 and that worried everyone who remembered the collapse of the Eastman Tunnel in the 1860s. His redesign was approved, begun in 1914, and completed in 1918. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Great find! That paper quotes an article from 1915 Engineering News, starting on page 4:
  • "The first coffer-dam (pier No. 2) was begun Aug. 2, 1914, and the pier work was finished June 28, 1915."
  • "The first arch rib, between piers Nos. 2 and 3, was poured July 8, 1915"
  • ""In October, 1915, the timber for the first three 211-ft. spans was moved over to the 134-ft. spans in order to finished the arches before cold weather sets in."
Based on that information, it sounds like most of the main construction occurred in 1915, so that date may be accurate after all. Mildly MadTC 21:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. For some reason even that file says the bridge was built in 1917 (and then contradicts itself) so maybe that will help to explain the confusion. Thanks for the corrections. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:MinneapolisSkyline.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:MinneapolisSkyline.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo captions in Religion and charity

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Sean, I thank you for your addition to this article. A photo of St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral was replaced by a photo of St. Mary's. Not even St. Mary's claims it was the first basilica in North America. I think that honor belongs to Notre-Dame Basilica-Cathedral (Quebec City). In any case, this part is already in the article. The architectural captions are evenly applied to both the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reverting your caption at this time but I don't think this level of detail about one specific religion's diocese belongs here to the exclusion of details about another. Why not add this to the article about Minneapolis–Saint Paul, which already mentions the diocese? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Susan, I'm not trying to favor a particular sect over another, but the fact that the city of Minneapolis holds the first basilica in the United States (and I do thank you for that correction, there are conflicting sources out there) is notable. The only reason the Lutheran church is notable is the architecture of the building (from a completely irrelevant personal point of view, I've never understood what people found so amazing about that place. I lived about two blocks away from it for years and always thought it was singularly unattractive - but that's me). St. Mary's has other "claims to fame". **edit** However, working on the idea that more information is better than less, I've restored the caption with the architectural information and added the additional notability information to the body of the section. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You have posted your comments to my talk page instead of here so I replied there. I don't see much point in duplicating my effort. Also I'm wondering why you didn't answer my previous question above. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Largest metro area on the Mississippi

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Considering the economic and cultural importance of the Mississippi River, I think it would be an interesting tidbit to mention that the Greater Minneapolis area is the most populous metropolitan area on the entire stretch of the 2,500 mile river. --MarioSmario (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Population ranking??

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to this article, the Greater Minneapolis area is the 16h largest in the United States. But the same ranking is claimed for St.Louis, Mo. Both cities cannot be the 16th largest. --MarioSmario (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your answer.--Louiedog (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I fixed the St. Louis claim.--Louiedog (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Culture?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What about having a section on culture? I wanted to add wikilinks to Minnesota cuisine articles, but I didn't see where the appropriate section would be. I think the food, music, and entertainment should have a section. Perhaps combined with the arts? Or separate would be okay too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The culture section was excised because there wasn't quite enough solid consensus on what is Mpls culture. For example in the past few years, all of our major high cuisine established restaurants closed and we lost a few downtown clubs. The Arts Section pretty much hits all the main points including a touch on Music and Ent as well. You can try creating a Culture of Minneapolis page and inserting various tidbits there to be recombined back a later date. davumaya 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a word about it being the city of Omaha the Cat Dancer?41.83.25.78 (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-semitism claims

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The current third paragraph of the History section (beginning "Minneapolis was rated as the most anti-semitic city in the United States up until the 1970s") seems to contain only content that is almost entirely unsupported by the one reference given. There is nothing in the cited source for the claims about Jews not being allowed to attend the U of M (in fact, there is a picture of members of a Jewish club at the U of M in 1925-1926), nor for the claims about the revision of the admission policies. The paper cites a 1946 paper for a claim that Mpls was the "capitol [sic] of anti-semitism" of the US, but there's nothing about it being "rated" such, certainly not to the 1970s. Until any of the content of this paragraph can be substantiated, I'm going to remove the entire thing, moving the reference into the section on demographics. Mundart (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mundart. That paragraph was added in April of this year. My edit summary says let's accept the source as "impeccable". I can't do it right now but will read it again. It was unfortunately the only source given by the editor who added the paragraph. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to start. The article used to say "Minneapolis was rated as the most anti-semitic city in the United States up until the 1970s (sometimes attributed to the large number of Lutherans in the city and the anti-semitic history of Martin Luther)." The source says that Carey McWilliams' study of 1946 found it "the capitol [sic] of anti-semitism in the United States" and that Michael G. Rapp (in his PhD thesis) covered anti-semitism from 1920 to the 1960s. But you're right, nowhere does the source say anything about Martin Luther. My apologies for accepting this source without a lot of thought. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. The claims struck me as extraordinary, so I did indeed try to read the whole cited source, which, as you wrote, does indeed seem to be impeccable: carefully researched, and with judicious conclusions. The paragraph written just didn't seem to bear much resemblance to the facts and claim of the citation, hence my caution. Mundart (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
About half done reading. Again, I'm sorry, this was entirely my fault. I guess the editor who added this was thinking they needed to contribute above and beyond their source which became creative writing. There is no mention of "Mount Sinai" although hospitals are mentioned on page 170. Also I do not find in Google or in list of presidents of the U of M anyone named Johnston. (There was an architect with this name, and I don't know if Johnston Hall was named for him or for somebody else.) So what I propose to do is add one sentence back into the history section, based completely on the source. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Woops, Mt. Sinai is indeed mentioned on page 182. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Mundart, do you think the paragraph that's in place now is all right? Improvements most welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thanks for doing it! Mundart (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rape

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Highest rates in the US. This page isn't just supposed to be an advertizement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.145.106 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Source? Mildly MadTC 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.179.92 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this has been fixed. The article now says (nevermind Rybak and Dolan press conferences) this city is the 10th most dangerous in the U.S. We still need a good source for the rape rate. Unfortunately the editor who cited the FBI didn't link to the statistic. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Also I accidentally removed someone's counterargument to Minneapolis being one of the most dangerous cities. It was a 2009 list of America's safest cities. The statement made was misleading at best. Minneapolis is not on Forbes' list for 2010 or 2011. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

zip / area codes

Are these in the box: 

ZIP codes 	55401 – 55487
Area code(s) 	612

for the city limits of Mpls or does it include the suburbs? The city zip codes are roughly 55401 thru 55419 excluding much of 55416 plus 55454,55455 some small areas down town have: 55479, 55487, 55489 Many of those from 55420 to 55487 are in the suburbs. On the other hand the suburbs have area codes 763 and 952 area codes (and St Paul has 651) This seems a bit inconsistant. Fholson 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

Murderapolis

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I received a good comment about this, and have removed the following sentence from the Media section. It's a 15-year-old nickname that is probably (not universally, and) only selectively remembered.

The New York Times said in 1996, "Now there are T-shirts that read, 'Murderapolis,'" a name for the city that members of the local media have mistakenly attributed to the paper.[1]

If someone inserts it in the future, please remove it. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Anderson, G.R. Jr. (2007-03-21). "The Human Shield". City Pages. 28 (1372). Village Voice Media. and Shortal, Jana (April 6, 2007). "Gang violence on the rise? Some veteran officers say Yes". KARE-11. and Johnson, Dirk (June 30, 1996). "Nice City's Nasty Distinction: Murders Soar in Minneapolis". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-04-06.

"Government" section is largely not

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section "government" is largely devoted to a detailed (and not very clear) discussion of various crime rates over the last 25-100 years. My instinct is to lop this off into its own section ("Crime"? something else?). Any thoughts? --JBL (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need a whole section about Crime. But if you wish to replace those two paragraphs with something else, it would be fine to completely remove that history. I'm sorry I included more about the neighborhoods (funding which I think is now defunct) and police and crime because of lack of other material. Thanks.-SusanLesch (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Races, Running and Fitness

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why does the comment about running races sound like an ad for Team Ortho? The Twin Cities Marathon is huge and has a prize pot that draws elites; the Minneapolis Marathon is a small no-money affair. Mentioning the Twin Cities Marathon specifically and some statistic about the large number of additional running races in the Twin Cities seems more legit, since TCM is the only world-class running event I'm aware of in the city. Also, why single out running when the local bike culture is massive? And what about other outdoor activities? Talindsay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Religion and Charity bias

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The section entitled "Religion and Charity" is in dire need of updating / revision. It, perhaps purposefully, omits any discussion of Muslims and the rich tradition their faith has within the twin cities (especially with the recent immigration from East Africa). In lieu of that, it DOES have a lot of information about Evangelicalism. Which, while noteworthy as there is a high concentration of Evangelicals in the area, might explain why other faiths are left out. I would hate for the page on Mpls to display what might be seen as a subtle act of racism (privileging "white" religions over others). I would suggest either removing this section (my preferred option) if it cannot be inclusive or heavily revising / amending it. Thoughts? matthew (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Matthew c, if you have knowledge of a Muslim tradition, and sources, please add them. I don't know anything about it and apologize for perceived bias. A long history of Evangelicalism dates back to at least Billy Graham and I don't think that should be removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I added one sentence (Google Books let me in for a minute). When and where was the first mosque in Minneapolis? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Two and a half years and nobody added a source for the first mosque in Minneapolis. Anybody? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  Done Almost four years later, my friend John happened to remember that Black Muslims built a mosque in Minneapolis. So, the first one had nothing to do with the "recent immigration from East Africa". Certainly the continuing history relates to immigration, which the article now covers. Anyway, Matthew c, thank you for your comment which I believe has been addressed. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The infobox collage that we had was deleted for sourcing issues, which means this is a good time to talk about infobox images. What should the infobox image display? Is a single image preferable to a collage? If a collage is the better option, what should be included in it? Below is a gallery of Minneapolis's infobox images in the past year or two for reference.

I'm in favor of a collage, but unlike image C, it ought to include more than just downtown. I'd nominate pictures of 1) the skyline 2) a lake (or maybe one of the pictures that has both), 3) the LRT (though it's already pictured in the article), 4) First Avenue, 5) Spoonbridge and Cherry, 6) The May Day Parade, 7) The Guthrie, 8) City Hall (though it's already pictured in the article), 9) skyways, 10) something religious. Thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We've discussed this for years, and tried perhaps a hundred different photos. Minneapolis is the "City of Lakes" (not the city of "Spoon" or "Parades" or "concrete") so we have the photo we have (your choice #2). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm happy with that! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 15:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sports in the metro area

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Barryjjoyce. This article is about Minneapolis. It is not about Minneapolis–Saint Paul. I reverted your edit and hope to avoid an edit war. You're welcome to make an argument here. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims in your edit summary, a search of the archives at Wikiproject Cities (for sport or sports) finds no agreement to include metro areas in "every city" article. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a very strange misreading of the (correct) edit summary: if you look at the sports subsection of any major American city, you will see listed teams that play in the suburbs (e.g., New England Patriots and Revolution in Boston, New York Jets and Giants and Islanders, Detroit Pistons, etc.), accompanied by the observation that they do not play in the city proper. This is also obviously sensible. Probably the article should also mention the Wild. (I don't really see what value the table adds to this section, though.)--JBL (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fine with me. But where do you stop, sportsfans? Shareholders will want their suburban companies listed. Students at Mankato State will want their school listed. If you and Barryjjoyce wish to go to WikiProject Cities and make your case, I'll be happy to add back soccer and hockey. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Slippery slope arguments are almost always bad arguments; this case does not seem to be an exception. Also, there is no obligation for anyone to make any case at any wiki project before editing an article. --JBL (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Aha, and I see the Wild actually are mentioned in the article, as is appropriate. As a side-note, although I entered this conversation to disagree with you, I am very impressed by the amount of excellent work you do on this article! --JBL (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you on behalf of hundreds of editors. Because I included the Mayo Clinic and Rochester ("75-minute drive away") in this article, I guess your solution is reasonable, thank you. I asked Barryjjoyce to at least read this with Talkback. Maybe you gentlemen can figure out why the Lynx (2x WNBA champions) are not in the list of teams on the door to TicketKing in downtown Minneapolis. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, and my apologies for anything I've said (beyond the content disagreement) that was offensive -- if you have suggestions for how I should approach similar situations differently in the future, I would be happy to hear them --JBL (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: @Joel B. Lewis: Good discussion here folks. I'm fine with many of the changes. I've reinstated the table, so I'll explain why. These tables are a common feature (although not a universal practice) of the sports sections of city pages — see Denver, Seattle, and Dallas for a few examples. You can think of them as somewhat similar to an infobox. They help the reader identify the most prominent teams and the key features of those teams at a glance.

On a related but slightly different issue, if either or both of you are looking for ways to trim the sports section of this article, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 — which drone on at length about the construction and demolition of various venues — would be good candidates to trim, or to move to the Sports in Minnesota article.
And I echo JBL's praise re Susan's overall contributions to this article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My fault, Ticket King is a local company. I went in and asked the manager but she said the Lynx weren't part of their business model. No matter, they are the city's biggest story in sports in a decade, so I thought a fair topic for this discussion. Maybe when I get back from Wikibreak more cuts will make sense. Thanks for the ideas. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't quite understood the role of TicketKing in this discussion. (I would have thought that they don't list the Lynx because of the unfortunate cultural bias in this country against women's athletics, which perhaps is reflected in the comment from the manager that you mention.) The Lynx are mentioned in the article, and I agree that they could support more than the sentence or two currently devoted to them. I also agree with Barryjjoyce about cutting some of the middle paragraphs.--JBL (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As I recall this article was a model for WikiProject Cities (possibly right about the time Derek Cashman wrote US Guideline in April and May 2007). I don't mind as long as you tread carefully. For example, "Notable people" has absolutely no place here. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't include the Notable people section, but am interested as to your objections for including it, since it will put this city out of conforming to the other top 100 cities.Onel5969 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The guideline explains it this way: "If the section grows then it may be split out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article or list (such as List of people from Foo) which can be linked to via the {{main}} template placed at the top of the section. However, it is common for a link to just be placed in the 'see also' section." -SusanLesch (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, but most other pages (and now the top 50) all have a section which shows in the menu at the top of page, even if it is simply to have a link to the separate page. When you simply put the link in the "see also" section, it doesn't appear in the top menu, making it more difficult for folks to find.Onel5969 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want them to match, I have no objections at all to doing what you've done, for example at New_York_City#Notable_people. I misunderstood and thought we were going to have a discussion all over again about every person who ever lived or traveled here. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Hoag

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello. Is there any reason we can't link "the city's first schoolteacher" to his article? I really don't think Hoag is the most famous person who ever lived there. So why is he the only person mentioned in the lead? In one week I'll come back to switch this link unless there are objections. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Image(s) in sidebar infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There have been a lot of edits recently to the images in the infobox sidebar at the top of the article. Could someone please explain what it's all about? Thanks. --JBL (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been me a lot. A user uploaded a new collage which was mostly nonfree images. It was deleted, then I checked the previous collage, which that user had also uploaded, and it turned out to also be mostly unfree images. I've replaced both now deleted collages with a free image that had previously lived in the infobox, although other (read: free) collages or images are certainly welcome to replace the one I put in for now. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. My personal preference is a montage in the infobox, but I completely understand why Bobamnertiopsis removed them. I've created montages for several articles (like Phoenix), and if we can get a consensus on the photos to include (usually between 5-7) I can whip out a montage within a day or so. I'll post some options which I feel are nice shots, and if we can get some feedback here, once there are "winners" by consensus, then I can create the montage. All the pics I post will be from Commons, so they are free.
  •  
    #1 - Aerial Downtown Minneapolis Mississippi River
  •  
    #2 - Northrop Mall panorama
  •  
    #3 - University of Minnesota Panorama
  •  
    #4 - Target Field at night
  •  
    #5 - Walker Art Center
  •  
    #6 - Guthrie Theater
  •  
    #7 - Voya Financial Building
  •  
    #8 - Midtown Exchange
  •  
    #9 - Minneapolis Armory
  •  
    #10 - Minneapolis Central Library
  •  
    #11 - Minneapolis Grain Exchange
  •  
    #12 - North Branch Library
  •  
    #13 - Amos B. Coe House
  •  
    #14 - Weisman Art Museum
  •  
    #15 - Weisman Art Museum
  •  
    #16 - Minneapolis Institute of Arts
  •  
    #17 - Mill City River
  •  
    #18 - Downtown aerial
  •  
    #19 - St. Anthony Falls
  •  
    #20 - Loring Park Aerial
  •  
    #21 - Downtown from Central Ave.
  •  
    #22 - Minneapolis SkyLine.jpg
  •  
    #23 - Minneapolis riverfront
  •  
    #24 - Kenwood Water Tower
  •  
    #25 - The Depot
  •  
    #26 - LaSalle Building
  •  
    #27 - Fifth Street Towers
  •  
    28 - IDS Center
  •  
    29 - Minnehaha Falls

The best montages "mix it up", so there should be a panorama, a pic with the river in it, a museum, another and then 2-4 other pics which represent what Minneapolis is known for. Anyway, more than willing to create it, once the pics are chosen. Oh, one other thing, if there are other pics on commons that someone prefers, simply add it to the gallery, at the end, and number it, so that we can keep references straight. Onel5969 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much for volunteering to do this, Onel5969! This is very exciting.
  • Minneapolis's growth was tied heavily to milling which was powered by the River at St. Anthony Falls. A good image that incorporates the falls and possibly the Stone Arch Bridge seems integral.
  • I'm also a huge fan of the image that's currently in the infobox as it does a great job of capturing the skyline against a public lake which speaks to the way the lakes and parks are integrated into the urban environment.
  • Central Library (#10) is an aesthetically pleasing and unique institution that seems to fulfill the GLAM niche. My vote is for an image of it in there somewhere.
  • For a big skyscraper-y, commerce-y building, I put in #28 which is one of my favorite Minneapolis building images for the way it captures the IDS Center (Minneapolis's tallest building) as well as the reflection of the Wells Fargo Center (the third-tallest).
  • I'm a fan of putting in something like the Midtown Exchange or some other image of something outside of the downtown area. Most of Minneapolis, area and population-wise, exists outside of downtown. The deleted montages featured Minnehaha Falls (#29) which is always cool but may be a bit much if already have the river and a lake.
That's all that comes to mind immediately but I'd love to hear what others have to say about this! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 17:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Parks List (in progress)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm currently working on creating a separate list of parks the parks in Minneapolis, in my sandbox. When finished, I'll probably create a separate page, such as List of Parks in Minneapolis. So far I have a few parks/lakes that already have articles, but any and all help is appreciated. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Population help

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you to all of the editors who updated Minneapolis population for 2014. Also my apologies for reverting some of your edits. Can anyone here give me a URL for the 2014 total? Or tell me how you used the citation to get it? I have an older Firefox that gives me an error whenever I try to adapt the page (which is a list of states) for Minneapolis city. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the only direct link for the US Census that has an estimate for Minneapolis. It's for 2013. We don't use the Metropolitan Council or the Star Tribune as sources for population. So where are you guys getting your figures? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27/2743000.html
How about this link? It has the updated 2014 info for all MN cities, including Minneapolis if you scroll down. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 00:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Bobamnertiopsis. That link just gives me an error in Firefox. Switching to Safari, I can read it. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Lake Calhoun

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings, User:Jrt989. We seem to be missing each other so perhaps discussion is order here. I agree with you that the park board did not change the name of Lake Calhoun. Thank you for reverting about 45 of my edits on linked pages. I agree that Bde Maka Ska looks like a separate lake in a list, and that that won't do. I disagree, however, with your edit summary which says using the original Dakota name is WP:ADVOCACY. I asked an independent third party and his opinion is that there's no problem with including the Dakota name here. He said that maybe parentheses around it might help our disagreement. Do you agree with his assessment? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:SusanLesch, while I still think that using a name that is not the legal name when there is an ongoing movement to change the name borders on advocacy of the change (even if that is not the intent), I do not want to be unreasonable -- I think parentheses around the Dakota name is a good compromise. Thanks! Jrt989 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thanks very much Jrt989. I think the photo of the sign made a difference because the park board had a lot of options. They could have chosen any font in any size. What they chose looks a lot like equal billing. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

What is wrong with explaining more about the basis of Japanese American and Native American relocations to Minneapolis in the 1940s and 1950s, respectively? It appears Japanese Americans moved to Minneapolis as part of voluntary relocation, to avoid the internment camps. (more research) Rather than simply listing that there were all these groups, explaining how and why people ended up there adds to the history of the city. It's part of US history, and I don't see either relocation covered elsewhere in the article. For one thing, it shows that places can be affected by policies made in distant areas, including the national capital.Parkwells (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

More on this issue: The legislation (of apology) admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."[1] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[2][3]Parkwells (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Japanese Americans were also in Bloomington and at Ft. Snelling - some in language school for the Military Intelligence Service. They said they were welcomed in Minnesota.Parkwells (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 41 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Other (smaller) towns named Minneapolis

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the "See Also" section, I intend to place links for the Minneapolis,_Kansas and Minneapolis,_North_Carolina towns named Minneapolis.

Can anyone suggest additional relevant External Links to use?

LP-mn (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Hatnote and I think that's enough. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Obscuring of links, and basic editing courtesy

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The [of style] says The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context, and the link must be as intuitive as possible. It should be obvious to anyone that a link to Charles Hoag hiding behind the text "city's first schoolteacher" violates both of these simple guidelines. There is never a good reason to obscure the target of a link in this way.

Furthermore, if you are reverting someone else's work, it is shockingly rude not to explain why. The edit summaries "Thank you Jrt, restore lead" and "Undid, please discuss on the talk page." offer absolutely no clue as to why you thought it was necessary to violate style guidelines and destroy someone else's work. If you have a reason to undo an edit, explain it in the edit summary. If you don't, then don't revert. 46.37.55.86 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

46.37.55.86, your accusations are not true. I'm not planning to return to this conversation for more abuse. My edit summary explained that Mr. Hoag's name is omitted because of the context of being in the lead, entirely within Manual of Style guidelines. That's fine to leave it for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Your edit summary explained nothing, and what you've said here makes no sense. Abuse? What a silly accusation. You should retract it. You insulted me by reverting my edit without having the courtesy to explain why. 46.37.55.86 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been explained now, here on the talk page, and I think that should suffice. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Weather: opinion

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been a couple of exchanged edits about whether the sentence "Winters are cold and snowy, while summers are warm with moderate to high humidity" should be removed or not. I initially restored it, as a reasonable lay summary of some more technical discussion that follows. I don't feel strongly about it, but I thought it is worth seeing if there is consensus either way. The explanation of the other user is on my talk page here. --JBL (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Minneapolis. 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, 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Your photo editing

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

Greetings User:Magnolia677. Thank you, a couple of your edits to picture buildings were very helpful. I only changed the layout per MOS:IMAGES to reflect the left and right layout of the whole page. However I disagreed with your removal of two photos: one of the American Refugee Committee offices and one of the Minnesota Lynx. Both pertain to Minneapolis and not to any other city. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 
Every year, the American Refugee Committee helps people in Asili-Democratic Republic of Congo, Jordan, Myanmar, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, and Uganda.
 
Seimone Augustus and Maya Moore after the Minnesota Lynx won their fourth WNBA championship
@SusanLesch: The two images had little relevance to this topic, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I have posted both here. The top photo shows the inside of an office, but little of Minneapolis (the alt description is "An office space with cubicles and exposed brick walls"). The second photo shows two players on the Minnesota Lynx, who both have their own Wikipedia article. Could I suggest that the photo of the two players be replaced by this high quality image, which I can upload to the Commons. The input of others is appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I read your note and will wait to see what others say. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I plan to undo your most recent change. I doubt we need another picture of an arena. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: Your removal of the new arena image needs explaining, and you left no edit summary. You wrote above "I disagreed with your removal of two photos...one of the Minnesota Lynx", and with this edit you left the edit summary "restore image of Lynx win just for now (I mean really, yesterday the governor declared a Lynx Day)". Yet when I added a new image which showed 1) the inside of the arena during the final game, 2) Lynx fans, 3) Lynx players, and 4) a venue in Minneapolis--you deleted it. Instead, you insist on displaying an image which shows Seimone Augustus, who was born in Louisiana, and Maya Moore, who was born in Missouri and has lived in Minnesota since 2011 (and only shows the side of one of their heads). Please explain your preference for this very limited image. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
BINGO...I hadn't noticed until now...you want those pictures in the article, Susan Lesch, because you're the photographer! It has nothing to do with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. It's all about turning this article into your own personal photo gallery. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 
Minnesota Lynx compete in 2017 Women's National Basketball Association final at Williams Arena
Listen here. If anybody with a Facebook account cared to release a recognizable portrait of any Lynx player to Flickr, I would be first in line to download it. The Seimone Augustus and Lindsay Whalen infoboxes will show you two excellent examples of work by Joe Bielawa.
I was stunned to find this photo in my camera. What luck! No confetti in front of their faces. A smiling camerawoman taking pictures. Augustus smiling like there is no tomorrow. And then you come in here and delete it because Augustus was born in Louisiana? And now you have a conspiracy theory that I want credit as photographer? You are welcome to your thoughts but you are mistaken.
Your "high quality" image has no recognizable human being in it. Not one. I already gave you my rationale for reverting your changes above. I don't believe this article needs another photo of another stadium. I have other obligations now and am still waiting to hear from others. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677, I have to go back to other obligations and am still waiting for anybody else to weigh in. For now, I went back to include a photo by Joe B. (a five year old image). I put your new pic of Williams Arena back into the list of UofM stadiums where it belongs. Regarding my celebration shot, I doubt that is Maya Moore with Augustus (somebody dyed their ponytail blue and I don't remember that it was Moore). I also cropped my photo of the American Refugee Committee office. You'd have to strain your eyes to read them but compliance manuals are more clearly visible for Myanmar, Rwanda, South Sudan and Somalia. Commons might take some time to purge the old view. Hope this helps. We can fix the sandwiching image issue after this disagreement has been resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot find any reasonable way to get rid of the sandwiched section using the images we have (I've tried shrinking and/or moving every image we have and I've tried reordering the text). I have a couple candidates in commons:Category:2017 WNBA season that are shorter than the vertical image in place now, so I plan to replace Maya Moore vertical with some kind of horizontal shot tomorrow night. @Magnolia677: It would be very helpful if you could please restrain yourself from automatically removing any photo I may have taken. Perhaps you can fix the sandwich before tomorrow. That would be my preference and would be great. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: This image remains in the article and appears to be an attempt to pad the article with your own personal photos. The photo shows the inside of an office, and shows nothing of Minneapolis. Do you plan to remove it, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
With apologies for its quality, that photo is an opportunity to highlight the work of an important charity that is unique to Minneapolis. I encourage you to visit the ARC website and see what work they do every day. Padding the article? No. Every image opens a new field with room for a caption. My opinion is that ARC's work is worth keeping any photo because of the room it gives for text. Why don't you go ahead to their office and take a replacement? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: You may have other things going on, but I am waiting for you to fix the sandwich problem in sports, and to answer my question above. I have an exam tomorrow and travel planned for Thursday, so I will not be able to complete my uploads from the Lynx game until this coming weekend. That should give you some more time. Again, good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: The sandwich problem in sports is because there are too many images. Some need to be moved to the gallery, or removed from the article. I'm not sure what question you asked? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  3O Response: I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Matrix (film) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. This seems to be a disagreement about a number of things, but the main problem stems from whether or not to include File:ARC office 20170119.JPG. Minneapolis is a featured article that has way too many images already. Images that are added to the article should be carefully selected, provide great EV, and serve a purpose; this photo misses the mark on all three. There are hundreds if not thousands of offices that look just like that across America, so there is no information gained by including the image. Nihlus 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: With a horizontal image in place of the vertical we would be just fine in sports. (We were fine with the last one for a year!) We don't have a gallery for sports (only for the University of Minnesota) although it's a good idea for the future if another team does well. I asked you a question above, why don't you go to the ARC office and arrange to make a replacement photo? I also encouraged you to visit the ARC website to see what work they do every day. Sorry I don't have time to answer this again. Talk to you this weekend. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: With respect to the comment by User:Nihlus above, would you be willing to remove your image of the office, and add the text from the caption to the article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Of course. Even though his say so is not binding, I appreciate the time Nihlus took to answer your request. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

More photo edits

@Magnolia677: You seem to have very strong opinions about images so to avoid conflict could you kindly OK these three changes:

  • Change photo of Maya Moore to Sylvia Fowles. A horizontal image will keep the images from sandwiching the text, per MOS:IMAGES. If anybody else has a candidate they really ought to come forward. And they still could! (I don't participate in Facebook but apparently that is where fans post their work nowadays.)
  • Change UofM Stadiums gallery to <gallery mode=packed-hover heights=50 caption="Minneapolis stadiums at the University of Minnesota">. I was in the middle of fixing this when you came through with your edits. The heights constraint limits image sizes and I figured out how to use the caption attribute.
  • Remove "University of Minnesota" subsection title in sports. I added this only because I had failed to understand the caption attribute.

All right with you? Possibly the three professional team stadiums could be in a gallery too but I think for now that shrinking the UofM stadiums is enough. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Did not hear from you so went ahead and finished what I started. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minneapolis. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

2019 restaurant opening

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
  Moved from User talk:Jmcgnh § Minneapolis page addition reverted
 – content discussion; should be here

Hello, I get the point of why you reverted that, but I did consider that question (future plan), and compared other examples. For instance, on the Minneapolis page it mentions the future home of the soccer team. On film pages or entertainment pages, it often mentions projects that are in the works. I feel like there's a threshold that makes it valid to include, and that threshold has to be with the importance of the future event (in this case related to a public interest good that is a small step towards undoing many years of harm toward Native Americans) and the public announcement/decision-making. I've seen elsewhere on wikipedia many future things stated that were much less substantiated and less important. I know there isn't a guarantee of optimal policy always having been enacted, and so other content isn't always a basis. I would like to see Wikipedia err on the side of inclusion in areas where there is significant under-representation. Thanks for listening! (please let me know any other steps with this talk process, haven't done this before). - ClarityKTMpls — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityKTMpls (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted because this seemed to be a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, an item which predicts future events in Wikipedia's voice.
I am sympathetic with your other reasons for wanting this announcement of a future event to be present; we now need to figure out if there's a legitimate way to do it. When a big sports team announces a future move to a new city, there's usually a big deal in the press about it, so it's easy to say something like "The Lake Wobegon Limpets announced in 2016 that they would be moving to St. Paul to begin the 2018 season." The references would be easy to find if this move was an important aspect of Minnesota sports, thus notable. On the other hand, if there's not much more than a press release about an notable chef planning to open a restaurant more than 12 months from now, it's harder to justify that as a noteworthy event. Somebody else would need to take notice and write about it, including the importance of this restaurant to something more than the local Minneapolis food scene, perhaps tying it to a growing trend of interest in "indigenous foods". How likely do you think it is that we can find an independent source? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Neglected to ping ClarityKTMpls, sorry. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a learning experience for me, so please understand I am looking to understand how this works better. I did include one reference from Mpls/St.Paul Magazine. When I look online, I can easily find at least 5 more references that are not simply press releases (Mpls/St. Paul Business Journal, City Pages, St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Journal, StarTribune, etc... But I feel like you would know that already probably (would check before reverting?), so I'm likely missing something. I didn't include all those references to the text when I wrote it because that seemed off pattern. Thanks again for your help on this! user:ClarityKTMpls 3 January 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@ClarityKTMpls: No, actually I did'nt check other references - it was the form of your addition that violated WP:CRYSTAL regardless of whatever reference supported it. I have now looked at a couple of the Star Tribune articles and, while still having earmarks of press releases and interviews, it does seem that local press has given sufficient coverage to this announcement to consider it noteworthy. You could add a sentence about the announcement of the plans without writing, in Wikipedia's voice, about the future as if this were an event certain to take place. It might also be proper, I think, to add something to the section Cuisine of the Midwestern United States#Minneapolis and Saint Paul and change the See also pointer in this article to point there instead of to the current redirect Cuisine of Minnesota. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: Oh ok, thanks for that specificity. I'll work on those changes this weekend! Thanks again very much. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: Noted changes completed, any further feedback welcome. Thanks again! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Minneapolis is a food desert

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  • Food deserts are mentioned in Growler magazine, also MPR News about Wirth Co-op, Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder about Breaking Bread Café and Appetite for Change.
  • A study funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield written by the Federal Reserve Bank and Wilder Research is geared for the entire state of Minnesota but identifies the Near North and Camden neighborhoods of Minneapolis as food deserts.

I have been blind to this topic but I see it now. Any help you can offer rectifying this oversight would be appreciated. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Corrected under Cuisine. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Need to update, revise, and rewrite article

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is some good content in the article, but, like so many other articles with multiple contributors, there is overlap/duplication (i.e. same info in different sections) which should be reviewed and edited. The overall article doesn't seem to "flow" well--part of this may be the way the images are put into the article in my browser. Are there editors/contributors who would like to coordinate doing some clean up and editing?

Areas which need work

There are several issues with the page which a small group could fix up pretty easily.

E.g. Politics, culture, and demographics are somewhat scattered between sections, and, like in real life, are a bit messy.

There are gaps in sections which need to be identified, and the content tracked down

An editorial discussion is needed about whether/which of the scattered more focused topics should be in a separate linked article vs. in this article, or both (i.e. have the topic/content in this article, but also link to the other article). For example, there are existing articles which list the neighborhoods and another enumerates the lakes which are both areas which likely would be germane to this article, but which likely would be at a level of detail that would get in the way of reading this article.

  • New topics are likely of value, e.g. current events (unfortunately, this includes police shootings, and other unflattering subjects)
  • A calendar of regular events would be interesting, both to those who live here, as well as those using Wikipedia to scope out the town (e.g. before a trip, investigating whether or not taking a job here would be unbearable)
  • The article could use decent maps (OpenStreeMaps, maps from promotional groups such as [Minneapolis] and the [produced by the city government]) showing the layout of landmarks, demographic data, etc.
    • Once I have some time, I can try and pull together the GIS data sets from DNR, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, USGS, US Census, and OpenStreetMaps into a single database, and use GRASS GIS and QGIS to try and create custom maps.
  • A description of Minneapolis neighborhoods would be helpful, perhaps pulling the content of Neighborhoods of Minneapolis in.
  • More on the lakes and Minnehaha creek as natural resources. There is an article which lists the lakes, but it isn't exactly great reading. There is a crude map, which should be replaced showing how they connect and flow into the Mississippi, as well as how the Mississippi interacts with downtown. Much of Minneapolis (almost everything south of 394) lies in the Minnehaha Creek watershed.
  • Healthcare is mentioned as a major business, and some of the hospitals are listed, but it would be pretty easy to have a concise summary of the hospitals (two level 1 trauma centers, three childrens hospitals, a major medical/dental/nursing/public health/pharmacy university) and some of the active medical initiatives and research projects of recent note.
  • The local restaurant scene is a bit more exciting than just Minnesota cuisine.
  • The craft brewing scene is pretty extensive, and probably warrants a mention
  • Need more coverage of civic, volunteer, and recreational organizations.
Previous was sent at 10:59, 4 August 2017‎ by 75.73.1.89. My opinion is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities has already reached consensus on most of these aims. (This article followed their guidelines when it went through featured article review.) 75.73.1.89, perhaps you would like to contribute to that WikiProject. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Third most expensive city

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The Economist reported that Minneapolis is the 3rd most expensive city in North America. If you wish to dispute that, please make your case here on the talk page before removing material. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Today I reverted the addition of Minneapolis being voted the 15th most expensive city according to Business Insider. Please explain here your reasoning for removing The Economist which clearly compared cities internationally, and replacing it with an article on metropolitan areas. Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Commerce Department, the underlying source, concerns metropolitan areas and not cities. Perhaps you'd like to add this information to the article about the Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the statement as it is misleading and lacks context. As detailed in http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-ranks-third-most-expensive-city-in-north-america-report-says/477337443/ the study is focused on costs for expatriate executives who are sent overseas by their employer. The study focuses on luxury rental prices and measures things like the cost of live-in help. This is not a representative study for natives or people migrating from other areas of the United States to Minneapolis. To keep the statement would require so many qualifications and restrictions that the statement is not worth keeping in the article. I question whether it is useful for the statement to be in included, even if the limitations of the report are mentioned, without the context of the costs of living for the vast majority of residents. -Eóin (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, @Eóin: Thank you for posting here. The source you cite, the Star Tribune, has one sentence to support your argument. "As a result, the survey is less valuable as a tool for comparing the expenses faced by people who are natives or settle down for long periods in a place." Sorry but the city newspaper doesn't outright reject the report. They had a chance to do that with this article and failed to discredit it as far as I can see. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I restored the statement but added a qualifier and moved it to the section about foreign companies. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Undue attention to topics that go beyond a "general overview."

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

While reading the article, I noticed a few sections that seem to be giving more attention than appropriate to certain minor events in contrast to the guidelines found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. The particular guideline I'm looking at is "History sections can easily become very long with more detail than appropriate for a general overview." In some places the sections here are too detailed or cover incidents too minor for a "general overview," in some sections the information is inaccurate/misleading, and in others the information doesn't belong. I'd like to begin a discussion on removing or re-writing the following sections.

Under Bigotry and corruption:

The section itself was added very recently. About half of the text was moved there from another already-existing section previously titled "Corruption, social movements, urban renewal," and the other half is new content. The new content is what I believe doesn't fit with the Guideline.

  • The paragraph about housing discrimination beginning "From 1910 until the Civil Rights Act of 1968..." The source for the section describes how out of 'millions' of property records, 30,000 were found with restrictive language. This is a housing discrimination rate of only 1.5% at the maximum, which is positively minuscule, especially for the stated period. Furthermore, the affected area was tiny, with only four neighborhoods showing a significant amount of these records. Housing discrimination was not widespread enough and did not have a significant enough impact on the city to merit inclusion.
  • The paragraph about the Minneapolis KKK beginning "A post World War I economic slowdown..." The mere existence of a local Klan chapter in the 1920s is not, by itself, significant enough for inclusion as all major cities of that time also had a Klan presence. The Klan's impact on the city should be the deciding factor. However, any impact was minor as they did not commit any atrocities in the city of Minneapolis worth describing, such as the 1920 Duluth lynchings in Duluth, nor did they have a particularly strong hold on the city as the article currently describes how a Klan-backed mayoral candidate was jailed, and national representatives of the Klan eventually asked the Minneapolis chapter to disband before "The Klan's brief hold on Minnesota thus ended" These events took place over a two-year period from 1921-1923. Again, this is not significant enough to be covered in a "general overview."
  • The paragraph beginning "As of 2018, Dight Avenue..." which describes how a street in Minneapolis is named for "eugenics enthusiast" Charles Fremont Dight who lived in the city for about 30 years in the early 1900s. Dight is a little-known figure, even in Minneapolis itself, and only notable for his eugenics advocacy in the 1930s before dying. One embarrassing street name about a forgettable non-entity is not significant enough for inclusion. The paragraph then segues from Dight to discussing forced sterilization in Minnesota. While information about sterilization in Minneapolis may have a place in a future article revision, currently it describes a state-wide Minnesota topic that doesn't belong in a Minneapolis article.

Under Parks and recreation:

  • A section about racism in the first paragraph, starting in the second sentence with "However, property records show a history of racism..."

There are quite a few issues with this one. First, discussions on race aren't appropriate for this section. Second, the accusation of racism is inaccurate, uncited or poorly cited, and not shown in the data.

The section currently uses "The majority of park visitors are non-Hispanic white," as part of its citation of a racist history. However, the demographics of Minneapolis show that the city was 60.3% non-Hispanic white as of 2010. It is quite literally impossible for the majority of park visitors to be anything but non-Hispanic white as the demographics do not support any other distribution. A citation is provided for this section to support the claim of racism in attendance numbers, however the citation itself has issues. The citation does not discuss Minneapolis, only state-wide Minnesota numbers, and most importantly the citation does not include any citations itself for those numbers. It does talk about "A 2013 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources report," however that report is not provided. A 2014 Metro council report is, but that report does not cover the issue at hand. Using this as proof of racism is misleading and inaccurate.

Furthermore, the section shares a citation with the previously discussed section on housing discrimination as "The greatest concentration of property with such covenants fronted parkland." Again, a 1.5% rate of discrimination is not significant enough to be discussed in a general overview. To take this further, just because most of these discriminatory lots fronted park land does not mean that most park land in the city was affected. No data or citation is provided to show that a significant amount of parks were affected.


It appears that one of the last article versions without these sections was a June 30th 2018 revision. Too many revisions have occurred since then for a blanket revert to that date, and I'm not capable of removing them myself as some of the sections have images and such that I'm unsure about removing correctly without screwing up the page formatting. Even if I could edit the article, I have no desire to start an edit war, hence my coming here to open the discussion.

Again, it looks like these sections merit removal for going beyond the "general overview" from the Guidelines. CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been about two weeks since I brought this up, and I noticed that it hadn't been addressed yet so I took care of it myself.
CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CheeseburgerWithFries. Thank you for your feedback, and especially for the pointer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. The guideline for history sections is up to 10 paragraphs and Minneapolis was up to about 12. I agree that many details can be moved to History of Minneapolis. However I do not agree with your characterization of the former version.

  • Mapping Prejudice "sampled approximately 20,000 Minneapolis properties and found over 5,000 deeds with racially restrictive language." That's about 25%, not about 1.5% as you calculate. Where does the source say 30,000 out of millions? Your answer can help the parks section, too.
  • I don't think you are old enough to remember crosses burning on Minneapolis front lawns. There is evidently no harm in a reminder of the KKK.
  • When you say Dight is "a forgettable non-entity" you forget thousands of women who bought their freedom by agreeing to be sterilized. Many of them moved from the state hospital, 90 miles away, back to Minneapolis halfway houses. The History of Minneapolis article can more easily contain this story.

When I get back home I can work on this. I can easily condense two paragraphs down to a few sentences. Why does it make any sense to include 150 words about anti-Semitism and delete other documented forms of discrimination? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, SusanLesch.
Mapping Prejudice
The Mapping Prejudice source does not cite its data, or provide details about their methods and sampling procedures. Was the sampling random? Did they focus on deeds from just a few neighborhoods, like they do in the article, rather than the whole city? Was it out of the first 20,000 deeds they checked? Did they just sample one specific area of the city, so results about South Minneapolis could be drastically different from around the University of Minnesota? There is no information about any of this.
My calculation had to step back, because I was following the article's suit. I was taking this section into account: "The project has since identified an additional 25,000 restrictive deeds located throughout Hennepin County"
25,000 out of how many additional deeds? We're not told. It says Hennepin County, so how many were deeds in Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park, and Bloomington, compared to Minneapolis, which is the focus of the Wiki page?
And the source does indeed tell us that it's "30,000 out of millions." We already have 5k 25k=30k, and the millions part comes in two places: "This database contained every warranty deed abstract recorded between 1900 and 1960, for a total of over 1.4 million records." and "The text they were seeking could only be found by scrolling through millions of property records on microfilm reels." The previous Wiki revision covered the period from 1910-1968, not 1900-1960 as in the source, so you must use significant figures to adjust for that eighteen year discrepancy. (Ten years from the source, eight from the article.) In this case I used the first plural million for my estimate, because that's what the source requires. 30,000 out of 2 million is 1.5%. Even breaking the rules and using 1.4 million only gives you 2.1%, which is still not a significant enough impact on the city to merit inclusion.
The only thing you can really get from the citation is that 30,000 Hennepin County deeds had some sort of restrictive language out of millions of deeds. Even the sections about specific Minneapolis neighborhoods are too narrow a focus for a "General Overview" about the whole city. Therefore the article should not be used as a concrete source for a new section, and especially as a source saying that the park system in Minneapolis is racist.
KKK
First, I'd like to remind you of the Talk Page Guidelines which say "Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." My age is not relevant to this discussion, and neither is yours. The article is the only thing that matters here.
Moving on, the previous article revision mentioned nothing about cross burnings. Even if it did, a reminder for the sake of a reminder is not a reason to ignore the previously mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. If cross burnings or the KKK are to be mentioned, they should follow the guidelines. Are there citations for any cross burnings? Was there an epidemic of cross burnings that affected the city, or merely one or two as the KKK flopped horribly in the city as previously described? Were the perpetrators arrested and prosecuted as the KKK's mayoral candidate was, or were they let go due to a corrupt Minneapolis police department? Were the cross burnings a massive front-page event for the city at the time they occurred? Were the ripple effects great enough in the days, weeks, and months after that it profoundly affected the city and deserve inclusion in a general overview? The previous version included none of this, provided no citations or justifications for continued inclusion, and did not meet the threshold of a general overview.
Dight Avenue
Dight Avenue was the focus of the previous article revision, not the sterilization law or its effects. A general overview should only cover the most important events in Minneapolis history. This is a big city that has been around for over 150 years. Does one street name about a sterilization loony from 90 years ago make that list? And even if we do focus on the sterilization law, did a state-wide law have such a disproportionate effect on Minneapolis that it can be cited and included as part of a general overview as something that sticks out the most in the city's history? I agree that History of Minneapolis would be a better place for the sterilization topic at this time.


I focused on these sections for multiple reasons. One, this is an area of expertise for me. This was also the newest section with weaker documentation, while the anti-Semitism section has been around for over two years; long enough to be written, re-written, properly cited, reviewed, discussed, and deemed worthy of inclusion. I wasn't going to touch something that well established when it's not something I'm as familiar with, but I will happily review a new section about a subject that I'm intimately familiar with.
CheeseburgerWithFries (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerWithFries: Can you please identify your affiliation? That's entirely optional on Wikipedia. But it is important to understand that where you're coming from is one viewpoint on several complex issues. Again I don't see a good way to justify keeping 150 words on anti-semitism and omitting everything you deleted. Yes, the anti-semitism paragraph is newer, but it was not here when this article was reviewed by the Wikipedia community. It has a good source, Minnesota History magazine. My disclosure: I got a D in history at the University of Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi again. I rewrote this section into a paragraph. Thanks to the people who answered their phones today, the recorder says there are 640,000 parcels in Hennepin County. The Minneapolis assessor says the city has 115,000 residential properties. People seem to think 10,000 of these restrictive covenants remain. Your edits and comments are most welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerWithFries:@SusanLesch: I apologize for weighing in so late in the process. CWF referred to WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline as a guideline. According to the template on the page, it is a "style essay" or "advice page" and has not gained consensus. I have posted a new topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Rename page if you want to dispute this. Referring to it as a "guideline" overemphasizes its importance within the domain of policy discussions. That being said, my sense is that the subsection of this article was too long, though I have no compelling policy argument and lack the requisite knowledge about Minneapolis to form a strong opinion about substance. Paring it looks like an improvement, though. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Oldsanfelipe, CWF was correct to rein in that section. I think you are correct that WikiProject suggestions are not equivalent to Wikipedia guidelines. I hope the rewrite meets with your approval. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Spelling corrected. -20190222
SusanLesch, In general, I think the scaled-down version is good. After reading citation #31 for background on restrictive covenants, I think some changes could be made to pick up some of the nuances of the articles. I have the following suggestion for new text: "Beginning in 1910, a Minneapolis developer started writing restrictive covenants based on race and ethnicity into his deeds, a practice copied by other developers. These covenants prevented minorities from owning or leasing such properties. Though such language was prohibited by state law from 1953 and by the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, restrictive covenants against minorities remained in many Minneapolis deeds as recently as 2017.[31]" I think it's important to note that developers started this practice, that at least some of the deeds barred leasing to these minorities, that Minnesota passed a law against it, and that the language remains in many deeds. All of these claims are supported by the sources you have cited. This version is a bit longer, but I think it is still consistent with CWF's concerns. Please feel free to play with the wording. Thanks for all of your work, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Oldsanfelipe, thank you, I used your text with minor changes. The section seems to be getting long again. We'll see if you, CWF or someone else will edit. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the present version is still consistent with the notion of a general overview. I haven't clicked through many of the citations, so I can't speak to other substantive questions, though. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ 100th Congress, S. 1009, reproduced at, internmentarchives.com. Retrieved September 19, 2006.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CLA1988-Yamato was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Wwii Reparations: Japanese-American Internees". Democracy Now!. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_6&oldid=1141019326"