Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 7

Historian needed
Is there a historian available who can sort out the truth of this article's statement: "In the early 19th century, the United States acquired this territory from France." It's cited to the library which does seem to say so, but I guess only the part of Minneapolis that is west of the Mississippi was in the Louisiana Purchase. So for now I'm leaving the "citation needed" flag. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Requesting help from a historian is a great idea. I'm not a historian, but I have a partial answer. The statement in question is not very helpful. Insofar as "this territory" of Minneapolis is west of the Mississippi River, the United States acquired this land from France in 1803 as part of the Louisiana Purchase. Land east of the Mississippi was not a part of this land deal. This raises other questions. Where was the original settlement of Minneapolis? If a historian can recommend some more readings on pre-Columbian peoples and the American founding, it would be greatly appreciated. And what about the part of the area which was east of the Mississippi? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be two original European settlements, both at St. Anthony Falls. The two communities later merged. This paper by the Minnesota Historical Society looks interesting:. See pp. 1115 of the .pdf numbering. See also this blog:. Scroll down to the bibliography for more references. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither source mentions France. I would say looking at this map that three-fourths of the city was part of the Louisiana Purchase. -SusanLesch (talk)
 * That's correct: neither source mentions France. It's possible that this should be amended. If early Minneapolis is understood as two settlements at St. Anthony Falls, then half of that was outside of the Louisiana Purchase. The other half was founded at the frontier. These sources also call into question the first sentence of the history section that portrays the 1680 area as being solely inhabited by the Dakota. Even the source already cited says that the Ojibwe (sp?) lived there, too, but it is unclear about the time frame. I have not read enough to be certain about any of this, however. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a historian, but I sometimes play one here. Without using Wikipedia as a source, we might look at History_of_Minnesota (which is also a featured article). It says "All of the land east of the Mississippi River was granted to the United States by the Second Treaty of Paris at the end of the American Revolution in 1783. This included what would become modern day Saint Paul but only part of Minneapolis..." Our article on the Louisiana Purchase says its boundaries were disputed: "the U.S. claimed Louisiana included the entire western portion of the Mississippi River drainage basin..." while "Spain insisted that Louisiana comprised no more than the western bank of the Mississippi River and the cities of New Orleans and St. Louis." So either way, the west bank of Minneapolis (most of the present city) was part of the Purchase. Of course, that was all unsurveyed lines on abstract maps; the land really belonged to the Ojibwe and Dakota people. Jonathunder (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background. Hopefully there will be a reliable secondary source to support this as it relates to Minneapolis. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oldsanfelipe, this history by the former Minneapolis Public Library is an excellent overview. Jonathunder, here is an attempted rewrite based on the information you gave above. Lass's Minnesota: A History is a source in addition to the sources already given in the article. Everybody please feel free to edit this draft until we get it right. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the MPL document remains problematic. The passive voice does not inspire confidence, "It is believed that the Dakota people lived and flourished in the area to be known as Minneapolis before Daniel Greysolon, Sieur Du Luth (known as Duluth), and Father Louis Hennepin visited the area in the 1680s." Then, "The other dominant Indian Nation in the area was the Ojibwe." What should we make of this sentence? Is it talking about pre-1680, the centuries after, or both? It's hard to decipher this paragraph because it's poorly written. Reading other sources does not produce more clarity regarding the presence of Ojibwe in the area in 1680. Also part of the suggested text appears to apply broadly to Minnesota, while being unclear about the role of Minneapolis. Thanks for your patience. The reading is a slog because many of the names are new to me and I am spending much of my time wiki-surfing and looking at maps. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that any facts from the MPL about Native Americans in our article are backed up by the source you found above from the historical society. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the sentence, "Descendants of first peoples, Dakota and Ojibwe were the region's sole residents when French explorers arrived around 1680," the MPL article provides weak support, at best. (Refer to "it is believed" above.) That article does a much better job of explaining the activities of first peoples in the 19th century. I just learned yesterday that Hennepin was a captive of the Sioux, putting a twist on the description of "explorer." It seems that the Sioux treated him well, but what's relevant is that Hennepin's movements were restricted, and might have prevented his contact with other first peoples, even if others were residents of the area. And Hennepin didn't find St. Anthony's Falls: the Sioux agreed to take him there, according to one source. Perhaps the MPL article hedges on 1680 because they are just guessing. But if the source hedges, Wikipedia should hedge, too. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that any facts from the MPL about Native Americans in our article are backed up by the source you found above from the historical society. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the sentence, "Descendants of first peoples, Dakota and Ojibwe were the region's sole residents when French explorers arrived around 1680," the MPL article provides weak support, at best. (Refer to "it is believed" above.) That article does a much better job of explaining the activities of first peoples in the 19th century. I just learned yesterday that Hennepin was a captive of the Sioux, putting a twist on the description of "explorer." It seems that the Sioux treated him well, but what's relevant is that Hennepin's movements were restricted, and might have prevented his contact with other first peoples, even if others were residents of the area. And Hennepin didn't find St. Anthony's Falls: the Sioux agreed to take him there, according to one source. Perhaps the MPL article hedges on 1680 because they are just guessing. But if the source hedges, Wikipedia should hedge, too. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I am going ahead to fix the citation flag. The MPL series covers information in enough depth for this high level overview. We don't even stop to name a single person except Little Crow. You might check this one which is more clear about the date of the French arrival. The historical society is even more exact, July 1680. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Motocross
Today we have a new edit adding supercross and motorcross to the sports table. Is this really a professional team sport? If not maybe it should be in prose. I'm rather confused by this entry which seems to mix stock car and motorcycle racing into one thing. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ in prose. Your help would be appreciated getting the years right. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move
There is a discussion on the name of the article on Block E/Mayo Clinic Square at Talk:Mayo_Clinic_Square. Feel free to contribute. Kablammo (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Images
, we seem to have radically different views of images. Let's see if we can reach an agreement on this one. From your last edit summary: * Please discuss why this image needs to be in the article.

* Decorative image per MOS:IMAGES. Kindly point to the precise part of the Manual of Style that would exclude this image? The word decorative only appears once in MOS:IMAGES. "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." Without his portrait and its caption, the reader could be unaware that Little Crow and others exchanged their land with settlers for money (millions of dollars and five per cent interest). When the U.S. reneged on the deal, war resulted, as described briefly in the prose. Also as described in the prose, Minneapolis was the birthplace of the American Indian Movement. Therefore this image is an aid to understanding.

* This person could be added to 100's of articles which used to be Indian lands. Perhaps so. Minneapolis is, however, the largest and most notable settlement in the region to date.

* This person's article doesn't mention Minneapolis Well then maybe you will edit his article someday to improve it.

* and the source cited doesn't mention Minneapolis The source cited describes the land ceded in detail. Of course it doesn't mention Minneapolis which did not exist. And would not have existed without the treaties. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Little Crow was born at Kaposia, which is about 8 miles from the nearest border to modern Minneapolis (see ), so he wouldn't even meet the criteria to be included in the "notable people" section of the article. As for adding a picture of Little Crow to the history section, Little Crow was an Indian leader who signed the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and Treaty of Mendota, and Minneapolis was but a speck on the huge tracts of land ceded in those treaties.  Little Crow appears to have little direct connection to Minneapolis, other than being a leader who once ruled a huge piece of land on which Minneapolis and many other settlements were located.  Adding a picture of Little Crow to the Minneapolis article would be like adding a picture of George III to the New York City article, because George III ruled over the land on which New York City and many other settlements were located prior to the American Revolution.  The image is decorative, per MOS:IMAGES, and neither significant nor relevant to the article. The image is also misleading to readers, who may come to the erroneous conclusion that Little Crow had some specific and significant impact on Minneapolis (otherwise, why would his portrait be right there in the history section?) Finally, this article is about Minneapolis, not the birthplace of the American Indian Movement. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have a final tomorrow so will get back to this on Wednesday. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The caption for the photo of Little Crow relates an undeniable fact. Quibbling about boundary lines makes very little sense. In that era, Minneapolis and Saint Paul did not exist. Calling our city a "speck" is fine on a billions-of-years scale but not fine in human lifetimes. It's also not fine to leave out all the captions you have cut. I took your word for it, but Little Crow's article actually does mention Minneapolis. It describes a sculpture of him near Minnehaha Falls. If you approach it at the right time the sculpture can take your breath away and I'm grateful to the artist.
 * First off, you could be reading entirely too much into MOS:IMAGES. And you haven't cited a precise rule even though you were asked. I already quoted the only mention of the word "decorative." It appears in a clause. There is no such subsection, not even a whole sentence concerning or defining "decorative" images in the Manual of Style. Hand waving in that direction won't change the text.
 * Second, WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and the general guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure don't say a word about images (except the infobox).
 * I'm trying to understand your point of view. You seem to think Minnesota should not picture governor Tim Walz because he was born in Nebraska. Or Australia should not picture James Cook because he was English. Or that Canada should not picture Laura Secord because she was born in Massachusetts. Or Cleveland should not picture Moses Cleaveland because he was born in Connecticut. I guess some Wikipedians just don't like photos of people except in articles about those people. I took the time to review a few featured articles. We seem to have a case of personal preference, usage and conformity.
 * May I suggest that if you feel this strongly on this subject that you write a guideline? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No image spam pls...use WP:Prose as per WP:Gallery - WP:Undue - MOS:ACCIM...and dont forget WP:Sandwich. Great to see the article made accessible to all.-- Moxy 🍁 00:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for listing Wikipedia's applicable guidelines. First regarding MOS:ACCIM, I added 4 alts that were missing. Accessibility was a priority in the development of this article but those slipped through. WP:Sandwich is an accessibility issue that might not been completely resolved since the invention of infoboxes (why criticize this article and not Atlanta, Houston and Denver?). The others you cite are mystifyingly indistinct on the subject of images. WP:Prose is about lists vs. prose. Point taken with WP:Gallery though! I agree with Magnolia677's deletion of the gallery (for a few years teams depended on University of Minnesota facilities, but now most major sports have their own stadiums in the Twin Cities). That leaves WP:Undue which actually mentions images! So I'd like to ask you, is this article complete without the information in the following three deletions? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)



A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Prince 1983 1st Avenue.jpg

RfC on Dakota Sioux in Minneapolis history

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do Native Americans belong in the History section? Specifically I would like to know if Little Crow and the section name and history should remain or be deleted. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At long last! There is a good source. Little Crow does not belong here, according to the foundry who casted his portrait by Ed Archie NoiseCat at Minnehaha Falls in Minneapolis.


 * Comment - A previous discussion about Little Crow is at Talk:Minneapolis (above). Magnolia677 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Often times when I see language like this it seems forced and somewhat out of place. In this case, I'd suggest a compromise between the two versions: something along the lines of: This would retain a brief history of the land without delving into detail that is best left in more specific articles.Little Crow's picture should not be included. The caption even stated he was only one of 121 leaders to have been involved with ceding the land, so it would appear to be a decorative image of someone whose pertinence to this particular article is marginal. I agree with Magnolia677's rationale for removal. --Sable232 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * why did you select the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux? The caption's source gives three separate treaties. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the map on that article, it is the treaty that ceded the land upon which Minneapolis was founded. The 1837 treaty ceded the land east of the Mississippi, and the Treaty of Mendota was slightly later, although being negotiated with different bands it is unclear which regions were ceded by which bands. Perhaps it would be better to state "by a succession of treaties" instead. --Sable232 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

First, apologies, Little Crow was misplaced here (see Rachel McLean Sailor above). Also first, the Dakota people belong here. You guys can't just come in and disappear them. Here's an overview. Making some progress. The following is in flux and re-edited. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC) {{tq2|
 * "Minneapolis history before the middle of the 19th Century is really the history of the Dakota (Sioux)." So begins A History of Minneapolis written by the Minneapolis Public Library (now Hennepin County Library who will send it to you in a PDF).
 * By 1829 a Dakota village was on the west shore of Bde Maka Ska. Fort Snelling agent Lawrence Taliaferro (of Dred Scott fame) advised them to learn farming to replace their hunting way of life which non-indigenous settlers had killed off to near extinction. Their leader, Cloud Man eventually agreed.
 * "The land Fort Snelling encompassed took in nearly the complete area of present-day Minneapolis and almost half of the present-day city of St. Paul." Today Fort Snelling (unorganized territory), Minnesota contains part of Minneapolis.
 * During and after the Dakota War, 1.600 friendly Native Americans were held in a concentration camp on Pike Island at Fort Snelling. Cloud Man died there. Technically not in Minneapolis.
 * Kate Beane, descendant of Cloud Man, wrote her dissertation in 2014 on the subject.
 * More as it becomes available. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Dakota natives, city founded
Dakota Sioux were the region's sole residents when French explorers arrived in 1680. Called a "proud, confident and resourceful" people, Dakota moved according to the seasons, hunting beaver, marten, mink, and fox; fishing; and gathering berries, wild rice, nuts, and maple sugar. They knew of the Europeans, and welcomed them. Amicable relations developed based around trade for fur in exchange for iron pots, knives, and blankets. Gradually, more European-American settlers arrived, competing for game and other resources with the Native Americans. After the Revolutionary War, Great Britain granted the land east of the Mississippi to the United States. In the early 19th century, the United States acquired land to the west from France in the Louisiana Purchase. Fort Snelling was built in 1819 by the U.S. army at the southern edge of present-day Minneapolis and also bordering Saint Paul as the U.S. military's most remote outpost, to direct Indian trade away from the French and English to the U.S., and to prevent the Dakota and Ojibwe in the north from fighting each other (tensions provoked by  French arms sales). The fort attracted traders, settlers and merchants, spurring growth. Agents of the St. Peters Indian Agency built at Fort Snelling enforced U.S. policy of assimilating Native Americans into European-American society, asking them to give up hunting for subsistence and to learn to plow for cultivation. The U.S. government pressed the Dakota to sell their land which was ceded in a succession of treaties. The U.S. reneged on the treaties after the Civil War, which resulted in hunger, war, internment, and hardship for the Dakota, who were eventually forced out of Minnesota to other states. The Minnesota Territorial Legislature authorized Minneapolis as a town in 1856, on the Mississippi's west bank. Minneapolis incorporated as a city in 1867, the year rail service began between Minneapolis and Chicago. It later joined with the east-bank city of St. Anthony in 1872. }}

{{tq2|
 * Comment: Don't forget that we already have an article for History of Minneapolis. The facts in the above paragraph would be suitable for inclusion into that article, if it isn't already in there.  (I'm at work right now and I don't want to put in a lot of time looking.)  For the summary in the main article, I'm going to shrink it down a little bit and propose this:

Dakota natives, city founded
Dakota Sioux were the region's sole residents when French explorers arrived in 1680. Gradually, more European-American settlers arrived, competing for game and other resources with the Native Americans. After the Revolutionary War, Great Britain granted the land east of the Mississippi to the United States. In the early 19th century, the United States acquired land to the west from France in the Louisiana Purchase. Fort Snelling was built in 1819 by the U.S. army at the southern edge of present-day Minneapolis and also bordering Saint Paul as the U.S. military's most remote outpost, to direct Indian trade away from the French and English to the U.S., and to prevent the Dakota and Ojibwe in the north from fighting each other. The fort attracted traders, settlers and merchants, spurring growth. Agents of the St. Peters Indian Agency built at Fort Snelling enforced U.S. policy of assimilating Native Americans into European-American society, asking them to give up hunting for subsistence and to learn to plow for cultivation. The U.S. government pressed the Dakota to sell their land which was ceded in a succession of treaties. The U.S. reneged on the treaties in a series of events leading up to the Dakota War of 1862.

Franklin Steele and John H. Stevens should be mentioned here; see the History of Minneapolis article Also mention how Charles Hoag suggested the name of the city

The Minnesota Territorial Legislature authorized Minneapolis as a town in 1856, on the Mississippi's west bank. Minneapolis incorporated as a city in 1867 and later joined with the east-bank city of St. Anthony in 1872. }}

Also note that the US reneged on the treaties around 1862, leading to the Dakota War of 1862. That wasn't after the Civil War, it was during it.

This is my suggestion; feel free to revise it if you want. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Elkman, woops. Thank you for the correction on timing during the Civil War. The History of Minnesota is fairly clear on the Dakota. History of Minneapolis and Minnesota could both explain this much better. Kate Beane, a descendant of Cloud Man who grew up in South Dakota, uses the strongest of language (ethnic cleansing, genocide, discrimination, exile). I think this small section of Minneapolis can be explicit, and I'll try to contribute to the other articles later. Thank you very much for your editing. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sable232 and User:Magnolia677, any problems with the following? Thank you both, this article has been corrected based on new information that a photo of Little Crow didn't belong here. (His sculpture at Minnehaha Falls is so far unexplained.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

{{tq2|

Dakota natives, city founded
Dakota Sioux were the region's sole residents when French explorers arrived in 1680. Gradually, more European-American settlers arrived, competing for game and other resources with the Native Americans. After the Revolutionary War, Great Britain granted the land east of the Mississippi to the United States. In the early 19th century, the United States acquired land to the west from France in the Louisiana Purchase. Fort Snelling was built in 1819 by the U.S. army at the southern edge of present-day Minneapolis and also bordering Saint Paul as the U.S. military's most remote outpost, to direct Indian trade away from the French and English to the U.S., and to prevent the Dakota and Ojibwe in the north from fighting each other. The fort attracted traders, settlers and merchants, spurring growth. Agents of the St. Peters Indian Agency built at the fort enforced U.S. policy of assimilating Native Americans into European-American society, asking them to give up hunting for subsistence and to learn to plow for cultivation. The U.S. government pressed the Dakota to sell their land which was ceded in a succession of treaties. The U.S. reneged on the treaties during the Civil War, resulting in hunger, war, internment, and exile of the Dakota from Minnesota. Outwitting the fort's commandant, Franklin Steele laid his claim on the east bank of Saint Anthony Falls, and John H. Stevens built his home on the west bank. The Minnesota Territorial Legislature authorized Minneapolis as a town in 1856, on the Mississippi's west bank. Minneapolis incorporated as a city in 1867 and later joined with the east-bank city of St. Anthony in 1872. }}

Well, before the Dakota living in what today is Minneapolis, the Cheyenne were the tribe that lived there, only to be pushed westward by the Dakota, and then with the Indian termination policy, this forced many Ojibwe to the Twin Cities area with Native populations originally in Beltrami and Near North neighbourhood, and eventually coalescing in the Phillips Communities. So, with that said, the Cheyenne and the Dakota should be mentioned in connection Minneapolis' pre-history (to set up the founding basis of the City) and early history. There should be a mention of how Main St. originally was portage-way to by-pass Saint Anthony Falls (there is a painting of it somewhere), and there should also be a mention of Spirit Island, and then with the growth of the mills, the Spirit Island was quarried away. The Native history in Minneapolis from that point until to the start of the Second World War should be silent. But with the industrial productions during the war, and then with the Indian termination policy after the War and lasting into the mid-1960s, the native influx back into Minneapolis should be mentioned.

But definitely in the pre-history portion of the City of Minneapolis' history the geographical significance of Bde Mka Ska, Lake of the Isles, Cedar Lake, Bassett Creek, Fawn Falls, Pikes Island, Spirit Island, St. Anthony Falls, Loring Lake, Minnehaha Creek and Falls, Cold-water Springs, and the birthplace of the Dakhota Nation definitely needs to be mentioned, along with Zebulon Pike expedition, the 1805 Treaty of St. Peters, founding of Fort Snelling, and then the establishment of the City. CJLippert (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodness, that's a tall order. Thank you very much, CJLippert, for your considered advice. Phillips neighborhood should be added to Demographics. And we have lots of room in Geography for Spirit Island. Looking through the Minnesota history books on hand, the word Cheyenne appears only once in passing (in Lass). I find online sources for the Main St. portage, however, some of the places you mention are either in Saint Paul or could never make it into the ultra-high level focus of this article. We also neglect to mention the Cheyenne in Minnesota and History of Minnesota (which is really a dynamite article). What would you think of working these points into History of Minneapolis? That would give us more time to find reliable sources and a chance to improve that article. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Spirit Island to Geography but feel it is out of place (no other feature of the city's geography gets even a sentence, yet this island that is no longer there gets two). I searched Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar for accounts of Ojibwa moving to the Beltrami, Near North, and Phillips neighborhoods. Unless you can give me a source, there is no way this can be added to Demographics. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another question, User:CJLippert. The Encyclopedia of Minnesota Indians by Donald Ricky mentions "Cheyenne" more often than "Ojibwa". He also does not ever mention Little Crow. How could that be? (He has two chapters on Little Crow IV and V in another book.) -SusanLesch (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:CJLippert, I am depending on you as the only identifiable person with knowledge of American Indians in WikiProject Minnesota. But anybody else is more than welcome to step in. Here's another weirdness in Ricky: a screen shot of the man he says is Little Crow IV (not Little Crow V). Wearing long sleeves. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - To closing admin...please note all three RfCs on this page spill together. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer. The final tq2 template above is what I am proposing. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Athletes pictured at work or in city of origin

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Maya Moore's photo belong in the article Minneapolis? A native of Missouri, she is a highly celebrated athlete playing in Minneapolis (Sports Illustrated created a new award for her) and is currently on sabbatical. Or does Wikipedia believe Tom Brady would be out of place in the Boston article because he was born in California? Thank you. -21:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * City of origin is sufficient but not required for a person to be relevant to a city. It is but one factor. For example, Tony Gwynn was voted by the San Diego Union-Tribune to be the city's No. 1 influential sports figure, but he did not move to San Diego until college. Is Moore even in the debate for being (among) the city's top sports figures?—Bagumba (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't say. Minnesota had sports awards only for the past 3 years: winners were Moore's teammates Sylvia Fowles (2017), Lindsay Whalen (2018), and Napheesa Collier (2019). I consider the Sports Illustrated award and associated press a national award that would supersede a Minnesota award, however. -22:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction, Star Tribune has had awards for 22 years. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What we had is the best portrait of Moore playing including all of the Commons. We don't have one like Getty Images of her billboard. On the other hand, Magnolia appears to approve of image #2 below from Williams Arena. I fail to see the difference really and I am not sure about the precedent of somebody deciding what images we use who seems to think photos grow on trees. May we please restore Moore to the Sports section? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "Magnolia appears to approve of image #2 below". Please explain. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The caption quotes you verbatim. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When I wrote a "panorama of her team", I meant an image which showed the whole team, and maybe even the stadium in Minneapolis. If we were writing for People Magazine those would be great shots, but we're writing an encyclopedia article about a mid-Western city.  How about the image below?  Way more appropriate to a city article, with more emphasis on the city's team and stadium and less emphasis on one personality (who has her own article for heaps of close-ups). Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)




 * That is a fantastic picture of the wrong person. I asked User:Lashaull the photographer to join this discussion. If she is not too busy (which is entirely possible) maybe she'll weigh in. Here are four more of Moore. I'm leaning towards #1 and #4. And you, Magnolia677? We could solve this whole RfC right now. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I visited Minneapolis about five years ago, and I distinctly recall when I touched down at the airport my pilot NOT announcing "ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Minneapolis–Saint Paul, home of Prince and Maya Moore". In my four days visiting the city (mostly on business), not once did anyone--not one person--mention the names "Prince" or "Maya Moore". I met some of the friendliest people you will find anywhere in the United States; down-to-earth people who were proud of their city and its accomplishments, but none of them seemed to define their city by a rock star or a pro-athlete (who isn't even from Minneapolis). So when I suggest this article feature a photo showing Minneapolis fans enjoying the Lynx playing at Target Center, you respond that the photo shows "the wrong person". What difference does it make which Lynx players are in the photo? The photo is not intended to show one person, it is intended to show a Minneapolis team playing at a Minneapolis sports venue. Again, this article is about Minneapolis, not Maya Moore (she has her own article). I do not understand your insistence that a close-up of Maya Moore is a better representation of Minneapolis than a photo of the city's sports fans enjoying a game. Minneapolis has much to be proud of without glamorizing any one person. I know you have personally invited many Minnesota editors to this talk page, and I have my fingers crossed that some of them appreciate that Minneapolis is more than Prince or Maya Moore. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Y'all come back now y'hear? If I'm in town we'll go see the Rembrandt (he never set foot in Minneapolis) and go eat at the Dakota Jazz Club (they let musicians born anywhere play there). And if next summer Moore decides to retire from basketball, I will lobby for that great photo of Sylvia Fowles you found. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Checking back here since my last comment. Moore is accomplished, but my criteria would be reliable sources that describe a person as being synonymous with the city. I'm removing this from my watchlist, so ping me if any further input is needed from me.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bagumba came up with a very useful rubric, and I admit that Moore is not synonymous with Minneapolis. She emerged briefly this week in an interview in The New York Times. That article does not mention Minneapolis, and does mention Atlanta where Moore lives, twice. So I am going to request that an uninvolved editor close this discussion. I am happy to swap her portrait for the pic that Magnolia677 found. Thanks to both of you for your help resolving this. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - To closing admin...please note all three RfCs on this page spill together. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on appropriate image of Prince
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A photo of Prince was recently deleted because he is "dancing in Ireland." The replacement image is up for deletion. First, know that free photos of Prince are almost non-existent: you can see in the Commons and The National Law Review that Prince "fiercely protected his image." Second, the caption refers to Prince as a student at the Minnesota Dance Theatre, and the photo reflects Prince's theatrical and dance abilities. Does Wikipedia believe that the location disqualifies this photo from the Minneapolis article? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good to have a picture of Prince on the page, his ties to the city are deep and his image is a major part of who he is. In my opinion it doesn't really matter where the picture was taken, especially if it's difficult to come across free pictures as you mention. Bosons (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If there were multiple, high-quality Prince photos and one was in Minneapolis, then it's a no-brainer. But beggars can't be choosers. That part of article could use a picture. If not Prince in Ireland, then who or what are the other candidates?—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Lizzo, maybe? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Guess not, her best pics are from Boise, Seattle and Liverpool. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC) This pic of Dessa and Doomtree in Minneapolis was also deleted File:Doomtree-First Avenue-2010.jpg.-SusanLesch (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it might be worth referencing Prince's contribution to/pioneering of the Minneapolis sound as a distinctly Minneapolitan product which extends Prince's work. —Collint c 17:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Collin, how about you edit the opening sentences of the Music section to include the Minneapolis Sound? I can't read Delegard's article but have read Swensson's book and I think she would agree.


 * Comment - The photos of Prince, Maya Moore, Little Crow, and the dozens of other photos I deleted last week while cleaning up this article (including a photo of the interior of an office somewhere in Minneapolis) are decorative, and do little to enhance reader's understanding of this topic. This article is about Minneapolis.  It's not about Indean leaders who once ruled thousands of acres of land (on which tiny Minneapolis was but a speck), or professional athletes who have lived in the city less than a decade, or rock stars.  The article is about Minneapolis.  A read of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 8 will attest to the hard work many editors devoted to the section in MOS:IMAGES which addresses the "pertinence and encyclopedic nature" of images added to articles.  In other words, a picture of Prince dancing in Ireland is hardly an "illustrative aid" to enhance reader's understanding of this mid-Western US city.  It is puffery, boosterism, and "local boy makes good"...so here is a picture of him dancing on another continent.  Lovely, but of little relevance to this topic, and MOS:IMAGES is quite clear about relevance.  And the close up of Maya Moore is just more window dressing.  If the photo was instead a panorama of her team playing inside the stadium in Minneapolis, then absolutely...because it would be relevant to the topic of the article.  If readers want to see close-ups of Maya, or Prince dancing in Ireland, they can click on the link which leads to the biographies of those people.


 * At Hope, Arkansas, why is there no picture of Bill Clinton, but there is a picture of Clinton's "boyhood home"?
 * At Tupelo, Mississippi, notice how there is no picture of Elvis Presley, but there is a photo of Presley's childhood home (a historic site).


 * These are real places in Hope and Tupelo, and photos of these buildings are "significant and relevant in the topic's context" (a city).


 * Finally, regarding the comment above that "beggars can't be choosers", we are not running a soup kitchen. Wikipedia established itself through its high quality made possible by the hard work of its volunteer editors.  If something sufficient cannot be found, then add nothing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

you appear to be an experienced editor. I don't believe that MOS:IMAGES defines decorative images in the way you seem to want it to. Why did you walk away from discussion at Talk:Minneapolis? Then User:Moxy joined so I could not ask for a third opinion. Neither of you bothered to reply. I read your whole Pertinence archive. There User:Dmcq asked to no avail about three times what is meant by "decorative" images. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC) "Decorative image" is not clearly defined, and has multiple interpretations on various talk pages. To me it's kind of like Potter Stewart trying to define pornography: "I know it when I see it". Over the years I've deleted hundreds of decorative images from US city articles. Today I deleted from Beverly Hills, California, and last week I removed  from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, because each does little to improve their respective articles. Decorative images often show up in city articles as a means of promoting the city. For example, pictures of local celebrities who made it big, or images with "artistic flair", or photos with shock value. Some images could simply be better expressed as text, while others would be better placed on a more specific article. This is the first I've had any push-back about these deletions (coincidentally from the editor who uploaded the photos I deleted), so it would be good to get some clarity and consensus. I've looked through a few US city articles and found images (with captions) still in those articles, and added some below as what may be good examples of decorative images (please be sure to read WP:CAP first):

As an example, either of these two photos would be more relevant to the St. Louis article (my caption): Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what? More than a decade ago, and maybe before the reach of institutional memory, Minneapolis (this article) was sometimes considered a model for WikiProject Cities. It passed featured article review with much the same images as it had a month ago. By the way, thank you, I agree with your biggest deletion, the University of Minnesota sports facilities (because the major professional sports now have their own stadiums). Agreed, clarity and consensus are a good idea. Instead of asserting that MOS:IMAGES says something it does not say, what would you think of presenting your ideas at WikiProject Cities and helping write a guideline? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SusanLesch I'd prefer to wait a month and let the three RfCs you started come to a close. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RfCs began because you would not hold a talk page conversation at Talk:Minneapolis, and because editing like a strategic bomber has casualties. You know what else? The authors of your Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 8 discussion thought that goes without saying. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears every editor who has commented except Magnolia agrees the photo of Prince is justified. Based on that, I am restoring the status quo ante while discussion continues. Jonathunder (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to follow this page, but one thing is clear: An image of Prince unequivocally belongs on the page. His impact has been enormous, and he created the Minneapolis sound. I am glad to see an image of him on the article, and it does not matter one bit whether an photograph of a person was taken somewhere else. The purpose is to show an individual, not a geographic location. Kablammo (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Image Due to the rarity of available Prince photos, this photo should be included solely for visual purposes. HAL 333  23:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If the article was specifically on Prince, or about Paisley Park Records or Studio, or an article specifically on the Minneapolis sound, I can see the justification of the use of Prince's image. However, Minneapolis is far bigger than Prince, his music, or his operation. If one is going to connect Minneapolis to the Minneapolis Sound, perhaps the album cover of a typical Minneapolis Sound piece should be on the Minneapolis article page near the wikilink to the Minneapolis Sound. CJLippert (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very frankly, I was -><- this close yesterday to making a Deletion request for Minneapolis Sound. We'll give it more time but it is one of Wikipedia's unsourced montrosities. Instead, now this article mentions The Way (demolished) and Sound 80 in the context of Prince. And the caption is about the Minnesota Dance Theater (where else could he have learned to crook that little finger?). Thanks to Collin's idea our prose ties him more closely to Minneapolis, so I am comfortable with his photo being here. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Prince is very closely associated with Minneapolis, and a photo of him is proper. Looking at the pre-cull version of the page here I do think there are probably a few too many photos - the Minnesota stadiums gallery needs to go, the health section probably could lose two photos, and the history photos need to be better organised, but I don't support the mass photo removal at all. I don't consider them decorative. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - To closing admin...please note all three RfCs on this page spill together. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on city history
Should the Dakota people, as in this text, be in Minneapolis history? In December they were "Removed out-of-scope text regarding a general history of mid-West which is not specific to Minneapolis". Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice per WP:APPNOTE: I sent this to editors who may have input. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC) (re-edited)

Survey
Main St, Minneapolis was where the old St. Anthony Portage was. Here is a painting by George Catlin depicting part of the Portage.
 * Support as nominator. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the proposed history is too broad and needs to be trimmed of out-of-scope content. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons expressed below. Kablammo (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support.

Where Indigenous and Settler Histories converge on in the Twin Cities revolve around Saint Anthony Falls and the Mississippi-Minnesota rivers confluence. So, if those those features are kept as central themes, everything else should fall in place, structurally, for the article. And we already have good articles for these features already. By having these features mentioned on the economic importance to the Dakota, Ojibwe, and the Settlers, done right, it should convince people why the Twin Cities played, and still plays, an important role to the region. CJLippert (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Chicago's history section includes about 1-2 paragraphs on indigenous peoples, which I think is appropriate and which is mostly replicated here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This information is more suitable in the article on Minnesota. ~ HAL  333  20:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Based on the previous RFC on this page, which is an amalgamation of my suggestions, your suggestions, and others, the text in your sandbox looks fine. I was going to just be bold and copy it into the article, leaving it open for anyone else to edit, but I didn't want to short-circuit this RFC.  Like I said earlier, the main article about  should contain all the detail and the  article should have a summary here.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Elkman, would you mind making your !vote explicit above under Survey? The casual visitor is unlikely to notice the Support in your edit summary. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed paragraph needs to be trimmed. The first sentence establishes the context of the history as "the region", a region which covers "land east of the Mississippi". This is far too broad for a city article, and the first three sentences should be removed to History of Minnesota or History of Minneapolis, where discussions of the history of the US Midwest may be more appropriate.  Likewise, the interactions at Fort Snelling (which is not in Minneapolis) impacted an area much larger than Minneapolis, and should be removed to History of Minnesota, as it is out-of-scope for this article. Embellishing and exaggerating the history of Minneapolis by suggesting it was impacted in any significant way by the Revolutionary War or Louisiana Purchase will provide readers an inaccurate history of the city, and goes far beyond giving "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", per WP:PROPORTION. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Magnolia677, you've said you visited Minneapolis once. I would guess you did not visit the Minneapolis Public Library which employs some cracker-jack research librarians (who will answer in detail any question you ask them). They wrote A History of Minneapolis (available as a PDF on request). I am much more comfortable letting them decide what is too broad for a concise history. The Revolutionary War, the Louisiana Purchase, and the "land east of the Mississippi" are all in their work, consisting of three pages for the era we're including here. I am not comfortable with you making that decision. If you look at what we're proposing here, it is 1600 characters vs. your 500 character haircut. Incidentally, 2020 is the bicentenial of Fort Snelling, Minnesota’s best-known historic place. Also, "The land Fort Snelling encompassed took in nearly the complete area of present-day Minneapolis and almost half of the present-day city of St. Paul." -SusanLesch (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Decisions at an RfC are made by consensus, per WP:CLOSE. The wisdom of local librarians, or comfort level of any particular editor, is irrelevant. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The proposed text is fine. Minneapolis exists on land owned, claimed, and used by Native Americans, the French, and the British, and a few sentences to cover their roles are appropriate. There is no doubt that the relations between these groups were responsible for the development of the city, and discussion is appropriate for context. See this source. I also believe we should give some deference to the principal editors of the article and see no reason to dispute their judgment here. Kablammo (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC) I have miniscule contributions to this article which reduced its size by a tiny amount, and I did not contribute to its FAC. I have been a substantial contributor to Minnesota and related articles, which I imagine is why Susan informed me of this discussion.Kablammo (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am OK with all mention of indigenous history on the land we know today as Minneapolis. In fact, the more that is there (supported by authoritative evidence) the better, to decenter whiteness and to reclaim indigenous place names. RachelWex (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Voila! This Native American historic context study was done under mayor Rybak for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission and maybe to mark 2012 and the Dakota War. It is very dense and mentions nearly every point you made during the prior (now closed) RfC. I'm sorry to have had to ask you for a source. Now we have one. Thank you for your contributions! -SusanLesch (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolution
In accordance with this discussion I have restored the prior version. Kablammo (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of this, Kablammo. Why did you choose the prior version instead of this one? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of that, or forgot. Feel free to substitute!  Best wishes,  Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with how to close an RfC? You are hardly an "uninvolved editor", having participated in the RfC after being canvassed to participate.  Please explain. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Elkman helped with that proposed version. I swapped it in. would you prefer that I add this to the list of requests for closure? That area has a backlog and I don't believe this is a controversial close. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677, I was not aware of that. There is no doubt on consensus here so I enacted that consensus. But apparently I didn't actually compete a closure.  It may be best to list it, Susan, so that someone else can review this discussion and complete the process.  Kablammo (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is best not to list it per WP:RFCCLOSE:
 * "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."
 * I am waiting for Magnolia677's reply on that point. At 19:01, LegoBot removed this from the list of active RfCs. We don't appear to have any reason to add to the backlog. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I'll trust your judgement on this one. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Minneapolis Foundation
This photo was removed last December because "removed decorative image of the lobby of The Minneapolis Foundation". I have many other subjects to write about ahead of it in line. Still they contribute to all kinds of people during the Covid-19 pandemic. I don't see any reason other than Magnolia's personal preference for this photo to be removed. Comments? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sculpture
Greetings. Wikipedia can't use the Spoonbridge and Cherry sculpture in a photo because the United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures, only buildings. It's a copyrighted work. See Freedom_of_panorama. That said, it's not important to Minneapolis. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's my first time hearing that term. Thank you for the explanation. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  16:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lucretia
Another picture was removed in December by this edit. Pamela Espeland of MinnPost chose it this morning for her article about virtual museum tours including its owner, the Minneapolis Institute of Art. Are there any opinions here on whether it can be restored? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is decorative, per MOS:IMAGES. This article is about Minneapolis, not Rembrandt. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been through that. Two or more times. I was interested in other people's thoughts. Thanks for your opinion though. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Espeland chose it again today. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

 * Several names were proposed for the new city after its incorporation, including Lowell, Adasville, and Albion, with the latter name suggested by Hennepin County itself. Daniel Payne, John H. Stevens, and George Bowman contributed to replacing Albion... The present name is attributed to Charles Hoag, the city's first schoolmaster, who suggested Minnehapolis, derived from Minnehaha, and combined mni, a Dakota word for water, and polis, the Greek word for city.

What does this mean? Does "Hennepin County" mean the local government? What does "contributed to replacing" mean? Was the city named after Longfellow's character? Or the Dakota word? How did it change to its current form?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland, apologies for the delayed response. The name Minneapolis comes from the Dakota word, not from Longfellow. Yes, Hennepin County is local government, and is mentioned in the article's first sentence. I think it was organized very slightly before the city. Regarding "contributed to replacing" I will attempt to rewrite this paragraph today. I'm not sure I understand your last question, "How did it change to its current form?" -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hennepin is mentioned as a county in the first sentence, but it isn't obvious to me (a non-American) that the article is talking about the local government here. I wonder if it is possible to reword this. When I said change to its current form, I meant change to Minneapolis from Minnehapolis.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that better now? Thank you very much for pointing out the confusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's easier to understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

[P.S. For safe keeping in the archive in case anybody needs to go through all this again, this version has individual citations. They were too hard to parse so they are combined in the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)]

Strange image
Hi! Several wikies use the image on the right, and it has a dragon (???) on it. Could you help me: is it a vandal image or what? Wikisaurus (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is almost certainly a tree trunk. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Unanonymously rejected, closing early per WP:SNOW. No such user (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Minneapolis → Minneapolis, Minnesota – I think guidelines for naming the US cities shall be revised. Cities can be naming as just without state disambiguator per AP Stylebook. But for me, the guideline need to be revised with the cities can be naming as just if the population is more than 500,000. Any cities that have population less than 500,000 shall be formatted as <city, state> unless there are few examples. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To add, WP:USPLACE is the relavent Wikipedia guideline. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I Note that the city's population in 2019 is 429,606 which in my opinion shall not eligible for naming just a if the population is less than 500,000 which be revised. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:USPLACE states "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary topic for that name", and Minneapolis is listed in footnote 2. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I strongly dislike WP:USPLACE, but I don't understand this proposal. What is so important about a population of 500k? Nohomersryan (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Don't understand the significance of of a 500,000 pop. threshold and Minneapolis, Minnesota is obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  20:25, 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This is the wrong venue to challenge the current naming convention. -- Calidum  17:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the DAB is moved to the base name this is one of the cities in the AP Stylebook that can be at the city name alone if primary (or only).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. If you want to change WP:USPLACE, then you should start a discussion on that talk page. Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. This is not the venue to contest the accepted naming conventions for U.S. cities. --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No good reason to move this article back and forth. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The AP Stylebook was the compromise because it was a third-party reliable source. A 500,000 pop. limit is arbitrary. There is also a difference between actual population counts from the decennial U.S. Census, and population estimates that are generated for the other nine years (like the 2019 pop. estimate cited by the OP). I doubt the community has the appetite to make mass page moves back and forth every nine out of ten years based on estimates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of publisher parameters
Template:Cite_magazine says for publisher "Not normally used for periodicals" Template:Cite_web says for publisher parameter "Not normally used for periodicals" Kaltenmeyer (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kaltenmeyer, I am happy you are following rules, but not so happy that you did this without discussion. During FA review we were asked to be careful to include the publisher field. I am busy this week but will try to get back to this later. Or maybe someone else will. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me, Susan. While it is correct that the issue of missing publishers was raised in past reviews, it is also correct that we rarely need to duplicate the publisher when we have a magazine or journal name, where that suffices.  Perhaps if I raised missing publishers in the past, I was referring to NO information on publisher or journal or magazine.  On FAs, it is important to be consistent, though; if publishers are removed on periodicals (magazines and journals), please make sure they are all removed. I'm sure there are some FAs that used both, even if not necessary, which is OK (but unnecessary) as long as they were consistent.  What I am more concerned about in this edit is that it reveals that we have a good deal of text cited to an editorial from The New York Times. If that opinion should be used at all, it should be attributed, and I am concerned that there is so much space and excess detail given to one editorial opinion.  The article passed FAC with 5,000 words of prose, that has now grown to 10,000, so half of the article is unvetted, raising a concern about sprawl and loss of tight focus.  At the same time, there is considerable dated text on the page (look at the dates in citations, and many "as of" statements that are over a decade old, dating to the FAC pass).  I am sorry to say that I have had this and Minnesota on my list of articles that urgently need a WP:FAR because of these problems (dated text combined with unvetted text that fails to stay tightly focused), but just haven't had the time to get to them.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, SandyGeorgia. A search for "as of" didn't turn up more than 1 old number. To the point at hand, I happen to think Condé Nast belongs here as a publisher. The world is lucky to still have them in business. P.S. That's why I tend to expand refs when I find bare URLs on Wikipedia. It's nice to acknowledge our sources by author and publisher. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to include publishers on all of them, that would be OK, but then to maintain consistency in citation formatting (WP:WIAFA), you would have to add them on every magazine or periodical or websource as well, when publisher is different than work. Since this article needs substantial work to bring it back within FA standards, I am not sure that would be the best use of time.  I can detail the issues later if you are willing to work on them, but they are considerable, so I just haven’t carved out the time. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Towards the end of the year I might have time to get to your list. Thanks again for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with COVID-19
Can anyone here help write up the effect of the COVID pandemic on schools? On sports? On First Avenue? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some guy from the Covid WikiProject moved this out per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19. Anything we had written was moved to COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota where they keep a blow by blow record. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Population claims
Can anyone here say what is necessary to say in the first paragraph? WP:USCITIES asks only for city proper and metro area populations. I cannot figure out any significance in this maze, except that somebody is trying very hard to be the largest something. Currently: Used to also say: I am about to remove most of these claims as unsourced unless someone defends them. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * most-populous city in the US state of Minnesota
 * 46th-largest city in the US
 * 8th-largest in the Midwestern United States
 * second-most densely populated large city in the region behind Chicago
 * 16th-largest metropolitan area in the US
 * third-largest economic center in the Midwest
 * the larger of the Twin Cities
 * Hey Susan! I think the first two points (largest in the state, 46th-largest in the US) provide useful context against the rest of the state and the rest of the country; the rest are less useful or rely on shakier definitions (what's the midwest, anyway!). The first point might be sourced to here, the second to here. Other thoughts on this appreciated! Kindly, —Collint c 19:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Collin, nice proposal. For reference at the FA review in June 2007 we had two population claims (neither one was controversial):
 * largest city in the U.S. state of Minnesota
 * 16th-largest metropolitan area in the United States
 * So in effect, we'll substitute 46th in the US in place of 16th largest metro, and remove the rest. I plan to change the wording of one "largest" to "most populous." Do we have other opinions? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Largest" to "most populous" is a great move since "largest" can mean a lot of things. I didn't know this until just now but Minneapolis doesn't crack the top 150 largest cities by land area in the US and Minnesota's largest city by area is Hibbing! Very neat. —Collint c 18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah hah. Go Hibbing! Thank you, Professor Bobamnertiopsis. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a new paragraph one. Look all right? Looking at other featured articles, afraid we're stuck stumbling over metro areas and combined statistical areas. Like Boston. Plus this is the Twin Cities. Grand Forks, North Dakota is the only other one with a twin city. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Minnehaha Falls video
I feel that the Minnehaha Falls video is a poor choice. We have so many good photos to chose from rather than use this video of the 2013 flooding which does not really represent the tranquil nature of the falls, creek, and surrounding area. This one, for example, would be an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, LTNS. I do wish the video had a blue sky! But I like it. Can you explain why you don't? I don't understand your point, or why we should minimize the watercourse. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say more than I've already said except to add that I don't believe that my objection to the 1963 flooding photo suggests that I am trying to "minimize the watercourse". It is not normal for the falls to have a wild current of water roaring into a swirling creek.  That representation is no more appropriate than it would be to use a photo with barely a trickle of water coming down as sometime happens in a dry spell. A photo showing the falls in its "normal" appearance is the most appropriate one to use.  That said, I know you are working on this article and I have gained no support for my position so I will step down and not argue any further.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Video replaced. Thank you for choosing a photo. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the change. Susan, you may want to change the photo information as well.  For one thing, I can't find it in the source used and I doubt that it is accurate.  The Falls is a GA of mine (several years ago) and so I did a lot of reading.  It seems to me that at one time someone did try to put a mill of some sort...sawmill?..., using the falls for power.  It seems that evidence is still somewhere in the area at the base of the falls.  At any rate, the power of the falls is no where near the substantial power produced by the falls on the river.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you doubt that what is accurate? Page 35 of the source given says pretty much what our caption says. It mentions Godfrey's mills which I had forgotten. Your GA links to "The Six Flouring Mills on Minnehaha Creek" by Foster Dunwiddie. I remember him! Vaguely, as I was about five years old, when our family met him at (Minnesota State Fair? Como Park?) a merry-go-round. Anyway, we have no argument I know of that St. Anthony Falls out-powered Minnehaha Falls. By the way, please edit the caption and put in an alternate photo if you like. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The wording may say that but it is misunderstood in that the article is talking about the small settlements that grew up around the mills on the creek as part of the surrounding watershed. When it says that Minnehaha Falls did not grow to support a settlement but rather become a tourist attraction I think that it does not mean that is was competing with the Saint Anthony Falls mills.  I haven't explained that very well and hope you can figure out what I'm trying to say...  As for choice of a photo, this one best represents my memory of the park.  How interesting that you met Foster Dunwiddie!  It seems he must still be alive--I see that his wife recently died at age 95 after 72 years of marriage! Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I leave any changes needed to you. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Minnesota nice. {  It has been so nice to work with you Susan.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording for the photo. It was interesting when I did the research for the Falls article I found many, many very old photos with our collection at the Commons.  As for the claim of most photographed, do you think I need to document that?  A google search shows many sites but they seem to be of the tourist attractions sort.  I did find this one [] which seems to be written by a Minnesota historian.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. We must cite any claim like that, most, best, rank of anything. I find the MN historical society identifies Split Rock Lighthouse, First Avenue, James J. Hill House.... -SusanLesch (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tried something different. I'm not sure if I worded it very well and feel free to improve it if you feel it needs it.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beautiful.{ Gandydancer, come back more often! Now the photo and caption sparkle like the jewel Minnehaha is. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Geology
We should clarify the origin of Saint Anthony Falls. Glacial River Warren cut the valley of the Minnesota River and the Upper Mississippi below Fort Snelling. It did not flow over Saint Anthony Falls. It did flow over River Warren Falls near present-day downtown St. Paul. Those falls migrated upstream as the softer rock below the river bed was undercut. When the falls reached the Mississippi, they continued to migrate upstream on both the present-day Minnesota and Mississippi rivers. (On the Mississippi, it split at Minnehaha Park where the veteran's home is now, and then rejoined, leaving behind the present Minnehaha Falls.) St. Anthony Falls is a relic of that process, but was not itself created by River Warren. Kablammo (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kablammo, do you happen to know if Minnehaha Creek starts in Lake Minnetonka? I just stumbled on this map of the watershed but couldn't even say which way water flows. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source of the creek is Gray's Bay on the east side of Lake Minnetonka, which is shown on your map. Kablammo (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kablammo. You have been patient with this error for a long time. Is the following close enough to accurate to be usable? It took me two days, it's so complicated. Your corrections would be most welcome. The park service says half of River Warren Falls dissolved in the Minnesota river. Or is that same half all three of St. Anthony Falls, Hidden Falls and Minnehaha Falls? In any case, taking a leap of faith, it sounds like the driver was Glacial River Warren and River Warren Falls until Lake Agassiz flooded at the continental divide and the water went north?

Take two


 * I'm afraid I still don't quite grasp this. (I wonder things like this that don't have to be answered. Did Glacial River Warren carve the upper upper Mississippi (at St Anthony Falls and farther north)? Or did it carve the lower upper Mississippi (at Fort Snelling and farther south)? If the latter, what carved the upper upper Mississippi? And what carved the Mississippi in between?) Very truly yours, -SusanLesch (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Susan. Sorry for the delay.  River Warren did not flow over what is now St. Anthony Falls; it was the parent stream to the Minnesota River which lies in its bed, and the Upper Mississippi downstream of Fort Snelling.   did a nice job on River Warren Falls which you may find helpful.  And just as St. Anthony Falls is the only natural waterfall on the river, the gorge downstream from those falls is the only gorge.  Kablammo (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)



Maybe you would correct this timeline, Kablammo. Somewhere in here the River Warren lost its force because Agassiz drained elsewhere. Anyway, is St Anthony Falls not a remnant of River Warren Falls? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC) The park service says the power I'm looking for was also Lake Agassiz. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lake Agassiz finds a gap that becomes an outlet and glacial River Warren
 * River Warren makes River Warren Falls at St. Paul
 * the force of River Warren moves those falls upstream
 * at confluence with Mississippi at Fort Snelling those falls break in half
 * half makes it up River Warren to Nine Mile Creek but dissolves in rapids and disappears
 * half moves away and up the Mississippi (under what power????)
 * the falls move up the Mississippi (under what power????) to St Anthony Falls
 * Minneapolis is built at St Anthony Falls

According to Dr. Wright, River Warren Falls ceased to exist a few kilometers upstream from Fort Snelling (on Glacial River Warren/Minnesota River?) in a valley south of Bde Maka Ska in Minneapolis. A tributary waterfall, St Anthony Falls, was created at Fort Snelling and traveled upstream on the Mississippi where it split off Minnehaha Falls, and again split at Hennepin Island. So the force that created (i.e., the impetus for the initiation of) St Anthony Falls was River Warren Falls (they were not identical). Still unexplained, however, is what moved St Anthony Falls upstream from Fort Snelling to the site of Minneapolis? Why on earth can't this answer be found anywhere in Wikipedia? I have consulted Glacial River Warren, River Warren Falls, Lake Agassiz, Mississippi River, Glacial history of Minnesota and others. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a weirdly tough answer to find–you'd think we'd have this somewhere. Immortal River: The Upper Mississippi in Ancient and Modern Times offers some explanation. The Mississippi was at this time flowing, seemingly largely fed from Glacial Lake Duluth via the St. Croix River. The Mississippi, fed by the St. Croix, cut upwards along its channel once River Warren Falls passed by the confluence with the new falls (St. Anthony) cutting the gorge up to their location in what's now Downtown Minneapolis. Hope this is useful! It feels like it should probably be incorporated into several pages... —Collint c 18:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Susan, River Warren did not flow through what is now Minneapolis. It kept to the present valley of the Minnesota and the Mississippi below Fort Snelling. Outside of the southeast, the present topography (shown on the accompanying image) is a product of the last glacial period. The Mississippi was a small stream above Minneapolis. It was not fed by Lake Agassiz; the drainage of that lake did not cross the moraine into the Mississipi's watershed at the time. (It did of course cross the moraine into the present watershed of the Mississippi—the Minnesota River.) The relief map to the right shows that there is no low place where Agassiz could have drained into the Mississippi above the Twin Cities.

The Mississippi was fed by the Cloquet River for a time through Glacial Lakes Upham and Aitkin (where Big Sandy Lake is now), and as mentioned above from the present course of the Saint Croix to the Mississippi at Prescott, Wisconsin, but its volume above Fort Snelling did not approach that of River Warren.

But the geological processes which created the Falls of Saint Anthony and Minnehaha Falls are the same which created River Warren Falls-- the undercutting of softer rock underneath a cap of harder limestone. And those two present falls exist because of their parent in the Warren falls. Kablammo (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the beautiful map. If you and Collin can make corrections in place in our article that might help. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good concise source: Wright, W. E. (1990). Geologic History of Minnesota Rivers, pp. 14—15. Minnesota Geological Survey, Educational Series 7. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.  ISSN 0544-3083.  Collin cites this above also.
 * Took a stab! I am rusty on my earth science so any tightening and trimming is appreciated! —Collint c 00:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hurray, Collin, thanks! You and Kablammo make geology quite thrilling. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Gentlemen I can accept it was River Warren that created St. Anthony Falls, but still can't understand what moved it. The Mississippi doesn't show on Kablammo's map above Minneapolis. The confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi is maybe 10 miles away from St. Paul which is another maybe 20 miles away from Prescott, Wisconsin, and the St. Croix River. The Cloquet is not a huge river, and I can't find very much additional power coming from other Mississippi tributaries (Rum River, Crow River). The St. Croix River looks like the biggest but it joins the Mississippi south of St. Paul so I don't think it was involved. Very roughly: -SusanLesch (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * River Warren Falls moved about 10 miles in 2,000 years
 * St. Anthony Falls moved about 10 miles in 12,000 years
 * Hey Susan, thanks for asking about this. I bought a copy of Immortal River because I was curious about this and I think you are right and I was wrong about the St. Croix feeding into the Mississippi above Minneapolis, which it didn't (it was downstream of Saint Paul, as you indicated). However, it does mention that "The source of the Mississippi has not long been at Lake Itasca in northern Minnesota. The modern Headwaters is only about ten thousand years old–a mere toddler in geologic time–its present course set when the last glacier retreated across Minnesota." (p. 24) Before this, "the greatest of all Upper Mississippi floods began about 12,700 years ago when Glacial Lake Agassiz spilled over its southern rim, forming the Glacial River Warren. Thus, Lake Agassiz served as the source of the Mississippi for about the next 2,700 years." (p. 56) This correlates with Cooper 1935: "The tributary Mississippi, as soon as the main fall had passed its mouth, began the making of a gorge of its own. For a mile it worked rapidly in loose materials, then encountered the limestone and began the slow sapping process that has continued to the present day. When the dam was built at Minneapolis, St. Anthony Falls were fast approaching the end of the limestone. Without interference from man, speedy headward extension would very soon have been resumed, making the valley equal in depth, though not in width, to that of the Minnesota." It seems that the Mississippi was running from the Itasca area since it deglaciated (with glacial meltwater but not glacial lake outflow, so at a lower rate than the River Warren) and the geology made it easy for a river with a good but not tremendous flow to cut out the gorge. The falls were still eroding upriver until the 1800s when the apron was built, suggesting that the flow of the Mississippi above them at the time was sufficient to cut what it did. River Warren Falls seemingly moved a lot quicker because of its much higher flow, while Minnehaha Falls, with a much lower discharge, moved much slower (see p. 4 of Wright 1990 also). I will try to correct the article later today. Thanks for bringing this up! —Collint c 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe Kablammo's original objection was more to me saying that River Warren cut the upper Mississippi riverbed (which now I understand it did not do), than to me saying River Warren created the St. Anthony Falls in passing (which now I think it did do). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Can this be archived now, to get a look at where other issues stand re: Featured article review? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)