This article is undergoing a
featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria.
If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request that the first two lead sentences for
Minneapolis be changed as follows in accordance to consistency and the standard formatting of the most populous cities in their respective states (E.g.
Los Angeles,
Chicago,
Houston,
Phoenix, etc):
Not done - The current formatting seems to be clearer and more concise.
glman (
talk) 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, oh it SEEMS to be clearer and more concise, okay. Yeah well I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles. After all, you have more experience with this sort of stuff.
Cleter (
talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for my sarcasm
Cleter (
talk) 02:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Not neccesary in my opinion. Its better off if the articles arent strictly uniform for this kind of stuff, I don't believe most readers/editors care enough to do so.
Comment - Might I suggest a compromise? We could potentially combine elements from both formats while also retaining the clarity that the current format offers. For example, we could start with Cleter's proposed format but slightly modify it. Here's a potential revision:
'Minneapolis (/ˌmɪniˈæpəlɪs/), officially the City of Minneapolis, is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. As of the 2020 census, its population is 429,954. --
Svenskbygderna (
talk) 19:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Very well, thank you for letting me know.
Cleter (
talk) 01:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
. Support - Hey yeah that works, thanks Svenskbygderna! Yeah I can roll with that; in fact if that goes through, I might change cities with past tense population statistics to reflect this change.
Cleter (
talk) 01:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think it makes sense to include this in the first sentence. It flows better in the second with the population, and other featured city articles do it that way as well.
glman (
talk) 19:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you please provide examples of such featured city articles? I am suggesting that the most populous city in a state deserves its respective formatting, I understand if other articles aren’t on the top of a state’s population.
Cleter (
talk) 19:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
SusanLesch lists them one comment above your support. Why is it better to place this in the first sentence rather than the second? Why does it take precedence over the location?
glman (
talk) 20:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Cleveland and Ann Arbor are not the most populous cities in their respective states (with D.C. not even being in a state). Boston’s example only strengthens my point.
Cleter (
talk) 21:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
What I'm trying to say is: "Cleaveland, Ann Arbon, and Washington D.C. cannot be used as examples in this case. We can use Boston's example to change Minneapolis's lead sentence to what I proposed."
Cleter (
talk) 23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Somewhat off-topic: does including "officially the City of Minneapolis" bring value here? It's substantially similar to the article name, and forces the words "city" and "Minneapolis" to be repeated. It feels like something that should be reserved for the history section or a new "name" section. We removed it from
Milwaukee for similar reasons. See
MOS:LEADALT. (Regardless, it also needs a citation to support that it's the official name. The current citation only supports the census' usage of the phrase.)
Ed[talk][OMT] 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ed, I don't understand your comment.
Milwaukee is not a featured article. I added a source for you anyway, even though it borders on
WP:OVERCITE. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ed's comment is about the inclusion of the phrase "officially the City of Minneapolis" in the lead section of an article. Ed feels that this phrase may not add value to the lead section because it is similar to the article's name and may lead to unnecessary repetition of words. He suggests that such information could be better placed in the history section or a new section specifically dedicated to the name. Ed also points out that the phrase needs a citation to support its inclusion as the official name. He refers to the Manual of Style
MOS:LEADALT to support his argument.
Cleter (
talk) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SusanLesch He's discussing removing "City of Minneapolis" entirely. The lead already says "Minneapolis is a city" which is simply restated in sharing the official name. It doesn't make sense to restate unless the official name differs. Several city pages omit the restating, including Ann Arbor.
glman (
talk) 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Woah, entirely? Gee what if we put it on the history section?
Cleter (
talk) 03:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm pro-removing it. It repeats what can easily be gleaned from the text. It only makes sense when the official name deviates from what can be assumed normally.
glman (
talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If that’s off topic, why not create a talk page regarding the matter? I support the move of the official name to another section to avoid repetition and clutter in the lead sentence.
Cleter (
talk) 20:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This section is discussing the lead sentence, so I figured it fit best here even though it differed from the OP's focus.
Ed[talk][OMT] 03:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah I understand now. Thanks, but could we continue the discussion I requested in the first place?
Cleter (
talk) 16:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If the concern is clutter, we could also consider moving pronunciation to a footnote, per
MOS:PRONPLACEMENT.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also support this. Anything that makes it easier to get a reader past the first sentence is a positive, in my book.
Ed[talk][OMT] 03:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Would that by any chance include my proposed change to make it “the most populous city in the U.S. state of Minnesota? :D
Cleter (
talk) 03:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Cleter, I have no opinion at this time on your proposal. Someone else is working on the lead and I differ to him.
Thank you for pulling
MOS:PRONPLACEMENT out of a hat. I sign on with with Ed and Nikkimaria. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Revival of previous discussion regarding the lead
I (once again) request that the first two lead sentences for
Minneapolis be changed as follows in accordance to consistency and the standard formatting of the most populous cities in their respective states (E.g.
Los Angeles,
Chicago,
Houston,
Boston ((featured)), etc):
Isn't that the current lead you have pasted there? And there are no "standards" that must be followed based off how other articles are written.
oncamera (talk page) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Let me try that again
🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (
a word) 23:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Revival of previous discussion regarding the lead
I (once again) request that the first two lead sentences for
Minneapolis be changed as follows in accordance to consistency and the standard formatting of the most populous cities in their respective states (E.g.
Los Angeles,
Chicago,
Houston,
Boston ((featured)), etc):
First, don't delete my comments when making edits to your comments, especially when I pointed out there's no "standard" that must be followed when writing the lead sentence. Secondly, I disagree with your version, it's not an improvement: the current version that puts "most populous city" after the population number is clearer and better organized when reading.
oncamera (talk page) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok I apologize for deleting your comment (which you can revert anyways). there's no "standard" that must be followed when writing the lead sentence yeah I don't believe in a standard either, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't seek improvements to an existing version (after all, that's the point of Wikipedia). Secondly, just how is it better organized?
🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (
a word) 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I shouldn't have to revert to keep my comments on a talkpage discussion. And the current version avoids the long run-on opening sentence in your version. You don't need to fit everything into one sentence, especially when the following sentence is about the population; that's logically where the "most populous city" fact should be included.
oncamera (talk page) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh hey @
glman! Long time no see, huh? (Last time I saw you you ghosted 15 days ago in a topic that needed consensus.)🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (
a word) 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Cleter, you've been reverted a number of times as well and there was no one who agreed with your version in the previous discussion: you'll have to accept you may not actually change consensus and refrain from making personal attacks against editors who do not agree with you.
oncamera (talk page) 00:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Oncamera - Agreed. I did not "ghost", but provided my perspective and was done. I still feel that the current format is best, despite the work the user has done to many other articles to "make them better"
glman (
talk) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Oncamera I disagree with your assessment of the lead sentence structure. Combining the information into one sentence is a common and efficient approach in Wikipedia articles for major cities. It provides a clear and concise introduction, which is consistent with the style used in similar entries.
🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (
a word) 00:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Climate
Hi,
Timothy2b. The old climate data is outdated, and based on averages ending in 1990. I restored current NOWData (1873 to 2023). -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yea, I made sure to use the climate average based on 1873 to present. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 18:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Timothy2b, instead of edit warring would you mind talking this though on this talk page/ "Standard" 2020 averages are outdated. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 19:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Timothy says there is a "standard for all locations". Hurricane tells me Wikipedia climate is not codified.
Which is it?
Minneapolis is a prototype featured article referred to as a model at
WP:USCITIES. We need to get this right. Then editors from other cities won't be swinging in the wind. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 20:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, so there were a couple of problems with the data you put in. The climate normals, which is the period from which the values (be it temperatures, precipitation, etc) are averaged is currently 1991-2020. When it comes to climate, 30-year periods are the ones used, not a whole 150-year period as would be the case if using data from 1873-today. Normally what is done is that the average values, such as the average temperatures are taken from the most recent full 30-year period, which in this case is 1991-2020, while record values, such as each month's record high or low, are taken for that whole period (such as 1873-2023/24 in this case). I noticed also that you put the wrong averages in the wrong places. The NOAA data site can be quite tricky to navigate, and it is difficult to differentiate which is what, so I don't at all blame you for mixing this up. Just for reference, the average high is found by first clicking on "Monthly summarized data" for the station, then writing the time period (in this case 1991-2020), then under "Variable" select "Max temp", and under "Summary" select "Mean". After that hit "Go", and a window will pop up. Scroll down to the bottom of it and next to "Mean" you will find the average high temperature for each month. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! :)
Still, the data that is in the current climate table is the most up-to-date data there is for a whole 30-year period, and the values have been updated based on the sources listed. Only relative humidity, dew points, and sunshine is based on 1961-1990, since no more recent data is available. The rest of it, including temperatures and precipitation, is all from 1991-2020. Therefore, it does not need editing, and is in the most revised state it can be until the 2001-2030 data comes (which will obviously be quite a while).
Timothy2b (
talk) 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you. When you say "When it comes to climate, 30-year periods are the ones used", who says that? We are waiting for 2030 according to who? Sorry I have limited availability this week but will try to stay current on this discussion. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It isn't necessarily wrong to have older data, so some places use 1981-2010 as theirs when there is so more recent data, but in the spirit of keeping things as up to date as possible 1991-2020 is the norm if available. What I meant with 2030 was only that since these normals are updated every 10 years, the next set of climate normals will be 2001-2030. Obviously we are still many years from this though.
Something I forgot to mention was that one thing that could at times need updating is the record high or low for specific months, as these do not reflect any sort of average value and can be broken at any point.
If you are interested in climate normals and how to read the data NOAA has on their website, I could write up a guide of sorts on where to find each set of values. I know I struggled quite a bit in figuring everything out to begin with.
I am also not the quickest at replying so don't stress about it.
Timothy2b (
talk) 10:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi guys. I need to hear from Hurricane and the
WikiProject before deciding. Today I wrote to the NWS Twin Cities office. They passed on my question this morning and I'm waiting for an answer. Best wishes. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Before deciding what? And what question did you ask them? Just wondering.
Timothy2b (
talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"Deciding what": I have to take a side. We are in the middle of FAR.
Climatological normal mentions that normals are not without criticism. Timothy, you are asking me to disregard a specific request from a featured article coordinator to bring climate data up to the present. I asked NWS if NOWData averages are a legitimate solution. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Further, we have to decide whether we want current data. If we want current data we must agree to update it annually, something SandyGeorgia would oppose. I need to know if this decision applies to all FAs or not. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WMO climate normals has the governing data set I seek. Timothy, you may be relieved to hear that a
Minnesota climatologist kindly explained this to me. I'll take care of informing the FA coordinator. Thank you for your patience. You had this right. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 20:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Eek, sorry I didn't get back sooner, and sorry I messed things up by including the whole dataset with the averages! I also got a bit of a crash course in climate averages, that we should be using the 1991-2020 period, which incidentally means we only have to update every ten years (unless there are monthly record highs/lows). Thanks Timothy2b and SusanLesch for figuring this out. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 05:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries. That's what talk pages are for. I'm relieved that we won't have to update this annually. Thanks again for your help. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the late reply! And you're welcome, and again, if you ever want help with how to find some of the climate values on NOAA's website I'm happy to help.
Timothy2b (
talk) 15:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We've made great strides here. If a robot can't do the 2030 update I will be sure to ask you. 😀
Timothy2b, I do hope you'll sign up as a participant in
WP:WikiProject Weather.
Hurricanehink, I'm afraid I misled you—you did a perfect job but we asked for the wrong thing. Best wishes. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 03:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I saw some edits over this weather box, but I do see some changes being needed. Last Monday, Minneapolis recorded a new record high for the month of February (65 F)
This
talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
talk pagehas not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was
last edited by
Oncamera(
talk |
contribs) 13 seconds ago. (
Updatetimer)
Thank you for the correction. I think this is only the second time someone has informed us of a broken weather record in the last 15 years. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 17:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks good to me. Record values can obviously be broken at any time so the table should be updated if that happens. Sadly climate change is only going to make that more frequent.
The reason for the editing changes is discussed in the section above, but should be more or less resolved now.
Timothy2b (
talk) 10:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Greetings. As the last step of FAR, the lead needs to be inclusive of all sections in the article. I propose the following. Your comments? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended content
Minneapolis,[c] officially the City of Minneapolis,[2] is a city in
the state of
Minnesota and the
county seat of
Hennepin County.[3] With a population of 429,954, it is the state's
most populous city as of the
2020 census.[4] It occupies both banks of the
Mississippi River and adjoins
Saint Paul, the state capital of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and the surrounding area are collectively known as the
Twin Cities, a metropolitan area home to 3.69 million inhabitants.[5] Minneapolis is built on an artesian aquifer on flat terrain, and is known for cold, snowy winters and warm, humid summers. Nicknamed the "City of Lakes",[6] Minneapolis is abundant in water, with
thirteen lakes, wetlands, the
Mississippi River, creeks, and waterfalls. One of the most extensive public park systems in the US is connected by the
Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway.
The site of Minneapolis was originally inhabited by
Dakota people. European settlement began along
Saint Anthony Falls—the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River[7]—on land north of
Fort Snelling. The city's early growth was attributed to its proximity to the fort and the falls providing power for industrial activity. Minneapolis was the 19th-century
lumber and
flour milling capital of the world, and as home to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century. A Depression-era labor strike brought about federal worker protections. Minneapolis played a role in the development of
supercomputers and mobile
refrigeration, and is the birthplace of
General Mills, the
Pillsbury brand, and the
Target Corporation.
Minneapolis offers literary presses and publishers; James Beard award-winning chefs; ethnic museums; and US pond hockey championships. The city's arts institutions include the
Minneapolis Institute of Art and the
Guthrie Theater. Four professional sports teams play downtown.
Prince is survived by his favorite venue, the
First Avenue nightclub. Minneapolis is home to the
University of Minnesota's main campus. The city's public transport is provided by
Metro Transit and the international airport, serving the Twin Cities region, is located towards the south on the city limits.
Most of the world's religions are reflected in the city, which upholds more than 50 denominations and religions, and many Minneapolitans are volunteers. Despite its well-regarded quality of life,[8] Minneapolis faces a pressing challenge in the form of stark disparities among its residents—arguably the most critical issue confronting the city in the 21st century.[9] Governed by a mayor-council system, Minneapolis has a political landscape dominated by the
Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), with
Jacob Frey serving as mayor since 2018.
Sounds like a tourism guide to Minneapolis and not in Encyclopedia tone such as "Favorite son Prince", other things are not significant enough to be in the lead such as the Ojibwe treatment center or "downtown ambassadors greet visitors".
oncamera (talk page) 23:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What do you suggest? The two sentences on DID ambassadors and Red Lake Nation are gone. Prince represents the music section. This is rather challenging to mention every section. Can you help? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The lead does not need to mention every section per
MOS:LEAD, just what is important. On Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.
oncamera (talk page) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, except we only have about three FAR reviewers still active.
One says, "My opinion is: if there's a heading for it in the body, it should be mentioned in the lede, even if only briefly." -
SusanLesch (
talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That's just their opinion. The lead shouldn't be filled with less important things about city greeters, that's absurd.
oncamera (talk page) 17:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oncamera, I invite you to improve the lead. The person who was assigned that task hasn't done it, and we are at the end of FAR. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 17:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
New lead 2
Minneapolis,[d] officially the City of Minneapolis,[2] is a city in
the state of
Minnesota and the
county seat of
Hennepin County.[3] With a population of 429,954, it is the state's
most populous city as of the
2020 census.[4] It occupies both banks of the
Mississippi River and adjoins
Saint Paul, the state capital of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and the surrounding area are collectively known as the
Twin Cities, a metropolitan area home to 3.69 million inhabitants.[11] Minneapolis is built on an artesian aquifer on flat terrain, and is known for cold, snowy winters and warm, humid summers. Nicknamed the "City of Lakes",[6] Minneapolis is abundant in water, with
thirteen lakes, wetlands, the
Mississippi River, creeks, and waterfalls. The city's extensive public park system is connected by the
Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway.
Dakota people originally inhabited the site of today's Minneapolis. European settlement began north of
Fort Snelling along
Saint Anthony Falls—the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River.[7] The city's early growth was attributed to its proximity to the fort and the falls providing power for industrial activity. Minneapolis was the 19th-century
lumber and
flour milling capital of the world, and as home to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century. A Minneapolis Depression-era labor strike brought about federal worker protections. Work in Minneapolis contributed to the computing industry, and the city is the birthplace of
General Mills, the
Pillsbury brand,
Target Corporation, and of
Thermo King mobile refrigeration.
Residents adhere to more than fifty religions, and thousands choose to volunteer their time. Despite its well-regarded quality of life,[12] Minneapolis faces a pressing challenge in the form of stark disparities among its residents—arguably the most critical issue confronting the city in the 21st century.[9] Governed by a mayor-council system, Minneapolis has a political landscape dominated by the
Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), with
Jacob Frey serving as mayor since 2018.
Oncamera, please see what you think of the above. Do you think it's better? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's improved. One thing: I've never heard/read anyone be called a "Minneapolitan" and it shows up as a typo on my browser. Can that be simplified to just citizens in the sentence: "and many Minneapolitans choose to volunteer?"
oncamera (talk page) 22:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reworded that. (I've heard the Minneapolitan demonym since at least fourth grade.) Anything else? Do you think I can put this in the article now? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oncamera, I tweaked the list of companies. Is this one OK to put in the article? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
^Thompson, Derek (March 2015).
"The Miracle of Minneapolis". The Atlantic.
Archived from the original on May 25, 2023. Retrieved April 28, 2023. By spreading the wealth to its poorest neighborhoods, the metro area provides more-equal services in low-income places, and keeps quality of life high just about everywhere.
^
abWeber 2022, p. 4, "The overarching goal is to take what may be the most significant issue facing contemporary Minneapolis—the crippling disparities among its people, exposed to the world in 2020, after the murder of George Floyd—and present a history that examines why those disparities exist, even as the city makes a legitimate argument for itself as a must-see or must-live kind of place.". sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeber2022 (
help)
^Thompson, Derek (March 2015).
"The Miracle of Minneapolis". The Atlantic.
Archived from the original on May 25, 2023. Retrieved April 28, 2023. By spreading the wealth to its poorest neighborhoods, the metro area provides more-equal services in low-income places, and keeps quality of life high just about everywhere.
^Mean monthly maxima and minima (i.e., the highest and lowest temperature readings during an entire month or year) calculated based on data at the said location from 1991 to 2020.
^Official records for Minneapolis/Saint Paul were kept by the Saint Paul Signal Service in that city from January 1871 to December 1890, the Minneapolis Weather Bureau from January 1891 to April 8, 1938, and at Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (KMSP) since April 9, 1938.[1]
Hey everyone! I am planning to make some changes here and these to Minneapolis's page. Please feel free to let me know if I messed up something because this is my first time editing on wikipedia. My plan is to maybe update the different cuisines that have entered (somali, indian, and so on). The list of “sister cities” needs to be updated based on the new information from [1] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Apurnuh (
talk •
contribs) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome,
Apurnuh. Have you considered joining
WP:WikiProject Minnesota before jumping in here? Thank you, I agree the sister cities day could be added to the section on Annual events, and I made that change. Caribou Coffee headquarters is in Brooklyn Center not in Minneapolis so I removed that addition. The article already mentions Somali cuisine. Have you considered adding your favorites at
Cuisine of Minnesota? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Apurnuh, I'm not sure you got this message here. I moved your thread down to chronological order. Here's a long
Help:Talk pages help page. Thanks. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Apurnuh, I'll try to work in the farmers market. As it is your edit cannot remain here because
WP:USCITIES guidelines state that rankings like the one you added are not admissable. I will also remove the link you placed behind the word vaudeville per
WP:EL. Thanks. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Apurnuh, this is a featured article. Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced statements, so I removed the Sculpture Garden. I hope you will look elsewhere for opportunities to edit Wikipedia. It's a long learning curve. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 20:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SusanLesch Thank you! I am sorry if I messed up the article by adding the garden and farmer's market. Thank you for working in the farmer's market if you can!
Apurnuh (
talk) 19:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, both the sculpture garden and farmers markets in general are here now. Thanks. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Apurnuh, please do not add unsourced material. I removed your explanation for MSP. The city is roughly 5 by 11 miles, so saying the airport is 10 miles from downtown means little. We don't need to spell out the name of the airport (which is quite long) twice in two sentences. Thank you. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Rollerblades
@
Magnolia677: Thank you for
your edit. I will reword the entry accordingly; please note though, the
US Patent Office says the company was incorporated in Minneapolis. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 20:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, at least one of the brothers still lives in Waconia. I'm tempted to leave this out. How would you account for the patent office statement? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 22:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
They probably went to the nearest pattent office.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I removed them. (One of the brothers talks pretty loosely about location, saying that Minneapolis is the hockey capital of the US. He seems to forget about Waconia as I did.) Thanks again. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Your edits to Dakota history
Excuse me,
Magnolia677. There's no improvement after your changes. Why single out one missionary who may have been one of the first White people to see the falls but is known for staying at
Mille Lacs Lake nowhere near Minneapolis, and skip over Britain's arrival? In the same stroke, you chopped out every other person. Your edit summary is peculiar, Minneapolis was not the Dakota "homeland". The paragraph you just removed explains that indeed it was. I suggest you read Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota by Westerman and White if you have a disagreement with that.
You wrote, This is the only source that specifically mentions Minneapolis. This is sourced content, please discuss. You don't own this article. First, this is ludicrous. Your choice of sources is fine but cannot stand up to those that were already used in this article. Why don't you add yours to Further reading?
Works cited gives you dozens of sources that mention Minneapolis. The page you cite says up front, It is a time dominated by the economy of fur trading, first by the French, then the British, and finally Americans. But you chose to skip the British (and for some reason, you chose to cherry pick from a web page instead of reading and digesting the sources we already use). Second, you don't own this article any more than anyone else does.
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are
verifiable against high-quality
reliable sources and are supported by inline citations
where appropriate;
Why are you trying to make big changes today? We haven't heard anything from you for four months since you asked to include The Fall of Minneapolis on November 20, 2023 -
SusanLesch (
talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SusanLesch: Regarding
this source, you write: "Your choice of sources is fine but cannot stand up to those that were already used in this article. Why don't you add yours to Further reading?" You were the one
who added this source to the article in the first place. Moreover, it specifically mentions Hennepin's observations of the Indigenous people he encountered specifically in Minneapolis (the title of this article).
Magnolia677 (
talk) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
FYI, Hennepin has been called a
crank. The source you cite mentions Minneapolis, just as this one mentions
Minneapolis. That doesn't mean we must include it here. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Let me get this straight. You added the source, and now that another editor has also used the same source, you don't like it anymore? It doesn't really matter which source gets cited, but Hennepin was the first European to visit Minneapolis, so his comments about what he saw when he arrived are worth mentioning. Finally, what is the relevance of
this source? --
Magnolia677 (
talk) 15:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My objection was to your interpretation of the source (you erased indigenous history and the arrival of the British). I wondered if you remembered Wikipedia's featured article criteria. And I asked why you made major changes now after four months of silence. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's certainly been a while, but as we say in the Delta, I've been busier than a church fan in August...spending time with the
Mega Society and the Trump campaign...and have missed much of the discourse here, but Ay, caramba!, in my absence, the Indigenous history of the western United States has mistakenly been presented as the history of the Mini Apple, and an editor believes the City of Lakes is in fact the homeland of the Dakota! Maybe we can all find a compromise and avoid dispute resolution. Thank you!
Magnolia677 (
talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Magnolia677: I see you continue to ignore all the ongoing history of Dakota and European-Americans in the Dakota homelands that Minneapolis is built on, you even think the name means "Mini Apple". How cute.
oncamera (talk page) 19:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Search of
Hennepin's book does not find "blueberries" so I'd have to challenge that quote. But it's a translation so who knows. The translator did mention
whortleberries. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Oncamera: With
this edit you changed a section heading from "Dakota people" to "Dakota homeland".
This source includes a map of the Dakota traditional territory, and also states--with regard to the "Dakota homeland"--that the Dakota controlled a territory "that stretched from the Upper Mississippi River to the Middle Missouri River". How is it that you view Minneapolis as the Dakota "homeland"?
Magnolia677 (
talk) 10:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Minneapolis is on Dakota
homelands: homeland is a place where a cultural, national, or ethnic identity has formed. See
Bdóte - Dakota name for Minneapolis and Saint Paul area, includes origin story of Dakota people and maintains a significant role in Dakota cultural identity.
Numerous maps show an extended territory for the
Sioux nation but most early interaction between Europeans and Dakota people took place in the Minneapolis area, which opened the area up for Euro migrations. In formal agreements with the government, the 1805
Treaty of St. Peters,
Treaty of Mendota,
Treaty of Traverse des Sioux are treaties between Dakota people and the United States, where Minneapolis is located, that include Dakota homelands and historically where Dakota villages were located. The treaties, and later forced exile after the
Dakota War of 1862 pushed the majority of Dakota people out of what became Minneapolis.
There's a long history of Europeans engaging with Dakota people in Minneapolis, as you know with your
Louis Hennepin edit.
Joseph Nicollet also befriended Dakota people there as he created his map with many Dakota placenames.
Gideon Hollister Pond and his brother created one of the first Dakota orthographies and dictionaries at
Bde Maka Ska which are still in use today. Dakota people don't have origin stories anywhere else but in Minnesota, especially at
Bdóte. Dakota villages were seasonal and moved depending on the time of the year but culturally they center on the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers and surrounding areas.
oncamera (talk page) 14:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Oncamera: Do you have a source that specifically says Minneapolis is the Dakota "homeland"?
Magnolia677 (
talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Oncamera: The sources you have cited state that various places in the region are located on Dakota "homeland", but Minneapolis is not the homeland of the Dakota. Please keep in mind: this article is not about the Dakota, or about the history of Minnesota...it is about Minneapolis. So changing a section heading to suggest that the city is the homeland of the Dakota--when sources cited do not support this or suggest the opposite--is both misleading and factually incorrect. Please revert your edit.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This article includes the history about how the Dakota were originally on the land that became Minneapolis. You can't write about Dakota people without writing about their land in this article, therefore you can't change it from Dakota homelands to Dakota people as you did. Interactions with the Dakota leaders, US government and various notable Europeans reiterate it's Dakota homelands and numerous organizations call it Dakota homelands today. You're incorrect to ask that it be reverted to Dakota people as the section is about them originally inhabiting this land, it's not about their society as peoples.
oncamera (talk page) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Missing photo of Dakota tipi village and first house of Minneapolis?
I don't know if there's someone who wants to find a version of this photo that can be successfully uploaded to the Wikicommons, but I think this early photo of Dakota tipi village in front of the
John H Stevens House would be a great addition to this article, as seen in this
Star Tribune piece. On the west side of the river in Minneapolis, John H. Stevens built the first home there in 1850 and initially platted the city in 1854. Stevens was the first authorized resident in what would become Minneapolis. He was allowed to occupy the site, then part of the Fort Snelling military reservation, in exchange for providing a ferry service to the St. Anthony side of the river. I've seen the photo captioned as "1854 photo Indian camp on site of Bridge Square, lower Nicollet Ave., Minneapolis, Minn. With frame house of "Col." John H. Stevens in left background Vintage 8x10 Photograph" on other sites.
oncamera (talk page) 19:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I love that picture. One day I tried very hard to find a free copy, and unfortunately the MN Historical Society's image search has been broken for over a year. I seem to recall it is copyright the Hennepin History Museum but I'll check again. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, it's the library's now.
The image says "in copyright" and donation was from the Star Tribune in 1970. I recall the trick to finding this is different spellings of teepees and tipis. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The photographer was
Tallmadge Elwell, Daguerreotype view of Native American tipis and the John Harrington Stevens House on ground that would later become the Gateway District of Minneapolis, Minnesota, c. 1852-1855. By Tallmadge Elwell. oncamera (talk page) 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh yes. I asked for a copy from LOC. Can you find a text page for the image at mnhs.org? It used to tell us the copyright status. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 23:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
When discussion has
ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the
Minneapolis article begin its first section with A) an overview of the Native Americans who lived in the area (as it does now) with the heading "Dakota homeland, city founded", or B) the first European to view the area that became Minneapolis (as it does in
this version) under the heading "Dakota people, city founded"? -
SusanLesch (
talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Survey
A, and, frankly, the heading should probably be different, like simply "Dakota homeland" or "Early history" which I feel is a little less disjointed. However, I am curious, since the body of the section mentions both the Dakota and Ojibwe, what is the reason for excluding the Ojibwe in the header?
PersusjCP (
talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ojibwe migrated to Minnesota in the 1700s or so and never established themselves in the area of Minneapolis. Their reservations are in northern Minnesota and in eastern states. They traveled to the Minneapolis area to do business at Fort Snelling which led to clashes with the Dakota people.
oncamera (talk page) 04:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A. It's not a comprehensive article without inclusion of Native people and honestly couldn't achieve featured article status without it as it's currently written. The section is about Dakota land, not specifically about them as people so it should stay as Dakota homelands or Dakota lands. Minneapolis maintains relationships with Dakota and Ojibwe people and they are still a part of the population, especially in South Minneapolis where the
American Indian Movement started.
oncamera (talk page) 04:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A. The narrative doesn't make sense without establishing the Dakota homeland first. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
SusanLesch: This was discussed for one day, by three editors. Why did you feel the need to rush to an RfC?
Magnolia677 (
talk) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I found the edit warring to be jarring. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 13:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A, but with a caveat: the current wording needs to be slimmed down to what is immediately relevant to Minneapolis rather than the history of Ojibwe migration and Dakota presence in the state. Staying focused and on-topic is a key part of the GA/FA process for good reason. SounderBruce 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
B - This article is about Minneapolis; it isn't about the history of the western United States. Extensive text about the migration of people with no relevance to Minneapolis is out-of-scope. Moreover, the "homeland" of the Dakota was 1000 miles wide. Stating that Minneapolis was the "Dakota homeland" is factually incorrect (is Houston "Texans homeland"?) --
Magnolia677 (
talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia should be careful with B. I would prefer to concentrate on
Zebulon Pike as the first individual mentioned. Something like
Alexander Ramsey who was also given memorial placenames, Hennepin is part of the troublesome and changing history of American memorialization. Hennepin must have some good qualities but his reputation fell and he's been called a
crank. Also, two other men passed by the falls that day with him.
This source (p. 20) says his book was a romanticized "captivity narrative". Another
reliable source (p. 43) says the list of foodstuffs are what the Dakota fed to Hennepin (meaning they could have been, but were not necessarily their habitual foods). Because Hennepin only saw the falls and went back to Mille Lacs, I think he should be omitted here. -
SusanLesch (
talk)
Hennepin was the first European to visit the city, and he gave a detailed (and now deleted) description of the Dakota when he arrived. He was so revered that Minneapolis is located in...Hennepin County!
Magnolia677 (
talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Magnolia677 I agree that "Dakota homeland" is not the greatest title for that section as it is too specific and broad at the same time, but the prehistory of a settlement area is important. you can see this in any other article on large settlements, where context behind the settlement of a city is important to understand. History doesn't suddenly start at the founding of a city. I think that's an extremely narrow view of history that excludes a lot of important history about the area prior to its founding. Just to be clear I don't think it should be about the entire western united states as you say, but then again, the article doesn't do that. I believe everything in the article currently is relevant other than maybe a couple details.
PersusjCP (
talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The history section currently has a whopping five paragraphs about Indigenous people. All I did was try to trim one paragraph which had almost no relevance to Minneapolis (the topic of this article):
About six Native American nations inhabited Minnesota, and in modern times, two nations dominated: the Dakota (one tribe of the Sioux nation) and the Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, one tribe of the Anishinaabe nations). Evidence says the Dakota were state residents in or before 1000 AD. Dakota are the only inhabitants who claimed no other land; they have no traditions of having immigrated and their site of creation is at nearby Bdóte. The Ojibwe migrated west from the Atlantic states to northern Minnesota where they displaced many of the Dakota people by the 17th century.
Moreover, there are FIVE hatnotes at the top of this section providing readers with more detail about the Dakota and the area's history. My effort was reverted.
Yet when I added a short section about the first European---and namesake for the county Minneapolis is located in---who specifically commented about the Dakota he encountered in Minneapolis, it was removed:
In 1680, French explorer Louis Hennepin went through what was to become Minneapolis, and named St. Anthony Falls. Hennepin described the Dakota there as "cooking in earthen vessels, living in bark lodges, eating wild rice cooked with dried blueberries, and hunting bison on the prairies". (removed)
This is why B seemed the obvious choice for improving this bloated, out-of-scope history section.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 17:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's problematic you deleted all the information about it being Dakota homelands to replace it with a European who stopped by while "discovering" a waterfall. You can advocate to include a short sentence that Hennepin county is named after Louis Hennepin but he's not so important that all Dakota history needs to be erased.
oncamera (talk page) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
So your actual problem is not with "irrelevant" history, your problem is with Indigenous history. Please be clear when describing your problems.
The history of an area prior to its foundation is a city is relevant. Idk what to tell you. I think you would be hard pressed to go to the article for
Rome and argue for the removal of any prehistoric parts because it's irrelevant. To argue otherwise is simply wrong. It is noteworthy. It is covered by reliable sources. It is strongly related to the topic. It is included in secondary sources about the topic, and as per
WP:NPOV, if reliable sources include it relating to the topic, you can't exclude it based on your personal beliefs... All of this points to pre-history being included in the history section of an article, not to mention the precedent for this across the entire site.
PersusjCP (
talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The third and fourth paragraphs also have little relevance to this article about Minneapolis.
WP:USCITIES#History suggests a narrative about the city's "original inhabitants/pioneers", but somehow the entire Indigenous history of the US north-west has been shoehorned into this article. This isn't fair to readers, who can easily click on one of the five hatnotes at the top of this section in order to learn these tangential detail.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 23:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree. I think it is quite relevant, and I think it stays on topic. It doesn't feature the "entire Indigenous history of the US north-west" as you put it. It is specifically about the history of the Dakota in this region, which is relevant as this is the center of their homeland, as others have shown. If it did include the "entire Indigenous history of the US north-west," it would include parts from other states such as Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, it doesn't. Cheers
PersusjCP (
talk) 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A of course. The place did not suddenly appear when the Europeans
"discovered" it.
[1] Violence and genocide forcing off the indigenous peoples preceded the firm establishment of countless cities throughout the U.S. We are an encyclopedia. We do not
erase and whitewash the past.
Caveat. I have no opinion on the section title, only that the Native Americans precede their conquest to establish the city. Geology could, in fact, precede that. The past does not start when humans arrive. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 02:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
SusanLesch: You started this RfC, asking, among other questions, about the heading "Dakota people, city founded". Now you have started two completely new discussions below, about the same questions. Did you read "avoid discussion forks", per
WP:RFC? What are you doing? Wait for this RfC to close.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 17:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fixed now. I hope nobody will mind the smaller headings. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Dakota homeland
Hi,
PersusjCP. Great to meet you. I think you might enjoy the second paragraph of
this article by
Bruce White. It's the clearest and shortest explanation that Minneapolis is the Dakota homeland that I've seen so far. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I agree, but that's
WP:SELFPUBLISHED and isn't a reliable source. Unless you can prove that Bruce White is a reliable author, which you are welcome to do, I don't think it can be used.
PersusjCP (
talk) 22:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's just for your information, because I noticed you had a problem with the heading (I agree that "Dakota homeland" is not the greatest title for that section as it is too specific and broad at the same time). No worries on
WP:RS. Tom Weber says the same thing in Minneapolis: An Urban Biography (Chapter 1).
Dr. White is a subject matter expert, who won a Minnesota Book Award and another prize with Gwen Westerman for Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota which I recommend. Take care. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Dakota "homeland" covered five states and four provinces. Look at the map. Stating that little Minneapolis is the Dakota "homeland" is factually incorrect.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 23:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The City of Saint Paul has a
map showing all the Dakota villages and sacred sites created by cultural department of the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, it also says the Twin Cities area is "Homeland to the Dakota people". This same map is installed as an art installation in a city park overlooking Fort Snelling. The map you're using shows territory that includes the many bands of the Lakota, Western Dakota and Eastern Dakota, which are all of the
Oceti Sakowin. You complained earlier that the history section was telling the history of the whole western United States instead of what's in Minneapolis (or even Minnesota) yet you're doing the same thing with that source covering all of the Sioux as your argument of removing Dakota homelands in Minneapolis.
Saint Paul land acknowledgement also says Dakota homelands to go with the sources I linked in the first Dakota homeland section.
oncamera (talk page) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This map shows much larger area, and the Minnesota Historical Society used the same heading we have now. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 23:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You might be misinterpreting what they are saying. Minneapolis is PART of the Dakota homeland. The Dakota did not spring up directly from some Minneapolis suburb, no one is saying that. But to deny that the Minneapolis region is not Dakota homeland is simply not factual, as Oncamera and SusanLesch have quite thoroughly proved.
PersusjCP (
talk) 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are Dakota beliefs that they did in fact originate from where the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers meet in the area that includes Minneapolis and Saint Paul known as
Bdóte.
oncamera (talk page) 00:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Interesting, I didn't know that. That makes it even more the case that this is relevant, then :)
PersusjCP (
talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you, then. I will be sure to look into it :) I could go either way on that title. My main problem about it being "too specific" is that Dakota history in the region is more than just about their homeland. It being "too broad" is that the Dakota homeland is more than just Minneapolis, and while it is true that Minneapolis is Dakota homeland, I fear it may be just a bit too vague to be the title of the section.
PersusjCP (
talk) 23:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry if I'm out of sync with you guys, but to finish my thought: The
historical society says, as does this article, the Dakota have multiple origin stories. The society says one is widely held in this region. This article says Dakota are the only inhabitants who claimed no other land;[1] they have no traditions of having immigrated and their site of creation is at nearby
Bdóte.[2][a] I'd make only one correction to what we have there: omit the word "nearby". -
SusanLesch (
talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
^Weber 2022, p. 6. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeber2022 (
help)
^Westerman & White 2012, pp. 3–4, "William H. Keating, a geologist who came to the Minnesota area on an exploratory expedition in 1823, observed, 'The Dacotas have no tradition of having ever emigrated, from any other place, to the spot on which they now reside...'. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (
help)
I need some help sourcing the Ojibwe's arrival. Treuer[1] is a good source but he seems partisan to me. I'm willing to go with either "Dakota homeland" (which
Oncamera documented as used by the majority in the region) or "Dakota birthplace" (a new heading proposed to avoid all the disagreement). I hope this satisfies
SounderBruce and
Magnolia677. Comments welcome. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 15:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dakota birthplace, city founded
Two indigenous nations inhabited the area now called Minneapolis.[2] Archaeologists have evidence to say at least since 1000 A.D.,[3] they were the
Dakota (one tribe of the Sioux nation),[4] and, after the 1700s,citation needed the
Ojibwe (also known as Chippewa, one tribe of the Anishinaabe nations).[5] Dakota people have different stories to explain their creation. One centers on
Mille Lacs Lake,[6] the same place in east-central Minnesota where
Father Hennepin—the first European to see the Minneapolis area and who renamed
Saint Anthony Falls after his patron saint[7]—writes that the Dakota held him captive[8] in 1680.[9] More widely accepted, another story says the Dakota emerged from
Bdóte—the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers just south of Minneapolis.[10][a] Dakota are the only inhabitants of the Minneapolis area who claimed no other land;[13] they have no traditions of having immigrated.[14] In the
Dakota language, the city's name is Bde Óta Othúŋwe ('Many Lakes Town').[b]
^Experts disagree on the exact location of Bdóte. Tom Weber believes Bdóte is outside Minneapolis boundaries as drawn in 1927.[11] Bruce White believes Bdóte is a wider spot that includes part of Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and suburbs.[12]
^The University of Minnesota Dakota Dictionary Online requires a Dakota font to read special characters.[15] Here, Dakota to Latin alphabet transliteration is borrowed from
Lerner Publishing in Minneapolis.[16]
References
^Treuer 2010, pp. 14–15. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTreuer2010 (
help)
^Lass 2000, p. 40. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLass2000 (
help)
^Wingerd 2010, p. 365n. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (
help)
^Treuer 2010, p. 3. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTreuer2010 (
help)
^Westerman & White 2012, p. 15, "Some Dakota accounts gathered from missionaries suggest that Bde Wakan (Spirit Lake, or what is known today as Mille Lacs) is the origin place and the center of the earth.". sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (
help)
^Kane 1987, pp. 1–2. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKane1987 (
help)
^Hennepin 1892, pp. 201, 271, "where I was for nearly eight months a slave among the Issati",
Lurie 1985, p. 198, "(often lumped erroneously as "Santee Sioux," a corruption of Issati which was another name for the Mdewakanton whose range extended into west central Wisconsin)" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLurie1985 (
help) and translator note: "'where I was made a slave by these savages.' The lake is Mille Lake." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHennepin1892 (
help)
^Wingerd 2010, pp. 18, 20. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWingerd2010 (
help)
^Weber 2022, p. 6. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWeber2022 (
help)
^Westerman & White 2012, pp. 3–4, "William H. Keating, a geologist who came to the Minnesota area on an exploratory expedition in 1823, observed, 'The Dacotas have no tradition of having ever emigrated, from any other place, to the spot on which they now reside...'. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWestermanWhite2012 (
help)
There's sources that use "Dakota homelands" but I never seen any call it "Dakota birthplace" so I would be against that change.
oncamera (talk page) 16:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Then I hope editors will agree on homeland. This fighting has to stop. -
SusanLesch (
talk) 16:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Dakota land" would be better than birthplace if "homeland" is too specific.
oncamera (talk page) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I can support "Dakota land". -
SusanLesch (
talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Expansions Proposal for the Minneapolis Article
Hello fellow editors, we are proposing some expansions and improvements to the Minneapolis article to enhance its comprehensiveness and accuracy:
Geography
We plan to add more details about the city's geography, including its location within Minnesota, topography, and notable natural features like lakes, rivers, and parks.
Demographics
The article could use additional demographic information on population size, ethnic/racial makeup, languages spoken, and religious affiliations in the city.
Culture Section
We want to substantially expand the Culture section by adding specifics on the arts, music, literature, theater, festivals, cuisine, and other significant cultural institutions or traditions in Minneapolis.
Landmarks and Attractions
We will highlight more of the city's notable landmarks, attractions, tourist destinations, historic sites, museums, sports venues, and other points of interest.
We plan to rely primarily on sources from city/state government websites, travel guides, newspaper articles, and scholarly publications when making these additions. Please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions related to expanding the Minneapolis article in these areas. We look forward to improving the article's coverage together.
Are these AI bot accounts? Sorry, but they all write their user pages in the same way and have made very little edits.
oncamera (talk page) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply