Talk:List of governors of Minnesota

Untitled
James B. Hughes who started the Minnesota Chronical was the first Territorial Governor for Minnesota. He was sent by President Zachary Taylor as a Whig agent and Territorial Governor, Ramsey soon followed Hughes as Hughes relocated to Hudson, Wisconsin.

Just a note: There are probably some glaring errors in the Lieutenant Governor side of the table here. I just quickly added it in. Hopefully someone will be able to go through and clear that up (as well as List of Lieutenant Governors of Minnesota) &madsh;Mulad 01:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking that the political color bar should not include the LT Governors, because prior to 1974 they were elected seperate and the lt gov may not have been the same party as the gov Smith03 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Kentucky and Delaware
I just happened to look at List of Governors of Kentucky and List of Governors of Delaware. These both achieved Featured List status. I think this one is very close, but I see that the "notes" columns are empty; perhaps we should work on putting relevant information there. Also, I wonder if the photos will be a detriment.--Appraiser 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I added the "notes" column to standardize this list with the other featured governors lists.  This should be one of the last tasks to complete before nominating for featured status.  List of Governors of California and List of Governors of Alabama have also been featured.  The California list also contains pictures of nearly every governor, so we might be able to use the current pictures in this list if we can find some more.  Otherwise, we can pick out five or six notable governors (Pillsbury, Ramsey, Pawlenty, etc) like the other featured lists. -Gopherbone 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:GovPreus.jpg
The image File:GovPreus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:WRMerriam.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Governor photo and portrait use licensing
Note the following relevant to governors' photo and portrait use:   SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1962-63 recount 2 governors in term 53
E L Andersen should also be given credit for serving governor in Term 53. the term began in Jan 1963, all the other state officers (Lt Gov, AG SS etc) took their oath of office at that time. Lt Gov AM Keith began his term in Jan 1963, while Andersen remained gov pending the outcome  of the recount. Skippypeanuts (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on List of Governors of Minnesota. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509094324/http://www.governor.state.mn.us:80/aboutminnesota/governorsofficeandhistory/formergovernors/index.htm to http://www.governor.state.mn.us/aboutminnesota/governorsofficeandhistory/formergovernors/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616135428/http://www.sos.state.mn.us/student/amendcon.pdf to http://www.sos.state.mn.us/student/amendcon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Governors of New York which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

James Janos
The note of his legal name was there for many years. I noticed you did a big rewrite of the article thank you although I noticed you removed the part of birth location why I don't know. If you want a source I am sure you could find it. I really don't believe you are questioning the truthfulness of it.        

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.171.31 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging the truthfulness, I'm challenging the laziness and necessity. I removed birth location because it's absolutely useless. --Golbez (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is, if it's good enough for the state to use "Jesse Ventura" in the ballot and official results without a footnote, why do we need one? Why do we need to give the full legal name of anyone on here, let alone specifically him? And why only him? Why not do it for everyone? You say because it's substantially different but that's a judgment call, one could say that all nicknames and initials need to be spelled out. --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If you know of any of the other governors who ran under an assumed name by all means please add as well. Nicknames and initials are different then aka Jesse Ventura. AFter he took office he had to file something document with the sos to sign bills as JV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.171.31 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I can think of a few right off the top of my head. Pat Brown, Jerry Brown. Jeb Bush. Fob James. "Nicknames and initials are different", I'd say that all four of the examples I just gave go beyond "nicknames and initials". They aren't simple "Richard->Rick" or "Walker->W.". But the best way for this was to not footnote every name based on what specific version we decided to use in the list; I just use the article name. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us. (note: not bringing married/maiden names into this as that's a different issue, but in the couple of places I've encountered it, yeah a note was needed because they had changed their legal name from what was on the ballot. Ventura didn't - from what I can tell, he was always listed as Jesse Ventura on the ballot.)
 * Tell you what: Use the correct efn template and give a source that it's somehow relevant that his legal name wasn't Jesse Ventura. Like, "after he took office he had to file something" then I'm sure you can source that info. But none of the sources you supplied do that. Hell, almost none of them say that his legal name at time of election was Janos, which is important for the fact that you're wanting to include.
 * I'm in an asshole mood today and I sorry I took that out on you, but the substance of what I'm saying remains my feelings: If it's good enough for the article name, then we should use it, and thus should only footnote it if he changed names during the term from what he was elected as. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That source wasn't adequate. It's a source saying his legal name in 2012 was Janos. We need a source saying that his legal name during his administration, or during the election, was, preferably with information on why that is relevant (as you said, the SoS thing). and I repeat that I am being an asshole and I apologize for being a dick about ref/efn, I promise that if you find an adequate source, I'll format the note properly. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I put in for a third opinion because I realized my recent mood issues and, I'll admit it, twinge of ownership, have made me not remotely objective enough for this. I've been rude and I'm sorry, and I'd like to see someone else chime in. If I'm wrong, then please say so and so be it. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. Person 1 removes something that that has been in an article uncontroversially for years without discussing it on the talk page.
 * 2. Person 2 puts it back in.
 * 3. Person 1 has it on ey's watch page see it been added back in and removes it again put reason in edit comment.
 * 4. Person 2 adds it back explains why it is different than reason given for removal in edit comment.
 * 5. Person 1 reverses it back and states I don't want an edit war let's talk after reversing it back to eir's view.
 * 6. Person 1 points out it is not source even though the information is not being challenged for being true.
 * 7. Person 2 adds back with source (probably not formatted correctly) but still adds it back with source.
 * 8. This is a new one for me. Person 1 asks a 3rd party opinion who is mostly likely going to back up an "established registered wikipedian" vs the person who just edits unanimously.

This why I stop being a regular contributor on Wikipedia. Someone adds something truthful one person doesn't think it is needed and removes and the person tries to add it back and gets told about sources, edit wars etc. (the only thing missing was a threated block) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.171.31 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

PS I note you never sourced the politcal parties for all the governors I would hate for someone to remove it as it is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.171.31 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC) PSS If he was Jim Janos, Jimmy Janos, J.G. Janos, J. George Janos. I wouldn't be making the argument for the footnote. The name Jesse Ventura is a stage name not a childhood nickname, or maiden name or an adopted name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.171.31 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation:
 * Person 1 removes an unsourced, unnecessary factoid. It being there uncontroversially either means no one cared that it was unsourced or no one noticed.
 * Person 2 reverts.
 * Person 1 sees it and removes it with a reason.
 * Person 2 adds it back.
 * Person 1 says hey maybe we should discuss rather than edit warring.
 * Person 1 goes to the future and reminds you that just because something is true doesn't mean it doesn't need to be properly sourced.
 * Person 2 adds with an inaedequate source and thinks that's sufficient.
 * Person 1 then realizes he's been a twat and looks for someone else in the community to chime in because he no longer thinks he can ably deal with this situation, and doesn't care whether or not the IP he's talking to is an IP with a martyr complex or someone who's been here for 20 years. If it's new for you for someone to want to seek a third opinion rather than get riled in a fight that he doesn't want to be a part of, then maybe you need to interact with more humans.

I didn't source the parties directly, but we have links under each governor to source their general info, did you miss those? The reason dates need specific sourcing is because I've learned that modern sources are really really bad at old dates.

There's two questions at play here: Is his name relevant? And, if so, do we have a source? You've answered neither, and I wanted to stop asking. So, getting someone else. You want to get someone else? Go for it. If you are somehow offended that I *didn't want to fight with you anymore* then maybe you need to deal with your own issues. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well our IP friend decided a third opinion wasn't relevant, and well, okay. Fine. Fuck it. --Golbez (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)